Allowed

Bank of India v. M/S Nimbus Industries Limited

DRT17 Jun 2026OA/108/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Banks application for recovery of a loan. The court directed the defendants to pay the outstanding amount with pending interest and to redeem hypothecated properties failing which the bank can proceed to sell them.

What did the court decide?

Me petition allowed; Defendants directed to pay ₹2.82 Crores with interest; Hypothecated properties secured; Recovery Certificate issued.

Bank of India versus M/S Nimbus Industries Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.108 OF 2022

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL No.2, MUMBAI

¶3

PRESIDING OFFICER: HARISH KUMAR KAUSHIK

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.108 OF 2022

¶5

Date of Institution: 01.02.2019 Date of Decision: 17.06.2026

¶6

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT :

¶7

₹ 2,82,11,256.70/-

¶8

BANK OF INDIA,

¶9

A banking company incorporated under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act V of 1970 and a Banking Company as defined in Section 2(e) of Recovery of Debs to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and having its Head Office at “Star House”, C-5, “G” Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 and one of its Branch Office at Tardeo, having address at Ground Floor, Ashok Chambers, Pandit MM Malviya Road, Tardeo, Mumbai-400 034 its Chief Manager and Constituted Attorney Mr Hari Kumar S. … Applicant Versus 1. M/S. NIMBUS INSDSTRIES LIMITED, A company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 with

¶10

Page 1 of 11

¶11

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.108 OF 2022

¶12

CIN No.L99999MH1975PLC018079 having registered address at:
(i) B-Wing 323, Orchid Road
Mall, Royal Palms, Aarey
Milk Colony, Goregaon
(East), Mumbai and also
(ii) Office at A-104, Sai Baba
Dham Co-op. Housing
Society Limited, Sai Baba
Nagar, Borivali (West),
Bombay-400 092.
2. MR NIMISH BHISHMA THAKORE,
Age Adult, Indian Inhabitant,
having addresses at:
(i) B-Wing 323, Orchid Road
Mall, Royal Palms, Aarey
Milk Colony, Goregaon
(East), Mumbai and also
(ii) Office at A-104, Sai Baba
Dham Co-op. Housing
Society Limited, Sai Baba
Nagar, Borivali (West),
Bombay-400 092.
3. SMT SANGEETABEN ALIAS
SANGEETA DEVI KAMALKISHORE
SRIVASTATA,
Indian Inhabitant, Age Adult,
having address at
1,2, Manan Apartments, Ravi
Shankar Sankul, Opposite: Geeta
Apartment, Near Bhatar Char
Rasta, Bhataar, Surat., Gujarat-
395 001. …Defendants

¶13

Page 2 of 11

¶14

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.108 OF 2022

APPEARANCES

For the Applicant

For Defendants

: Mr Prashant Shinde i/b M/s. A. B. Shinde & Co. - Advocate

¶19

: Ex-Parte

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

(1) This is an application under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of the Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 renamed as Recovery of the Debt and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (for short, ‘the 1993 Act’) to recover ₹2,82,11,256.70/- (Rupees Two Crores Eighty-Two Lakhs Eleven Thousand Two Hundred Fifty-Six and paisa Seventy Only) under Cash Credit Facility with future interest @ 14% per annum with monthly rest and further penal interest @ 2% per annum thereon from the date of presentation of the Original Application i.e. 01.02.2019 till payment/realization and to enforce the hypothecated and mortgaged securities.

