Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. M/s Max Print

DRT3 Feb 2026OA/361/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the Bank of Baroda's application for recovery of loan dues against M/s. MAX PRINT and Harji K. Devda. The tribunal adjudicated a claim of approximately INR 1.13 crore plus future interest and costs, dismissing the default as unchallenged.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay aggregate sum of INR 1,12,90,037/- with future interest @ 12% p.a. and issues a Recovery Certificate.

Bank of Baroda versus M/s Max Print — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.361 OF 2022

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL No.2, MUMBAI

¶3

PRESIDING OFFICER: HARISH KUMAR KAUSHIK

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.361 OF 2022

¶5

Date of Institution: 07.08.2020 Date of Decision: 03.02.2026

¶6

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT : ₹1,12,90,037/-

¶7

BANK OF BARODA,

¶8

A body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 having their Head Office at Baroda Bhavan, R. C. Dutt Road, Alkapuri, Baroda-390 007 Gujarat State, Gujarat State and one of their Branch Senapati Bapat Marg through its Authorized Branch Manager Mr Anand Chavan of the Applicants. Versus

¶9

… Applicant

¶10

M/s. MAX PRINT, Through Prop. Mr Harji K. Devda Unit No.39, Shah & Nahar Industrial Estate S.J. Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400 013.

¶11

Mr HARJI K. DEVDA, B/1702, Shilpa Bldg., N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai. …Defendants

¶12

Page 1 of 12

¶13

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.361 OF 2022

¶14

APPEARANCES For the Applicant : Ms Purnima Pandit - Advocate For Defendants : None

¶15

J U D G M E N T

¶16

(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 ₹1,14,53,746/- (Rupees One Crore Fourteen Lakhs Fifty-Three Thousand Seven Hundred Forty-Six Only) with future interest @ 13.25% per annum alongwith costs, charges and legal expenses with monthly rest thereon from the date of presentation of the Original Application i.e. 07.08.2020 till payment/realization and to enforce the hypothecated securities.

¶17

The details of the claim amount are as under: -

¶18

Sr	Nat ure of Facil ity	O/ s. a mo unt	I ntere st @	Total Am o unt
No		o n 31.10. 2019	15. 25% per annum wit h mo nt hly
			rest s fro m 31. 10. 2019 to 31. 07. 2020
1	Cas h Cr e dit (Hypo t he ca tio n of Sto c k a nd Book -d eb t s)	₹1, 03, 68, 31 1/ -	₹1 0,8 5,4 35/ -	₹1,14, 53, 746/ -
	Le ss: Pe na l I nt er es t as p er C la im Aff ida vit dat ed 0 9.0 3.2 02 2 and List of Do c um e nt s dat ed 30. 01. 20 26	-	-	₹1,63, 709/ -

¶19

Page 2 of 12

¶20

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.361 OF 2022

¶21

(2) It is undisputed fact in the matter that the Defendant nos.1 and 2 were duly served with the summons vide order-sheet dated 11.04.2023. Despite service, the defendants did not enter their appearance and therefore, they were set ex-parte on 02.12.2025.

¶22

(3) Defendant no.1, a Sole proprietorship Firm through its Proprietor i.e. Defendant no.2 are the principal borrowers who approached the Applicant Bank sought financial assistance by way of Cash Credit (Hypothecation of Stock and Book-debts) under CGTMSE Scheme Facility. Pursuant to the loan application made by defendants, the Applicant sanctioned the loan vide Sanction Letter dated 24.06.2014 in sum of ₹1,00,00,000/(Rupees One Crore Only) payable with interest at Base rate + 2.25% i.e. 12.50% per annum with monthly rests.

¶23

The details of the Sanction amount are as under: -

¶24

Sr	Date of	Amount	ROI	Security
No	Sanction
1	24.06.2014	₹1,00,00,000/-	Base rate +	1) D.P. Note s	igned by the
			2.25% i.e.	Proprietor;
			12.50% per	2) Letter of	Continuing
			annum	security;
			with	3) General	Form of
			monthly	Guarantee;

¶25

Page 3 of 12

¶26

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.361 OF 2022

¶27

		rests	4) Bank’s Usual Undertaking;
			5) Composite Agreement
			of Hypothecation of Stock, Book-debts & all movable assets;
			6) Draft Undertaking of Book-debts; 7) Power of Attorney;
			8) Personal Guarantee of Mr Harji Kanji Devda.
			The said loan is
			covered by CGTMSE Scheme.
Total	₹1,00,00,000/-	-	-
Amount

