BANK OF INDIA vs M/S A. S. FLOUR MILL, on 19 October 2023

1. 1. **M/s A.S. Flour Mill**, Village – Lohangpur, Post – Shahgarh, Tehsil Gauriganj, District – Chattrapati Sahuji Maharaj Nagar, (Amethi) U.P. through its Sole proprietor Sri Arjun Yadav.

2. 2. **Sri Arjun Yadav**, Son of Sri Bharat Yadav, R/o Village – Baanthaan Dulapur, Post – Shahgarh, Tehsil Gauriganj, District – Chattrapati Sahuji Maharaj Nagar, (Amethi), U.P.

...Defendants.

Present:

**For the Applicant**

: Shri Anup Shukla, Advocate

**For the Defendants**

: None

**Dated: 19.10.2023****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 08.10.2018, against the defendants to recover its debts from defendants of Rs. 35,59,664/- (Rs. 29,97,966/- upto 30.04.2015 in Cash Credit Account and Rs. 5,61,698/- in Term Loan Account) alongwith pendentelite and future interest @ 12.75% per annum with monthly rests from 01.05.2015 with costs till realization.

Subsequently, the case record of the present Original Application No. 442 of 2015 has been transferred to this Tribunal in view of Notification of Government of India, Ministry of Finance dated 15.02.2017 thus the case has been re-numbered as TA 149 of 2018.

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 and Transfer of Undertakings) Act of 1980, having its Head Office at Star House, C-5, G- Block, Bandra- Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051

The brief facts of the case as contained in its original application are that the Defendant No. 1 is a proprietorship firm of which Defendant No. 2 is the sole proprietor and borrower of the Defendant No. 1 firm and engaged in the business of flour mill. The Defendant No. 2 for self and on behalf of Defendant No. 1 approached the Applicant Bank for grant of financial assistance in the shape of Cash Credit Limit and Term Loan Facilities and submitted loan application dated 11.06.2013.

After considered the request of the Defendant No. 2 for self and on behalf of Defendant No. 1 and verification of the loan documents, the applicant Bank had sanctioned Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 25.00 Lacs for working Capital and Term Loan Facility of Rs. 5.00 Lacs for purchase of Plant and Machinery aggregating Rs. 30.00 Lacs under CGTSME Scheme of Government of India together with interest vide sanction letter dated 13.06.2013.

Upon sanction of the aforesaid Cash Credit Limit and Term Loan Facilities, the Defendant No. 1 & 2 as borrowers, had executed, signed several security loan documents on 13.06.2013 in favour of the Applicant Bank.

The Defendants availed the aforesaid loan/credit facilities but failed to maintain financial discipline as per terms and conditions of the loan agreement due to which loan account become irregular. Despite repeated reminders and persuasion, the defendants failed to regularize the loan account. Consequently, the said account of the Defendants were classified as NPA on 31.12.2014 and recalled by Applicant Bank. Thereafter, Applicant Bank served Legal Notice dated 21.04.2015 to the Defendants to repay the outstanding dues but the defendants failed to make the payments of outstanding dues. Accordingly, the applicant Bank has moved this O.A. to recover public money.

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 23.03.2023, 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.

Despite the registered summons/notices, the defendants have not appeared before this Tribunal to contest the case. The sufficient time has been given to the defendants to defend their case, but they failed to appear and to file WS, hence, the Tribunal has passed an order to proceed exparte against the defendants on 18.10.2023.

5- To prove its case, the applicant Bank has referred attested copies of various documents before this Tribunal on 08.10.2018. The applicant bank has also given evidence on affidavit by way of affidavit of Smt.