¶22

The details of the claim amount are as under: -

¶23

S r N	N a t u r e	o f	O / s . a mo u n t	A d d : U n c h a r g ed	A d d :	P e n al	T o t a l A mo u n t
o	F a c il i ty			i n t e r e s t f r o m	I n t e r e s t	f r o m
				2 7 . 0 4 . 2 0 1 8 t o	2 7 . 0 4 . 2 0 1 8	t o
				3 1 . 0 1 . 2 0 1 9	3 1 . 0 1 . 2 0 1 9
1	C a s h F ac i l i t y	C r e d i t	₹2 , 5 1 , 7 3 , 9 9 7 . 8 3 / -	₹2 6 , 9 4 , 3 2 8 .0 2 /-	₹3 , 4 2 , 9 3 0 . 8 5	/ -	₹ 2 , 8 2 , 1 1 , 2 5 6. 7 0 / -

¶24

(2) It is undisputed fact in the matter that the Defendant nos.1 to 3 were duly served with the

¶25

Page 3 of 11

¶26

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.108 OF 2022

¶27

summons vide order-sheet dated 09.11.2023. Despite service, the defendants did not enter their appearance and therefore, they were set ex-parte on 24.03.2026.

¶28

(3) Defendant no.1 is the principal borrower who approached the Applicant Bank and sought financial assistance by way of Cash Credit Facility. Pursuant to the loan application made by defendants, the Applicant sanctioned the loan vide Sanction Letter (Ref. No.TDR/ADV/SSR dated 15.01.2016 for an aggregate sum of ₹225 Lakhs wherein a sum of ₹225 Lakhs was sanctioned under Hypothecation of Stocks and a sum of ₹75 Lakhs was sanctioned under Hypothecation of Book-dets payable on demand with interest at the rate of 4.55% over base rate effective 14.25% per annum.

¶29

The details of the Sanction amount are as under: -

¶30

S r N o D a te of S a nct i on	A m ou nt	R OI	S e cu r ity	C oll ate ra l
1 15 .01 .2 016	₹225 L ak hs	@ 14 .2 5 % pe r a n nu m	H yp othe cat e d L ad ies d re s s , s a re e s, s ui ts , s tock s and book -de b ts .	M ort ga ge d F la t N os. 1 & 2to ta l a dme asu ri n g a bou t 185 0 sq . fts . i .e . 171 .93 s q . m ts . o n g roun d fl oo r o f "MAN AN APA RTM ENT " to ge the r w i th u nd iv ide d p rop o rtion a te la nd u nde rne a th the sa id A pa rtme n t c on s tru c te d o n the la nd adme asu ri n g a bou t 6 35 sq . m ts . o f l a nd be a ri n g Re ve nue Su rve y No . 53 o f v il l age B ha ta r Ta luk a C i ty , Di s tric t Su ra t F i na l P lo t No . 57 pa ik i o f To w n P la n n in g S c he me N o . 27 ( Bh a ta r - M aju ra ) a nd C i ty Su rve y No nd h No . 4 p aik i o f C i ty Su rve y W a rd B ha ta r, S ta te -G uj a ra t to ge the r w i th the a ll - c omm on ri g h ts an d a me n i tie s a tta che d w i th the s a id p rope rty .
T ota l A m ou nt	₹ 2 25 L a khs	-	-	-

¶31

Page 4 of 11

¶32

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.108 OF 2022

¶33

(4) On the dates given below, defendants signed and executed the loan and security documents as set out in paragraph nos. 5(iv) to (vi)(f) of the Original Application. Defendants hypothecated Ladies dress, sarees, suits, stocks and book-debts and mortgaged Flat Nos. 1 & 2 total admeasuring about 1850 sq. fts. i.e. 171.93 sq. mts. on ground floor of "MANAN APARTMENT" together with undivided proportionate land underneath the said Apartment constructed on the land admeasuring about 635 sq. mts. of land bearing Revenue Survey No. 53 of village Bhatar Taluka City, District Surat Final Plot No. 57 paiki of Town Planning Scheme No. 27 (Bhatar -Majura) and City Survey Nondh No. 4 paiki of City Survey Ward Bhatar, State -Gujarat to secure the loan.

