CANARA BANK vs M/S ACE SPORTS WEARS, on 26 April 2024

1. 1. M/s ACE Sports Wears, Which is a Proprietorship Firm, through its Proprietor –Smt. Tanuja Sharma W/o Sri Rohit Sharma R/o 101A, Ajmer Road, Pratappura, Agra, U.P.

2. 2. Smt. Tanuja Sharma W/o Sri Rohit Sharma R/o 101A, Ajmer Road, Pratappura, Agra, U.P.

...Defendants.

Present:

**For the Applicant** : Sh. Himanshu Tewari, Advocate**For the Defendants** : Sh. Anand Yadav BH of Sh. Arun Prakash, Advocate**Dated: 26.04.2024****JUDGMENT**

1- The Applicant bank has made this application u/s 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 now Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (here-in-after referred to as Act) on 22.08.2014 **before the DRT Lucknow** against the defendants to recover its debts from defendants of **Rs. 32,94,679.73** alongwith pendentelite and future interest @ 14% per annum with monthly rest from 31.07.2014 with costs till realization.

2- The application has been duly registered and numbered as above.

3- The brief facts of the case of the applicant bank as stated in the application are as under- The applicant bank is a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies ( Acquisition of Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 and having its Head Office at 112, J.C. Road, Bangalore and amongst others a Branch Office at Sector -10, Avas Vikas Colony, Sikandra, Agra -282007, through its Manager Sri Amresh Kumar Singh and duly constituted attorney.

The facts of the case as contained in its application are that defendant no. 1 is a proprietorship firm having defendant no. 2 as its sole proprietor. The defendant No. 1 Firm through its proprietor defendant no. 2 approached the applicant bank to get sanction financial assistance in the shape of Cash Credit Limit Facility to augment its business. The applicant bank after considering the proposal and worth of the security offered; sanctioned a Cash Credit Limit Facility of Rs. 30.00 Lacs on 18.07.2012

under CGTSME Scheme. In consideration thereof and in order to avail the above sanctioned Credit facility, the defendant no. 2 as the sole proprietor of defendant no. 1 executed Bank's standard loan documents on 23.07.2012.

The defendant No. 1&2 availed the aforesaid credit facility but failed to repay the dues of the bank as per agreed terms, they failed to adhere the financial discipline of the applicant bank, the account of the defendant no. 1&2 became irregular and sticky and were declared NPA on 30.12.2013. The applicant bank compelled to recall the loan by serving the legal notice but defendants failed to liquidate bank's dues. All these acts and conduct on the part of the defendants are contrary to the terms and conditions of the documents signed and executed by defendant no. 2 on behalf of defendant no. 1. Accordingly the applicant bank has moved this T.A. to recover public money.

The total outstanding due in the accounts comes to **Rs. 32,94,679.73** inclusive of interests which has been claimed by means of present T.A.

The interest /compound interest has been charged at such rates, and capitalized at such periodical rests as are permitted by and do not run counter to the directives of Reserve Bank of India.

Since, the defendants have failed and neglected in spite of several reminders to make payment of the dues recoverable to bank, hence this application has been filed by the bank.

4- U/s 19 (4) of the Act & Rule 11 of the DRT [Procedure] Rules, 1993, copies of application & paper book were sent by this Tribunal to the defendants by registered/speed post on 16.10.2019, and summons/notices issued requiring the defendants to show-cause within 30 days of the service of summons/notices as to why relief prayed for, should not be granted.

The defendants have appeared through their counsel before this Tribunal to contest the case but failed to file written statement within stipulated period.

I have heard Ld counsel for the parties, considered and perused the record.

