Allowed

Idbi Bank Ltd. v. M/S Evolve Hr Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

DRT1 Feb 2025TA/661/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application for recovery of dues of Rs.1,68,48,112.19 plus interest and costs from the defendant company, who was proceeded ex-parte for non-appearance. The court directed the issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Director defendant no.1 to pay Rs.1,68,48,112.19 with interest @11.75% p.a. and costs within 30 days; recovery certificate to be issued.

Idbi Bank Ltd. versus M/S Evolve Hr Solutions Pvt. Ltd. — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No.661 of 2023

¶2

Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi 4th floor, Jeevan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi

¶3

Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sharma

¶4

T.A. no. 661 of 2023

¶5

IDBI Bank Ltd.

¶6

1st Floor, Videocon Tower, [41 Jhandewalan Extension New Delhi-110055 Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s Evolves HR Solution India Pvt.Ltd. Through its directors i) Sh.Jayawant Naryan Shinde ii) Sh.Jitendra Dayaram Patil iii) Sh.Jitendra Devidas Rao Ugle iv) Sh.Kiran Radhakrishan Patwardhan

¶9

Regd. Office at: Survey No.H-186, B-1, Bhingarwala Estate Station Road, Behind Akshata Garden Ahmednagar, Mahrashtra-414001

¶10

M/s Videocon Industries Limited (Borrower / Guarantor) Through its Resolution Professional Regd.Office: 14, K.M.Stone, Aurangabad Paithan Road Village Chittegaon, Taluka Paithan Aurangabad, Maharashtra-431105

¶11

Corp. Office: Fort House, 2nd Floor, 221, D.N.Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 Defendants

¶12

Present: Ms. Nishi Chaudhary, Counsel for the applicant bank Date of Institution: 04.11.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 01.02.2025

¶13

T.A. No.661 of 2023

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 04.11.2019 before DRT-III Delhi & then transferred to DRT-I Delhi through Shri Siddharth Saksena, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendant no.1 for recovery of Rs.1,68,48,112.19 (Rupees One Crore Sixty Eight Lacs Forty Eight Thousand One I gundred Twelve and paisa Nineteen only) as on 01.09.2019 along with pendentelite and future interest @Contractual rate of Interest with monthly rest from 02.09.2019 till the date of realization and costs.

¶16

The brief facts of the case are that the defendant no.1 being private limited company in the business of roviding services to the defendant no.2 who has been made as Proforma defendant as financial creditors have filed application against the defendant no.2 before NCLT Mumbai and CIRP proceedings have been initiated and subsequently Interim Resolution Professional has been appointed vide orders of NCLT Mumbai dated 06.06.2018.

¶17

It is submitted by the applicant bank that defendant no.2 was sanctioned Line of Credit Facility of Rs.75.00 crores on 27.02.2013 as Bill Purchase Facility for purchasing the services from its vendors which was amended on 20.03.2013 approved by Board Resolution of defendant no.2 dated 14.02.2013 & 05.03.2013. Further, on the request of defendant no.2 vide letter dated 21.01.2014 & 11.01.2014, the Line of Credit Facility was enhanced from Rs.75.00 crore to Rs.150.00 crore on 18.03.2014, addendum terms and conditions executed on

¶18

T.A. No.661 of 2023

¶19

27.03.2014 and modified in sanction terms of Line of Credit Facility for Vendors of Techno Electronics Limited as sub-limit of Rs.35.00 crore. The applicant bank renewed the facility on 05.05.2017 in favour of defendant no.2

¶20

The defendant no.1 through its director requested the applicant bank on 29.04.2015 for discounting the bills raised against goods supplied to defendant no.2 in view of MOA dated 25.03.2013 by executing Facility Confirmation Letter and which was discounted by the applicant bank. As per confirmation letter, the defendant no.2 will endorse the bills of defendant no.1 confirmed providing services which are on account of bonafide or commercial transaction relating to services provided to defendant no.2 and lodged such bills with the applicant bank. It is further submitted that defendant no.1 authorized the applicant bank to discount at the applicable rate of interest and credit the net proceeds thereof to its Current Account with Kotak Mahindra Bank, Ahmednagar.

¶21

That in order to avail the Line of Credit Facility, the defendant no.2 executed Copy of Certificate to be furnished by the Corporate (purchaser) dated 25.03.2013 and Copy of Memorandum of Agreement executed by Defendant no.2. In addition, the defendant no.2 executed Memorandum of Agreement and Continuing Guarantee Agreement on 19.03.2014 for enhanced limits.

