UCO BANK vs M/S RUBY SKYLINK TRAVELS PVT LTD & ORS on 20 July 2020

JUDGEMENT

1. This is an Transfer Application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Instltutions Act, 1993 initiated by the applicant against the defendants praying for issuance of Recovery Certificate to the tune of Rs 22,71-,854'35 together with interest' cost and other usual reliefs

2. The brief facts of the case as made out ln the Transfer Application by the applicant bank is that the defendants no'2 to 4 for self and on behalf of defendant no 1 Company had approached the applicant bank 01_

3.

4. for grant of a term loan of RS.5.OO lakhs and a cash credit limit of Rs.15.50 lakhs, aggregating of Rs.20.50 lakhs for its business The applicant bank after examining the feasibility of the said proposal had sanctioned a term loan of Rs.5.O0 lakhs and a cash credit limit of Rs.15.50 lakhs, aggregating of Rs.20.50 lakhs on 10.05.2000 in favour of defendant no.1 Company with certain terms and conditions, which was accepted by the defendants. To avail the above loan facilities, the defendants had executed various loan documents on 13.09'2001 in favour of the applicant bank. Further, the defendants no.2 and 3 for self and on behalf of defendant no.1 company had requested the applicant bank for grant of one fresh term loan facility. The applicant bank considering the sald request had sanctioned a sum of Rs,18.00 lakhs in favour of defendant no 1 company. To avail the loan amount of Rs.18.00 lakhs, the defendants had executed the loan documents on 13.02.2001 in favour of the applicant bank. Further, the defendants no.2 and 3 for self and on behalf of defendant no.1 company had requested the aPplicant bank for grant of one fresh term loan facllity. The aPplicant bank considering the said request had sanctioned a sum of Rs.7.05 lakhs in favour of defendant no.1 company. To avail the loan amount of Rs.7.05 lakhs, the defendants had executed the loan documents on 13.02.2001 in favour of the applicant bank. To avail the total sum of Rs.20.50 lakhs, the defendants no.2 and 3 had created equitable mortgage of their proPerty in favour of the applicant bank by depositing the original title deed in the bank. Further on the request of defendant no.2 for self and on behalf of defendant No.1 Company, the appllcant bank had allowed the adhoc credit limit facility for a sum of Rs.6.25 lakhs on 19.12.2001.

6. d*

8.

7.

9. Further request made by the defendant no.1 through the defendantno.2 on 19.10.2001 for the Bank Guarantee of Rs.5.00 lakhs for the let Airways and Rs.15.60 lakhs for the Indian Airlines for smooth running of their travel agency business, the applicant bank had sanctioned the aforesald Bank Guarantee in favour of defendant no.1 Company. To avail the aforesaid credit facilities including the Bank Guarantee, for the total sum of Rs.24.50 laksh, the defendants no.z to 4 had executed all the necessary loan documents on 16.08.2002 in favour of the applicant bank. After availing the loan, the defendant no.1 Company had utilized the said loan amounts in its business and operated the loan accounts at the initial stage but subsequently the defendants had failed to operate the said loan accounts in terms of the agreement between the parties as a result of which the loan accounts became irregular. A sum of Rs.22,71,854,35 is due against the defendants which the defendants had not paid despite repeated demands and request. Finding no other way to recover the dues of the bank, the applicant bank had filed this Transfer Application for the recovery of the aforesaid amount and for the issuance of Recovery Certiflcate against the defendants. Notices were issued to the defendants to show cause as to why the relief prayed for by the applicant bank be not granted. After issuance of the notice, the defendants had appeared through their respectlve Counsels but failed to file their show cause reply and absented themselves from the proceedings. Consequently, the said defendants were set ex-parte on 20.12.2019. The TriDunal had no other option but to hear ex-parte against the defendants. I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant bank and have perused the relevant documents. at-

10.

11. a

12. The defendants had not contested the case of the applicant bank. Thus, the point for determination in this case is (i) Whether the claim of the applicant bank is within time ? (ii) Whether the defendants had utilized the loan facilities granted by the bank ? (iii) Whether the defendants are liable to the amount due to the applicant bank or not ?

