Allowed

Idfc First Bank Ltd. v. Bhoruka Classic Finance Pvt. Ltd.

DRT27 Feb 2025TA/756/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application for recovery of dues amounting to over Rs. 6.28 crore. Despite defendants' absence, the case was decided ex-parte based on documentary evidence. The Tribunal awarded interest at 12% per annum from the date of the application.

What did the court decide?

Direction to pay Rs. 6,28,66,427.44 plus 12% p.a. interest and costs within 30 days.

Idfc First Bank Ltd. versus Bhoruka Classic… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 756 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. 756 of 2023

¶5

IDFC First Bank Ltd. th Floor, Prem Sadan Building 1, Rajendra Place ew Delhi-110008 Iso at nd Floor, Express Building, 9-10, ahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002 Applicant ersus Bhoruka Classic Finance Pvt.Ltd. hrough its MD/Chairman/Directors/Promoter 6th Floor, Nirmal ariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Iso at: 207, Regent Chambers ariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Sh.Vikas Agarwal s/o Sh.Ved Prakash Agarwal 3rd Floor, Suraj Millennium 1, Bhulabhai Desai Road reach Candy, Mumbai-400026 Iso at: 7-B, Manek Building, L.D.Ruparel Marg eapean Sea Road, Mumbai-400006 Defendants resent: Sh.Arvind Jadon, Counsel for the applicant bank Date of Institution: 27.01.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 27.32.2025

¶6

T.A. No. 756 of 2023

¶7

FINAL ORDER

¶8

This original application has been filed by the applicant n 27.01.2021 before DRT III Delhi and then transferred to RT-I Delhi through Shri Narendra Kumar Tiwari, au'^-horized epresentative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of ecovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 as amended upto ate along with pendentelite interest against the defendants •^{r recovery of a sum of Rs.6,28,66,427.44 (Rupees Six Crore} wenty Eight Lacs Sixty Six Thousand Four Hundred Twenty even and paisa Forty Four only) as on 30.06.2020 together ith pendentelite and future interest @14.50% and @13.90% er annum from 30.06.2020 along with costs.

¶9

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of 11 efendants, applicant bank sanctioned Two Term Loan facilities 0 f Rs.5.00 crore (Rupees Five crores) each on 03.03.2017 and 9.12.2017 against security of first and exclusive charge over he receivables, book debts etc. @14.50% and @1.3.90% terest per annum respectively to be repayable in 42 and 48 quated monthly installments after initial moratorium of six onths for payment of principal amount. Both the loans were pproved by the Board of Directors in the meeting held on 3.02.2017 and 04.01.2018 authorizing the defendant no.2 or h.Mrinal Sinha to execute documents for availing the loans on ehalf of defendant no.1 from the applicant bank.

¶10

That in order to avail the said loan facilities, the efendant no.1 through authorized representative executed anction letters dated 03.03.2017 and 29.12.2017 along with erm and conditions. Further, the defendant no.1 through efendant no.2 and other authorized signatories executed Loan

¶11

¶12

T.A. No. 756 of 2023

¶13

acility Agreement, Personal Guarantee Deed, Deed of ypothecation, Demand Promissory Note on 06.03.2U17 and 9.01.2018 in favour of the applicant bank.

¶14

It has been submitted by the applicant that after availing •he aforesaid loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply ith the terms and conditions of Senior Secured Term Loans vailed and failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of unction either towards principle or interest despite several equests of the Applicant Bank. The applicant bank classified •^{he account as NPA on 29.10.2019 as per RBI guidelines and} I sued loan recall-cum-demand notices dated 10.08.2020 and 4.08.2020 to clear the dues which was replied by defendants 0 n 04.09.2020 through email. The applicant bank replied the ame on 23.09.2020. As the defendants failed to clear the ues, hence, the applicant bank has approached this tribunal or recovery of its dues.

¶15

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and espite proper service, the defendants have chosen to absent rom the proceedings. As per order dated 13.11.2024, the efendants have been proceeded ex-parte as they have not ppeared before the Tribunal nor written statement, evidence nd affidavit of assets have been filed.

¶16

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its vidence by way of affidavit of Shri Narendra Kumar Tiwari, uthorized representative of the applicant who has proved the ocuments as Delegation of Authority Ex.A/1, Certificate of ncorporation dated 12.01.2019 Ex.A/2(i), Amalgamation cheme Order Ex.A/2(ii), Certificates of Registration of charges x.A/3(i) & (ii), Copies of Resolutions Ex.A/4(i) & (ii), Copies of ecurity Documents Ex.A/5(i) to (iv) and Ex.6(i) to (iv), Recall

¶17

T.A. No. 756 of 2023

¶18

otices Ex.A/7(i) to A/7(ii) (Colly), Reply to Notices Ex.A/9(i) t A/9(iii), Postal/Courier Delivery Proofs Ex.A/10 to A/10(ii) oily), Rejoinder dated 23009.2020 and Postal Dispatch Proof x.A/12 (ii) to Ex.A/12(iii) (Colly), Demand Notice with Delivery racking and Email Ex.A/13(i) to A/13(ii) (colly), Invocation of uarantee with Delivery Tracking Ex.A/14(i) to A/14(ii) (colly), emand Notice dated 03.09.2020 Ex.A/15(i) to A/15(ii) (colly), nvocation of Guarantee dated 11.12.2020 Ex.A/16(i) to /16(ii) (colly), Certificate-cum-affidavit Ex.A/17, Loan Recall otices Ex.A/18(i) to (ii), Certificate u/s 2A of Bankers' Books vidence Act Exhibit A1/19(i) & (ii).

¶19

The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments ade in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the pplicant bank is based on the documents and the same have 11 een duly proved.

¶20

The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and here is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant 0ank and the applicant bank has proved its case beyond easonable doubts.

¶21

11 As per the provision of Section 19(20) of the Recovery of ID ebts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 which i. analogous to Section 34 of CPC, on filing of the suit/claim, •^{he contract between the parties comes to an end and the} ourt/Tribunal has a discretion to award the same depending pon the circumstances of each case. Same principle has been I. id down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bank 0 f India Vs. Ravindra & Others. Taking stock of all the ircumstances and keeping in view that there is a drastic fall in ates of interest globally and domestically, I am of the opinion

¶22

T.A. No. 756 of 2023

¶23

t at interest of justice will be served if the interest at the rate f 12% p.a. is awarded.

¶24

In the light of the above discussions, the Original pplication deserves to be allowed.

¶25

ORDER

¶26

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the pplicant bank, jointly or severally, within 30 days, a sum of s.6,28,66,427.44 (Rupees Six Crore Twenty Eight Lacs Sixty ix Thousand Four Hundred Twenty Seven and paisa Forty our only) together with pendentelite and future interest 12% per annum from the date of filing of this O.A. till the ate of realization along with costs , failing which the aforesaid mount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stock nd book debts etc. In case of shortfall, the aforesaid amount hall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable roperty of the defendant.

¶27

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

¶28

III)^{Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer,} RT I, Delhi on 28.04.2025.

¶29

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

¶30

SC(

¶31

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

¶32

Dictated and pronounced in open court) ated: 27.02.2025

Idfc First Bank Ltd. v. Bhoruka Classic Finance Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idfc First Bank Ltd. v. Bhoruka Classic Finance 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

Ziaul Hoeue versus Bangiya Gramin Vikas Bank

Icici Bank versus Uma Shankar Mandal and Anr.

Liladhar S/O Shrawanji Dhakate versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus Parvathamma

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus B Manjanna

Canara Bank versus M/S Rkm Overseas