¶22

That in order to secure the liability undertaken, the defendant no.2 stood as guarantor and executed Guarantee Agreement and undertaking to be furnished by the Corporate Guarantor on 19.03.2014. The defendant no.1 also executed Facility Confirmation Letter dated 29.04.2015 with applicant bank which discounted the bills of defendant no.1 & 2. sd-

¶23

T.A. No.661 of 2023

¶24

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that the defendants committed defaults despite reminder and recall notices for regularization of the account as per terms and conditions but the defendants did not accede to the request of the applicant bank. The applicant bank vide letter 04.06.2018 invoked the guarantee of defendant no.2 calling them to pay a sum of Rs.36,18,72,394.40 with interest but they failed. The applicant bank also issued letter dated 21.05.2019 to defendant no.1 about Vendor Bill Discounting account amounting to Rs.1,62,77,526.40 become due and payable but defendant no.1 neglected the notice and did not clear the dues. The applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 01.02.2018 as per RBI guidelines. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶25

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendzits and despite proper service, the defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings and none appeared on behalf of defendants, hence proceed ex-parte. As per order dated 25.10.2023, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte due to non filing of written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets before this Tribunal.

¶26

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Siddharth Saksena, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as Delegation of Power Exhibited AW1/1, NCLT order dated 06.06.2018 Exhibited AW1/2, Board Resolution Exhibited AW1/3 & AW1/5, Sanction Letter Exhibit AW1/4, Addendum to Sanction Letter Exhibited AW1/6, Certificate to be furnished by Corporate Purchaser Exhibited AW1/7, Memorandum of Agreement Exhibited AW1/8,

¶27

¶28

T.A. No.661 of 2023

¶29

Guarantee Agreement Exhibited AW1/9, Request for Enhancement of Bills Discounting Exhibited AW1/10(colly), Board Resolution dated 18.03.2014 Exhibited AW1/11, Enhancement Letter dated 18.03.2014 Exhibited AW1/12, Memorandum of Agreement Exhibited AW1/13, Continuing Guarantee Agreement Exhibited AW1/14, Addendum to Sanction Letter Exhibited AW1/15, Renewal Letter Exhibited AW1/16, Bills of Exchange/Invoices of Defendant no.1 Exhibited AW1/17(colly), Facility Confirmation Letter Exhibited AW1/18, Board Resolution dated 29.04.2015 Exhibited AW1/19, Letter dated 21.05.2019 Exhibited AW1/20 (colly), Guarantee Invocation Letter Exhibited AW1/21, NPA Certificate Exhibited AW1/22, Statement of Account of Defendant no.1 under Bankers' Book Evidence Act Exhibited AW1/23(colly) and Break up sheet of Loan account of Defendant no.1 Exhibited AW1/24.

¶30

10.^{The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments} made in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the applicant bank is based on the documents and the same have been duly proved.

¶31

11.^{The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and} there is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant bank and applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts.

¶32

In the light of the above discussions and documents on record, the Original Application deserves to be allowed.

¶33

T.A. No.661 of 2023

¶34

ORDER

¶35

I, allow this OA and direct the defendant no.1 to pay to the applicant bank within 30 days, a sum of Rs.1,68,48,112.19 (Rupees One Crore Sixty Eight Lacs Forty Eight Thousand One Hundred Twelve and paisa Nineteen only) as on 01.09.2019 along with pendentelite and future interest @11.75% per annum with monthly rest from 02.09.2019 with costs. In case of default, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable assets of the defendant No.1.

¶36

(II)^{The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent} to the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi.

¶37

(III)^{Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery} Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 03.04.2025.

¶38

(IV)^{Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be} sent to all concerned free of cost.

¶39

(GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶40

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 01.02.2025

Idbi Bank Ltd. v. M/S Evolve Hr Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idbi Bank Ltd. v. M/S Evolve Hr Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

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

Axis Bank versus Sh. Vivek Kumar Bajaj

Uco Bank versus Sh. Sanjay Kumar

Hdfc Bank versus Azad Kalam

Idbi Bank versus Sh. Jagdish Prasad Swami

Canara Bank versus Sh. Sharad Bansal

State Bank of India (E-State Bank of Hydrabad) versus Neeraj Sharma