13. The applicant bank by oral and documentary evidence has established its case. The documentary evidence comprises from Annexure/Exhtbit- A to Annexure/Exhibit-Z/7, which are available in paper book Rled by the applicant bank.

14. From the perusal of the documents referred above and the certified copy of the statement of account, which is filed as Annexure/Exhibit-A to Z/7, it is established that the defendants had availed the financial facilities from the applicant bank and had withdrawn the amount through the account. The oral testimony comprises of an affidavit of Shri D. K. Mitra, S/o. Late Pulak Kumar Mitra, working as Senior Manager of the Applicant Bank. The averments in the application and the facts stated by the witness of the applicant in his affidavit are unrebutted. From the perusal of the Statement of Account which is Annexure/Exhibit-z/ 6, the total outstanding comes to Rs.22,71,854.35 which the applicant bank is entitled to recover from the defendants. In view of the above discussion and after considering the entire evidence-on-affidavit of the applicant bank and the documents filed by the appllcant bank, I have no hesitation to hold that the applicant bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.22,71.854.35 from the defendants who are liable for the same. The applicant bank shall also be entitled to pendentelite and future interest on the said amount @

15.

16.

77. o-

15yo per annum with simple from the date of filing of the Original Application till the date of realization. a--B--D-E-B

(1) T.A. No.869 of 2014 filed by the Applicant Bank is allowed and debt is determined with cost against the defendants. It is hereby ordered that applicant bank is entitled to recover from the defendants the total amount to the tune of Rs.22,77,854.35 (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Seventy One Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Four and Paise Thirty Five only) with pendentelite and future interest @ 15olo per annum with simple on the amount due from the date of filing of the Transfer Application, i.e.27.08.201,4 (i.e. O.A. No.1049 of 2014) till full and final realization of the claim amount.

(2) Amount, if any, paid by the defendants in the loan account or amount, if any, recovered by the Applicant Bank after filing of the T.A. the same be taken lnto account while arriving at the exact amount of dues/debt payable by the defendants. Accordingly, pendentelite and future interest shall be calculated on the reduced amount.

(3) Defendants are debarred from disposing, alienating or dealing with any of the properties belonging to them till the aforesaid decretal debt is recovered from the defendants.

(4) Defendants are given a time of thirty days from the date of the Judgement/Final Order for repaying of the above mentioned dues, so intimated to them. In case the defendants fails to pay the dues within the above mentioned time, the applicant bank ls entitled to recover its dues by sale of secured assets, if any. Applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against personal properties of the defendants (Both movable and immovable) and also proceed against the detendants personally to recover the dues in accordance with law.

(5) Let the Certificate of Recovery be drawn up by Ld. Registrar forthwith in terms of Judgement for issuance of the same against defendants in favour of the applicant bank under Section 19 (22) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 and put up the same for issuance of the Certificate. o-

(6) Ld. Recovery OFficer shall realize the amount as per the Recovery CertiRcate from the defendants in accordance with law.

(7) Ld. Registrar of this Tribunal is directed to detiver recovery certificate in term of the final order/judgement for recovery of the sum against the defendants in favour of the Applicant Bank under Section 19 (22) of the Recovery of Debts due to the Bank and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 now known as Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. Accordingly, the Original Application being T.A. No.869 of 2014 is allowed and stands disposed of. Copy of the Judgement/Final Order be upload in the Trtbunal's website. File is consigned to the Record Room. (Dictated to P.S., transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Xopen Court on this the_JPllth day of ffit'o'o ) {,,t 'l'a.- -ejP' ['Kc'r's'a*a ( ANIL KUMAR CHATURVEDI ) PRESIDING OFFICER.

Order Sheet (Continuation) Case No. T.A. No.869 of 2014 Order pronounced (Vide separate sheets). In the result, T.A. No.869 of 2014 is allowed with costs. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. |'r-m'-"'a (A. K.Chaturvedi) Presiding Officer, DRT-3, Kolkata. UCO Bank. Vs. I4/s. Ruby Skylink Travels Pvt. Ltd. Ofiics action wrth date and dated Signature ol parlles when nacttttry Date ol Ordet %ol ", &\