5- To prove its case, the applicant Bank has referred attested copies of various documents before DRT Lucknow on 22.08.2014. The applicant bank has also given evidence on affidavit by way of affidavit of Shri Amresh Kumar Singh, Manager of the applicant bank. The details of documents are as follows. :- <table border="1"> <thead> <tr> <th>Sl.No</th> <th>Description of Documents(Attested copies)</th> <th>Date of Execution</th> <th>Amount [In lacs]</th> <th>Signature of executants</th> <th>Ex./Ann. No.</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>1</td> <td>Copy of General Power of Attorney.</td> <td>....</td> <td>.....</td> <td>....Bank</td> <td>A- 1</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2</td> <td>Certified Copy of Sanction Letter</td> <td>18.07.2012</td> <td>30.00</td> <td>Def. 1,2</td> <td>A- 2</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

<table border="1"> <tr> <td>3</td> <td>Copy of Pronote</td> <td>23.07.2012</td> <td>30.00</td> <td>Def. 1,2</td> <td>A- 3</td> </tr> <tr> <td>4</td> <td>Cash Credit Agreement.</td> <td>...</td> <td>30.00</td> <td>Def. 1,2</td> <td>A- 4</td> </tr> <tr> <td>5</td> <td>Request for Overdraft Facility.</td> <td>....</td> <td>30.00</td> <td>Def. 1,2</td> <td>A- 5</td> </tr> <tr> <td>6</td> <td>Copy of Statement of Account.</td> <td>31.07.2014</td> <td>3294679<br/>.73</td> <td>Bank</td> <td>A- 6</td> </tr> </table>

6- Ld. counsel of applicant bank submitted that the defendants have taken the loans and utilized the same and also executed the various loan documents to secure the loans. Further submitted that the claim of the bank has been proved by documentary and oral evidence. Ld. Counsel for the applicant bank further submitted that an amount of Rs. 1.50 Lacs has already been recovered, after filing of the TA.

It is further submitted by Id. Counsel of applicant bank that there is no any stay granted by any Higher Court, in respect of the proceedings of the present TA and requested to issue recovery certificate, as claimed for, in TA.

Ld counsel for the defendants admitted the avaliment of loan and liability. Ld counsel for the defendants submitted that defendants have availed the credit facility granted by the applicant bank to them and they have every intention to deposit the loan amount but the bank has charged the rate of interest very higher side and ultimately prayed for reducing of rate of interest.

7- It has been established that defendants are living and carrying on **their** business in the state of Uttar Pradesh. Cause of action also arose in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The said claim on the date of filing of application exceeded Rs.20 lacs. The applicant bank is functioning within jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Therefore, this Tribunal has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present application.

8- On the issue of Limitation, to prove it, the applicant bank has submitted that the applicant bank has declared the account as NPA on 30.12.2019, whereas the present application has been filed on 22.08.2014. Even, it is counted for the purpose of Limitation, then it is established that the applicant bank has filed the case within the limitation period from the date of declaring the account as NPA. As such, it is established that present application has been filed well within the period of limitation.

9- In the affidavit of Shri Amresh Kumar Singh, Manager of the applicant bank, has stated that he is well acquainted with the facts of the case and has on verification of record, sworn in the affidavit in support of contents of application and the documents as evidence and established on oath the pleadings and documents of the applicant bank as stated above.

The documents as stated above reveal that the defendants have applied for loan and the bank had sanctioned the loan and to secure the loan and for repayment of loan amount with interests etc., the defendants have executed various loan documents, which strength the case of the applicant bank.

The applicant bank has also furnished statement of account as above, which is not only admissible but shall be taken as correct statement of account, more so since the entries in the statement of account has not been challenged.

10- Defendants have neither denied the utilization of funds advanced by applicant bank nor have pointed out any specific error and discrepancy in the Statement of Account, which is kept in due course of business, evidence on affidavit, which has supported the claim of the applicant bank, established to have fully correct and believable. Provisions contained in Section 4 of the Banker's Books Evidence Act, 1891 apply to certified copies of entries in banker's book furnished along with the application filed under section 19[1] of the Act. Hence, the entries in the Statement of Account are also proved.

11- On consideration of the arguments of both the parties and on perusal of the application, documents, admission of defendants and affidavit, it is proved that the applicant bank has granted the loan facility, documents were executed by the defendants and facility was availed by the defendants as stated in the application.

12- Now, whether interest has been charged as per agreement and as per R.B.I. Guidelines?

13- The applicant bank has sought for recovery of a sum of **Rs. 32,94,679.73** with cost and further interest @ 14% per annum with monthly rest from 31.07.2014 till realization. However, as per Ld. Counsel for the applicant bank an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- has already been recovered, after filing of the TA.