¶28

(4) On the dates given below, defendants signed and executed the loan and security documents as set out in paragraph nos. III to VI of the Original Application. Defendants hypothecated the following properties: -

¶29

(A) All its stocks of raw materials, semi -finished and finished goods, both present and future, and more but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing words, all stocks of raw materials, work-in-progress, semifinished goods and finished goods such as Paper and Ink packing materials and stores etc. whatsoever and wheresoever situate and/or in transit whether now belonging to or that mat at any time during the continuance of the security belong to the borrower or that

¶30

Page 4 of 12

¶31

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.361 OF 2022

¶32

may be held by any party anywhere to the order and disposition of the Borrower;

¶33

(B) All the present and future book -debts, outstanding moneys, receivables, claims, bills, choses in action, contracts, engagements and securities which are now due and owing or which may at any -time hereafter during the continuance of this security become due and owing to the Borrower in the course of its business by any person, firm, company or body corporate or by the Government of India or any State Government or Indian Railways or any Government Department or Office or any Municipal or Local or Public or Semi - Government body or authority whatsoever including those relating to the assets leased out and/or given on hire purchase basis;

¶34

(C) All the tangible movable machinery and plant and cranes, boats and crafts and the vehicles of the Borrower together with spares, tools and accessories and other movables, both present and future, and the furniture, fixtures and fittings and office equipment whether installed or not and whether lying loose or in cases which are now lying or stored in or about or shall be brought into or be stored or be in or upon or about the

¶35

Page 5 of 12

¶36

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.361 OF 2022

¶37

Borrower's premises and godowns or wherever else the same may be or be held by any party to the order disposition of the Borrower (including those on lease or hire - purchase) relating or pertaining to the Borrower's works at Unit No.39, Shah and Nahar Industrial Estate, S. J. Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai to secure the loan.

¶38

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

¶39

(a) Accepted Sanction Letter dated 24.06.2014 for an amount of ₹1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crores Only);

¶40

(b) Demand Promissory Note dated 12.07.2014 for an amount of ₹1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crores Only);

¶41

¶42

(d) Declaration-Cum-Undertaking-cum-Authority dated 12.07.2014;

¶43

(e) Power of Attorney in respect of book-debts Facility dated 12.07.2014;

¶44

(f) Letter of Undertaking (in respect of debts facility) dated 12.07.2014;

¶45

(g) An Undertaking not to withdraw deposit by the Partners/Directors etc. Till the Advances

¶46

Page 6 of 12

¶47

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.361 OF 2022

¶48

is Liquidated dated 12.07.2014;

¶49

(h) Composite Hypothecation Agreement dated 12.07.2014;

¶50

(i) General Form of Guarantee dated 12.07.2014; (j) Letter of Acknowledgement of debt dated 06.08.2016;

¶51

(k) Letter of Acknowledgement of debt dated 22.03.2019.

¶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 (N.P.A.) on 31.10.2019 as per RBI Guidelines. Therefore, on 13.03.2020, the applicant, through its advocate, called upon defendants to liquidate the outstanding in the sum of ₹1,08,35,012/- with further interest from 29.02.2020 till payment within a period of 5 days from receipt of the said notice. Despite notice, defendant nos. 1 and 2 failed and neglected to pay.

¶53

(6) As on 31.07.2020, there was owing, due and payable by defendants to the applicant the aggregate sum of ₹1,14,53,746/- (Rupees One Crore Fourteen Lakhs Fifty-Three Thousand Seven Hundred Forty-Six Only) with future interest @ 13.25% per annum alongwith costs, charges and

¶54

Page 7 of 12

¶55

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.361 OF 2022

¶56

legal expenses with monthly rest 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 07.08.2020.

¶58

(8) The applicant has filed affidavit (exhibit-6) in lieu of examination in chief of Mr Bipin Kumar Lal, Chief Manager and list of documents (exhibit-7) thereby adducing in evidence the documents at AW-1 to AW-13, which are admitted in evidence, read, recorded and exhibited.