Pushpa Chaudhary, Chief 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 Power of attorney</td> <td>01.10.2014</td>

<td>A- 1</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2</td> <td>Copy of Loan Application</td> <td>11.06.2013</td> <td>Rs. 30.00</td> <td>Def. No. 1 &amp; 2</td> <td>A- 2</td> </tr> <tr> <td>3</td> <td>Copy of Sanction Letter</td> <td>13.06.2013</td> <td>Rs. 30.00</td> <td>Def. No. 1 &amp; 2 and Bank</td> <td>A- 3</td> </tr> <tr> <td>4</td> <td>Copy of Demand Promissory Note</td> <td>13.06.2013</td> <td>Rs. 30.00</td> <td>Def. No. 1 &amp; 2</td> <td>A- 4</td> </tr> <tr> <td>5</td> <td>Copy of Bearer Letter</td> <td>13.06.2013</td> <td>Rs. 30.00</td> <td>Def. No. 1 &amp; 2</td> <td>A- 5</td> </tr> <tr> <td>6</td> <td>Copy of Debit Authority Letter</td> <td>13.06.2013</td>

<td>Def. No. 1 &amp; 2</td> <td>A- 6</td> </tr> <tr> <td>7</td> <td>Copy of Debit Authority Letter</td> <td>13.06.2013</td> <td>Rs. 30.00</td> <td>Def. No. 1 &amp; 2</td> <td>A- 7</td> </tr> <tr> <td>8</td> <td>Copy of Hypothecation-cum-Loan Agreement (CHA-1)</td> <td>13.06.2013</td> <td>Rs. 30.00</td> <td>Def. No. 1 &amp; 2</td> <td>A- 8</td> </tr> <tr> <td>9</td> <td>Copy of Letter of continuing security</td> <td>13.06.2013</td> <td>Rs. 30.00</td> <td>Def. No. 1 &amp; 2</td> <td>A- 9</td> </tr> <tr> <td>10</td> <td>Copy of declaration to be obtained from borrower</td> <td>13.06.2013</td>

<td>Def. No. 1 &amp; 2</td> <td>A- 10</td> </tr> <tr> <td>11</td> <td>Copy of registered demand Notice</td> <td>21.04.2015</td> <td>Rs. 32,17,776/-</td> <td>Bank</td> <td>A- 11</td> </tr> <tr> <td>12</td> <td>Copies of statement of both account duly certified as per provisions of the Information Technology Act</td> <td>30.04.2015</td> <td>Rs. 29,97,966/-</td> <td>Bank</td> <td>A- 12 &amp; 13</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

6- Opportunity of hearing has been fully given to both the parties, but despite several opportunities given to defendants, the defendants have not appeared to contest the case, hence, the exparte arguments of learned counsel for applicant bank were heard. Perused the case record and considered.

Ld. counsel of applicant bank submitted that the defendants have taken the loans and utilized the same and also executed the various loans 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 the defendants have not deposited any amount, after filing of the TA.

It is further submitted by ld. 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.

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. 10 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 31.12.2014, whereas the present application has been filed on 08.10.2018. 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 Pushpa Chaudhary, Chief Manager of the applicant bank, has stated that she 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 loans and the bank had sanctioned the loans and to secure the loans and for repayment of loans amount with interests etc., the defendants have executed various loans 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- Since, the defendants were proceeded exparte, all contentions raised and documents produced by plaintiff remained unrebuted and the tribunal may act upon the affidavit of the applicant as per law. 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 and on perusal of the application, documents and affidavit, it is proved that the applicant bank has granted the loan facilities, documents were executed by the defendants and facilities were 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. 35,59,664/- with cost and further interest @ 12.75% per annum with monthly rests from 01.05.2015 till realization.

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 defendant 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 realized, 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% of the guaranteed amount."*

16- None of the defendants appeared before the Tribunal to contest the claim made by the applicant, therefore, 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- 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."

18- Facts of the case, in my view, are well proved by evidence of the applicant bank. The applicant bank is entitled to receive it's debts with interest, from defendants, jointly and severally **Rs. 35,59,664/-** alongwith pendentelite and future interest @ 10% Simple per annum from

01.05.2015 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 with interest, from defendants, jointly and severally, amounting to **Rs. 35,59,664/-** alongwith pendentelite and future interest @ 10% Simple per annum from 01.05.2015 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.

Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT, Allahabad on 05.01.2024. The order be communicated accordingly.

Judgment signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open court on this 19^th Day of October, 2023.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

[R. M. Kushawaha]

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad

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

SS