14- Learned Advocate appearing for applicant bank submits that the applicant bank has charged interest in terms of the agreements and that interest has been charged at such rates, and capitalized at such periodical rests as are permitted by and do not run counter to the directives of Reserve Bank of India.

15- On consideration of the arguments and on perusal of the pleadings, documents and affidavit, it is proved that the applicant has charged interest against defendants in terms of documents and as per directives of R B I, However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of natural justice the defendants deserve some leniency in the rate of interest.

So far as the dispute regarding CGTSME coverage by the Central Government is concerned. Credit Guarantee fund Scheme for Micro and Small Enterprises, para 10 (iv) as follows:- "In the event of default the lending institution shall exercise its rights, if any, to take over the assets of the borrowers and the amount realised, if any, from the sale of such assets or otherwise shall first be credited in full by the lending institutions to the Trust before it claims the remaining 25 per cent of the guaranteed amount."

16- The defendants have appeared before the Tribunal to contest the claim made by the applicant, and admitted the loan liability. It necessarily goes to establish that the claim made by the applicant bank is genuine and true. It is manifest that the defendants have not disputed the claim, therefore, the claim referred to the Tribunal is recoverable till full and final realization of the claim.

17. The Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under:-

**" 58. Facts admitted need not be proved-** *No fact need to be proved in any proceeding which the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands, or which by any rule of pleadings in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings:*

*Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require the facts admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission"*

18- In Indian Bank Vs. Blue Jagers Estates Limited and others [2010] 8 SCC 129, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed as under- "The Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the bank is a trustee of public fund. It cannot compromise the public interest for benefiting private individuals. Those who take loan and avail financial facilities from the bank are duty bound to repay the amount strictly in accordance with the terms of the contract. Any lapse in such matters has to be viewed seriously and the bank is not only entitled but duty bound to recover the amount by adopting all legally permissible methods. Parliament enacted the act because it was found that legal mechanism available till then was wholly insufficient for recovery of the outstanding dues of the banks and Financial Institutions."

19- Facts of the case, in my view, are well proved by evidence of the applicant bank. The applicant bank is entitled to receive its debts from defendants, jointly and severally Rs. 31,44,679.73 (Rs. 32,94,679.73 - Rs. 1,50,000/-) alongwith pendentelite and future interest @ 10% simple per annum from 31.07.2014 till realization. So the final order may be passed accordingly, to meet the ends of justice.

ORDER

In the result, the application of the applicant bank is, allowed and debt is determined with costs against the defendants and it is, hereby, ordered that the applicant bank is entitled to receive its debts from defendants, jointly and severally, it's debts with interest, amounting to Rs. 31,44,679.73 (Rs. 32,94,679.73 - Rs. 1,50,000/-) alongwith pendentelite and future interest @ 10% simple per annum from 31.07.2014 till realization of the entire sum due and recoverable with costs.

In case of failure to repay the aforementioned adjudicated amount within 30 days, same shall be recovered from the sale of the *hypothecated assets /mortgaged properties of the Defendants in execution proceedings*. *The amount, if any, already recovered by sale of any hypothecated assets*

*/mortgage properties or otherwise shall be adjusted towards the debt and only the balance amount shall be recoverable. If the dues of Applicant Bank still remain unsatisfied, the same shall be recovered by attachment and sale of the personal movable and immovable assets of the Defendants jointly or severally. The cost of litigation be also borne by the Defendants.*

*The Defendants are hereby restrained by means of injunction from depleting, transferring, encumbering, alienating, selling or otherwise dealing with hypothecated assets/ mortgage properties or their other immovable/movable properties/estates without first paying the above claim of Applicant Bank/Certificate Holder.*

*In case, any of the Defendants expire, the legal representatives shall be liable to pay in proportion to the inheritance.*

Let a certificate of recovery be drawn up forthwith and put up for signatures in terms of provisions contained in Section 19(22) of the Act to be issued, on the basis of the order of the Tribunal to the Recovery Officer. The Recovery Officer shall realize the amount as per the certificate in the manner and mode prescribed under the Act from the defendants.

Pending I.As., if any, also disposed off.

Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT, Allahabad on 04.07.2024. The order be communicated accordingly.

Judgment signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open court on this 26^th Day of April, 2024.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

[R. M. Kushawaha] Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad

[R. M. Kushawaha] Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad

mks