¶59

(9) Accordingly, in the Original Application was filed for the recovery of ₹1,14,53,746/- (Rupees One Crore Fourteen Lakhs Fifty-Three Thousand Seven Hundred Forty-Six Only) with future interest @ 13.25% per annum alongwith costs, charges and legal expenses with monthly rest thereon from the date of presentation of the Original Application i.e. 07.08.2020 till payment/realisation.

¶60

(10) The Applicant in their Claim Affidavit dated 09.03.2022 and List of Documents dated 30.01.2026, has stated that the bank will not charge the penal interest of ₹1,63,709/- (Rupees One Lakhs Sixty-Three Thousand Seven Hundred

¶61

Page 8 of 12

¶62

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.361 OF 2022

¶63

Nine Only). Thus, this amount is deducted from the claim amount of ₹1,14,53,746/- (Rupees One Crore Fourteen Lakhs Fifty-Three Thousand Seven Hundred Forty-Six Only) and thus bringing the Actual Claim to an amount of ₹1,12,90,037/(Rupees One Crore Twelve Lakhs Ninety Thousand Thirty-Seven Only).

¶64

(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.

¶65

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

¶66

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

¶67

(14) Hence, the following order:

¶68

ORDER

¶69

(A) The Original Application No.361 of 2022 is allowed with costs.

¶70

(B) Defendant no.1 through its Proprietor Defendant no.2 are ordered and directed to pay to the applicant, either jointly or severally, the aggregate

¶71

Page 9 of 12

¶72

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.361 OF 2022

¶73

sum of ₹1,12,90,037/(Rupees One Crore Twelve Lakhs Ninety Thousand Thirty-Seven Only) with future simple interest @ 12% per annum alongwith costs, charges and legal expenses thereon from the date of presentation of the Original Application i.e. 07.08.2020 till payment/realization.

¶74

¶75

(a) All its stocks of raw materials, semifinished and finished goods, both present and future, and more but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing words, all stocks of raw materials, work-in-progress, semi-finished goods and finished goods such as Paper and Ink packing materials and stores etc. whatsoever and wheresoever situate and/or in transit whether now belonging to or that mat at any time during the continuance of the security belong to the borrower or that may be held by any party anywhere to the order and disposition of the Borrower;

¶76

(b) All the present and future book-debts, outstanding moneys, receivables, claims, bills, choses in action, contracts, engagements and securities which are now

¶77

Page 10 of 12

¶78

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.361 OF 2022

¶79

due and owing or which may at any-time hereafter during the continuance of this security become due and owing to the Borrower in the course of its business by any person, firm, company or body corporate or by the Government of India or any State Government or Indian Railways or any Government Department or Office or any Municipal or Local or Public or SemiGovernment body or authority whatsoever including those relating to the assets leased out and/or given on hire purchase basis;

¶80

(c) All the tangible movable machinery and plant and cranes, boats and crafts and the vehicles of the Borrower together with spares, tools and accessories and other movables, both present and future, and the furniture, fixtures and fittings and office equipment whether installed or not and whether lying loose or in cases which are now lying or stored in or about or shall be brought into or be stored or be in or upon or about the Borrower's premises and godowns or wherever else the same may be or be held by any party to the order disposition of the Borrower (including those on lease or hire-purchase) relating or

¶81

Page 11 of 12

¶82

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.361 OF 2022

¶83

pertaining to the Borrower's works at Unit No.39, Shah and Nahar Industrial Estate, S. J. Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai.

¶84

(D) Defendant no.1 through its Proprietor Defendant no.2 are entitled to redeem the hypothecated properties as per law failing which the applicant has right to proceed to sell the hypothecated properties and recover dues as per law.

¶85

(E) The Applicant is also hereby directed to submit the details of claim amount received from the Central Government since the facility is granted under CGTMSE Scheme.

¶86

(F) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶87

(G) 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.

¶88

Sd/-

¶89

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

¶90

Page 12 of 12

Bank of Baroda v. M/s Max Print

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. M/s Max Print

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

Hdfc Bank versus Sandeep Vasudev Swamy

Punjab National Bank versus Atulkumar Sarabhai Parekh

Bank of India versus M/s. Prachi Digital Print Zone

Icici Bank Limited versus M/s Twilight Litaka Pharma Ltd.

Phoenix Arc Private Limited versus Raju Danraj Punamiya the Sole Proprietor of Ms Gold Prince

Bank of Baroda versus Vison Refractories Pvt. Ltd.