Allowed

Central Bank of India v. M/S J.N Rice Mills

DRT10 Jun 2025TA/50/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chandigarh adjudicated an application filed by Central Bank of India for recovery of outstanding dues of approximately Rs. 4.80 crores from multiple defendants. The court allowed the bank's claim, ordered joint and several liability, and directed the issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 4,71,79,219/- with interest @11.80% p.a. and Rs. 8,88,937.68 with interest @12.30% p.a.; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Central Bank of India versus M/S J.N Rice Mills — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

TA No: 50 of 2022

¶4

Date of Institution: 31.03.2021 Date of Decision: 10.06.2025

¶5

Central Bank of India, branches all over India including one at Shalamar Road, Jammu .

¶6

……..Applicant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

M/s J.N Rice Mills Through its Prop. Smt Santosh Kumari W/o Late Sh. Mohinder Pal, R/o Village Khamb Dablehar Road, Tehsil R.S. Pura, District Jammu.

¶9

Smt. Santosh Kumari W/o Late Sh. Mohinder Pal, R/o Village Khamb Dablehar Road, Tehsil R.S. Pura, District Jammu.

¶10

M/s Santoshi Traders A Partnership Concern of Sh. Rajan Kumar and Mohit Kumar, Both sons of Late Sh. Mohinder Pal R/o Village Khamb Dablehar Road, Tehsil R.S. Pura, District Jammu.

¶11

Rajan Kumar S/o Late Mohinder Pal, R/o Village Khamb Dabelhar Road, Tehsil R.S. Pura, District Jammu.

¶12

Mohit Kumar S/o Late Mohinder Pal, R/o Village Khamb Dabelhar Road, Tehsil R.S. Pura, District Jammu.

¶13

……….Defendants

¶14

Advocates

¶15

Sh. Sanjay Sagar proxy counsel for Sh. Vivek Verma, Counsel for the applicant bank.

¶16

Defendants- Ex parte.

¶17

TA for the Recovery of Rs.4,71,79,219/- in CC Limit with interest @11.80% per annum with monthly rests and Rs.8,88,937.68p in FITL with interest @12.30% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing of the present application i.e. 31.03.2021.

¶18

ORDER

¶19

On 31.03.2021, Central Bank of Bank, filed the suit for the recovery of Rs.4,80,68,156.68p with interest against M/s J.N Rice Mills And Others (defendants) in the Civil Court Jammu. However, vide order

¶20

¶21

dated 20.09.2022, this suit was transferred by the Court of Additional District Judge, (Bank Cases), Srinagar, to DRT-I, Chandigarh.

¶22

Bank’s case is that on 06.03.2015, it had granted Cash Credit Hypothecation Facility of Rs.295.00 lacs to defendant no.1 through its proprietor defendant no.2 for business purpose. Defendant no.3 through its partners defendant nos.4 and 5 stood as guarantors vide executed guarantee deed dated 11.03.2015 as Annexure-M. To secure the loan, Defendant nos.2 and 4 had mortgaged their immovable property i.e. Plot of land and construction made thereupon situated at Village Khamb, Tehsil R.S Pura, District Jammu (fully detailed in para No.6 of the application). The loan was chargeable to interest @10.75% per annum with monthly rests.

¶23

2(i). Thereafter, on 29.12.2016, at the request of defendant no.1 through its proprietor defendant no.2, bank had enhanced the said Cash Credit Hypothecation Facility from Rs.295.00 lacs to Rs.380.00 lacs. Defendant no.3 through its partners defendant nos.4 and 5 stood as guarantors vide executed guarantee deed dated 02.01.2017 as AnnexureV. To secure the loan, Defendant nos.2, 4 and 5 had mortgaged their immovable property i.e. Plot of land and construction made thereupon situated at Village Kham, Dablahar Road, Tehsil R.S Pura, District Jammu (fully detailed in para No.10 of the application). The said loan facility was chargeable to interest @9.85% per annum with monthly rests.

¶24

2(ii). Again, on 27.09.2019, at the request of defendant no.1 through its proprietor defendant no.2, bank had granted Funded Interest Term Loan of Rs.12.50 lacs for business purpose. Defendant nos.4 and 5 stood as guarantors vide executed guarantee deed dated 27.09.2019 as AnnexureAG. The said loan facility was chargeable to interest @10.30% per

¶25

¶26

annum with monthly rests. On 05.03.2021, a sum of Rs.4,80,68,156.68p was due from the defendants i.e. Rs.4,71,79,219/- was due in Cash Credit Limit and Rs.8,88,937.68p was due in Funded Interest Term Loan. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, the suit.

¶27

On 27.07.2023, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 05.03.2025, they were proceeded ex parte .

¶28

3(i). Record reveals that written statement on behalf of defendant nos.1 and 2 has already been filed before the Hon’ble Court of Additional District Judge (Bank Court), Jammu wherein they alleged that the present application is barred by limitation; application of the applicant bank has not been filed by an authorized person; the statement of account annexed with the application has not been filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Banker’s Book Evidence Act, 1977; account has wrongly been classified as NPA; interest has not been charged as per guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of C.B.I Vs. Ravindra ; proper court fee has not been affixed with the present application at the time of filing the present application/suit. 4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Janak Kumar, Manager and Principal Officer, along with the loan and security documents. 5. I have perused the evidence on the record. Defendants have led no evidence to prove the contentions raised in their written statement. I am of the considered view that the Bank has proved its case that it had advanced the Cash Credit Hypothecation Facility of Rs.380.00 lacs and Funded Interest Term Loan of Rs.12.50 lacs. On 05.03.2021, a sum of

¶29

¶30

Rs.4,80,68,156.68p was due from the defendants i.e. Rs.4,71,79,219/was due in Cash Credit Limit and Rs.8,88,937.68p was due in Funded Interest Term Loan.

¶31

Accordingly, the case of the bank for the recovery of Rs.4,71,79,219/- in CC Limit with interest @11.80% per annum with monthly rests and Rs.8,88,937.68p in FITL with interest @12.30% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing the present application i.e. 31.03.2021, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of all the defendants would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged properties, fully detailed in para Nos.6 and 10 of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants.

¶32

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 28.07.2025, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgage properties, as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) of the Act . 10. A Copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to the Recovery Officer as well as the parties. Pronounced in the open court. (A S Narang) Dated: 10.06.2025 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh (R. K. Singh, PS)

Central Bank of India v. M/S J.N Rice Mills

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Central Bank of India v. M/S J.N Rice Mills

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devender Singh Sapra versus Decent Securities Pvt. Ltd.

Ms Fashion Adda Prop Smt Babita Ojha Saha versus Punjab National Bank (United Bank of India)

Ms Brijwasi Cycle Store versus Union Bank of India

Sanjay So Bhaurao Deshmukh versus Indian Overseas Bank

Hdfc Bank versus Mr. Subhash Chand

Icici Bank Limited versus Anoop Singh Kadwasra