¶34

The details of the documents executed by the Defendants are as under: -

¶35

(a) Sanction letter dated 15.01.2016;

¶36

(b) Demand Promissory Note dated 17.02.2016 for ₹225 Lakhs;

¶37

¶38

(d) Demand Promissory Note dated 17.02.2016 for ₹75 Lakhs;

¶39

(e) Common Security for both the and Cash Credit against Stocks and Book Debts facilities aggregating to ₹225 Lakhs;

¶40

Page 5 of 11

¶41

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.108 OF 2022

¶42

(f) Hypothecation-cum-Loan Agreement dated 17.02.2016;

¶43

(g) Multipurpose Document (L-516) dated 17.02.2016;

¶44

(h) Unstamped Declaration (L-515) dated 17.02.2016 regarding no relationship with officials of the Applicant Bank;

¶45

(i) Undertaking to submit audited financial statements dated 17.02.2016;

¶46

(j) Undertaking cum Declaration that the Borrower not on caution lists of ECGC, COFEPOSA, Defaulters list etc. dated 17.02.2016;

¶47

(k) Declaration cum undertaking dated 17.02.2016;

¶48

(l) General Undertaking dated 17.02.2016;

¶49

(m) Deed of Guarantee executed by Defendant nos.2 and 3 dated 17.02.2016;

¶50

(n) Memorandum of Entry/Oral Assent dated 17.02.2016 and dated 24.02.2016 recording creation of equitable mortgage of the properties by Defendant No. 3;

¶51

(o) Memorandum of Entry dated 24.02.2016.

¶52

(5) After availing the loan, defendants did not adhere to the financial discipline and committed default in payment of instalments and repayment of the loan and accordingly the accounts of the borrowers were declared as Non-Performing Assets

¶53

Page 6 of 11

¶54

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.108 OF 2022

¶55

(N.P.A.) on 30.04.2018 as per RBI Guidelines. Therefore, on 22.01.2019, the applicant, through its advocate, called upon defendants to liquidate the outstanding in the sum of ₹2,79,11,728.90/(Rupees Two Crores Seventy-Nine Thousand Eleven Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty-Eight and paisa Ninety Only) as on 31.12.2018 due under said credit facilities with further interest at the rate of 14% p.a. with monthly rest at contractual rate due from 01.01.2019 till payment and/or realization within 7 days from receipt of the notice. Despite notice, defendant nos. 1 to 3 failed and neglected to pay.

¶56

(6) As on 01.02.2019, there was owing, due and payable by defendants to the applicant the aggregate sum of ₹2,82,11,256.70/- (Rupees Two Crores Eighty-Two Lakhs Eleven Thousand Two Hundred Fifty-Six and paisa Seventy Only) under Cash Credit Facility with future interest @ 14% per annum with monthly rest and further penal interest @ 2% per annum thereon. The applicant has maintained the loan ledger extract and the entries posted therein are made in the usual and ordinary course of the banking business.

¶57

(7) Since, defendants failed and neglected to make the payment, the applicant was left with no other alternate but to file the Original Application which was presented on 01.02.2019.

¶58

Page 7 of 11

¶59

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.108 OF 2022

¶60

(8) The applicant has filed affidavit (exhibit-7) in lieu of examination in chief of Mr Avanendra Kumar Singh, Chief Manager and list of documents (exhibit-8) thereby adducing in evidence the documents at AW-1 to AW-23, which are admitted in evidence, read, recorded and exhibited.

¶61

(9) Accordingly, in the Original Application was filed for the recovery of ₹2,82,11,256.70/- (Rupees Two Crores Eighty-Two Lakhs Eleven Thousand Two Hundred Fifty-Six and paisa Seventy Only) under Cash Credit Facility with future interest @ 14% per annum with monthly rest and further penal interest @ 2% per annum thereon from the date of presentation of the Original Application i.e. 01.02.2019 till payment/realisation.

