ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE vs MS JHA INDUSTRIES on 13 May 2025

FINAL ORDER

the realization in full'

2. The brief facts of the case are that at the request of the defendants no'1 through the defendant no'2' the applicantbanksanctionedCashCredit(Hyp)(Under CGTMSE) (PMMY) (Uttam Vyapari Scheme) Facility on 02.03.2016 of Rs.9'50 lacs )or manufacturing and SA This original application has been fited by the applicant bank, on 12.03.2018 through Shri Nem Kumar' Chief Manager of the applicant bank' under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of asumofRs.10,25,722l-logetherwithcost'charges and pendentellite and future interest @ 10'50o/o P'a' with monthly rests from date of filing of this O'A' till TAlt73sl2o23 2 Trading of Cosmetics the business against hypothecation of stock of raw material' stock-in- process, semFfinished and finished stocks of cosmetics goods and other entire current assets of the firm' The defendant executed all necessary loaning documents on 03.03.2016.

3. It is fulther submitted that the defendants enjoyed and utilized the Loan facility' but failed to maintain the financial discipline and failed to repay the due amounts. The applicant bank requested the defendants to regularize the loan account by visits and letters, but there was no response from the defendants, hence the account was classifled as NPA' Therefore, the applicant bank serued a demand notice dated 02.02.2018 to the defendants' demanding the amount due as on that date, but failed to recover the same. Thus, the present O'Aff'A' is preferred by the applicant bank to recover its dues'

4. On notice by this Tribunal' defendants failed to put appearance at all, despite publication' accordingly defendants were 24.05.2023. proceeded against ex-Parte on

5. The applicant bank has filed evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Nem Kumar' Chief Manager as Annexure-A to Annexure-K along with the OA which have gone unchallenged and un-rebutted' Hence' the case of the applicant bank slands fully established <A

TAlt735l2023 against the defendants with respect to nonpayment of EMI/ outstanding amount.

6. After perusing the records, this Tribunal is of the view that the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. The evidence filed by the applicant bank not rebutted by the defendants by not placing any documentsandthereisnoquestionofdisbelievingthe evidence filed by the applicant bank based upon the written/Printed documents' In the light of the above discussions, the T'A deserves to be allowed.

ORDER

1) I hereby allow this T'A' of the Applicant Bank and direct the defendant nos' 1 & 2 to pay jointly and severally to the applicant bank within 30 days from today, a sum of Rs'10,25,7221- along with cost' expenses and interest @10'50o/o from the date of filing of this O'A. which has become T'A till the date of realization.

2) In case of failure to deposit the above amount within the stipulated period, the same shall be recoveredfromthesaleofthehypothecatedassets.In case of shot fall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of personal movable and immovable assets of the J defendants nos. 1&2'

- $'

TAlL735l2O23 4

3) Recovery Certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il' Delhi.

4) The registry of this Tribunal is hereby directed to issue free copy of the order and send the same to both the Parties.

5) Pafties are direct to appear before the Ld' Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi on L4'07 '2025' Pending IAs, if anY, stand disPosed of' File be consigned to records' (9"\! (susHIL KUMAR riAsfloct) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi Date : 13.05.2025 This judgement has been pronounced in oPen coutt. Date : 13.05.2025 signed, dated and g,\ (susHIL KUMAR nAgltdfil PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi I I T