¶62

(10) The Applicant filed Additional affidavit on behalf of the applicant dated 16.06.2026 (Exhibit-17) wherein it is stated that the Applicant bank had initiated measures under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and had sold the mortgaged immovable property i.e. Flat Nos. 1 & 2 total admeasuring about 1850 sq. fts. i.e. 171.93 sq. mts. on ground floor of "MANAN APARTMENT" together with undivided proportionate land underneath the said Apartment constructed on the land admeasuring about 635 sq. mts. of land bearing Revenue Survey No. 53 of village Bhatar Taluka City, District Surat Final Plot No. 57 paiki of Town Planning Scheme No. 27

¶63

Page 8 of 11

¶64

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.108 OF 2022

¶65

(Bhatar-Majura) and City Survey Nondh No. 4 paiki of City Survey Ward Bhatar, State-Gujarat owned by Defendant no.3 for a sum of ₹58,75,000/- (Rupees Fifty-Eight Lakhs SeventyFive Thousand Only) under public auction to successful bidder Mrs Desai Artiben Nagjibhai and a Sale Certificate dated 21.12.2024 to the Auction Purchasers. Further the Applicant bank had appropriated the said sum of ₹58,75,000/(Rupees Fifty-Eight Lakhs Seventy-Five Thousand Only) towards the Cash Credit Account No.004230110000076 and after appropriation of the said amount from the total amount is ₹2,82,11,256.70/- (Rupees Two Crores Eighty-Two Lakhs Eleven Thousand Two Hundred Fifty-Six and paisa Seventy Only) and the balance remaining is ₹2,23,36,256.70/(Rupees Two Crores Twenty-Three Lakhs Thirty-Six Thousand Two Hundred Fifty-Six and paisa Seventy Only) .

¶66

(11) The Tribunal has scrutinised and examined the allegations contained in the Original Application and analysed the evidence adduced by the applicant which has gone unchallenged, uncontroverted and unrebutted.

¶67

(12) Upon careful scrutiny and the examination of the Original Application, analysing the evidence and giving due weightage to the documentary evidence adduced by the applicant, the Tribunal views that

¶68

Page 9 of 11

¶69

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.108 OF 2022

¶70

there is no reason to disbelieve the claim made by the applicant bank.

¶71

(13) In view of the observations made hereinabove, Original Application filed by the applicant deserves to be allowed.

¶72

(14) Hence, the following order:

¶73

ORDER

¶74

(A) The Original Application No.108 of 2022 is allowed with costs.

¶75

(B) Defendant nos.1 to 3 are ordered and directed to pay to the applicant, either jointly or severally, the aggregate sum of ₹2,82,11,256.70/- (Rupees Two Crores Eighty-Two Lakhs Eleven Thousand Two Hundred Fifty-Six and paisa Seventy Only) under Cash Credit Account no.004230110000076 with future simple interest @ 12% per annum thereon from the date of presentation of the Original Application i.e. 01.02.2019 till payment/realization after adjusting the recoveries made by the Applicant under SARFAESI Act, 2002 or any other amount paid by the borrowers after filing of this Original Application No.108 of 2022.

¶76

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting hypothecated properties, that is, Ladies dress, sarees, suits, stocks and book-debts.

¶77

(D) Defendant nos.1 to 3 are entitled to redeem the hypothecated properties as per law failing which

¶78

Page 10 of 11

¶79

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.108 OF 2022

¶80

the applicant has right to proceed to sell the hypothecated properties and recover dues as per law.

¶81

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶82

(F) The learned Registrar is directed to send a copy of the judgment and recovery certificate to (i) the applicant, (ii) defendant and (iii) the Recovery Officer by post and email.

¶83

(Harish Kumar Kaushik) Presiding Officer, DRT-2, Mumbai

¶84

Page 11 of 11

Bank of India v. M/S Nimbus Industries Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. M/S Nimbus Industries Limited

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

Bank of India versus Neesha B Vaygankar

Bank of India versus Mahaveer Fabrics

Bank of Baroda versus Shagufta

Idfc First Bank Ltd. versus Khair Diagnostic Centre

Avishek B Shovakar versus Idbi

Janardhan Gopinath Satpute versus Union Bank of India