Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
BANK OF INDIA vs UDIT PAREKH on 30 December 2021
Registered on: 19/06/2014
Decided on: 30/12/2021
**IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT MUMBAI
DATED 30<sup>th</sup> DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
TRANSFER ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 387 of 2016**
**Bank of India**
A Body Corporate constituted under
the Banking Companies
(Acquisition & Transfer of undertakings)
Act, V of 1970 having its Head Office at Star House, C-5, "G" Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051, and having one of its Branch office at 44, R.N. Marg, Bandra (W), Mumbai - 400 050 known as "R.N. Marg Branch", through its Constituted Attorney, Shri. Milind M. Deshpande.
... Applicant
VERSUS
**1. Mr. Udit Parekh**
Of Mumbai Indian Inhabitant,
Residing at L-203 Ekta Bhoomi
Garden, Rajendra Nagar, Borivali-East,
Mumbai - 400 062 and having
One more address at Hari Om
Apartment, C-1 CHS, Office No. 10
Behind Vijay Sales, S. V. Road,
Borivali -West, Mumbai - 400 062.
2. Mrs. Pratibha Udit Parekh
Of Mumbai Indian Inhabitant,
residing at L-203 Ekta Bhoomi
Garden, Rajendra Nagar, Borivali -
East, Mumbai - 400 062.
**2. Mrs. Pratibha Udit Parekh**
Of Mumbai Indian Inhabitant,
Residing at L-203 Ekta Bhoomi
Garden, Rajendra Nagar, Borivali
East, Mumbai - 400 062.
... Defendants
---
Advocate for the applicant
Ms. Pallavi Chari i/b O. A. Das
Advocate for Defendant
None (already set ex-parte)
---
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
J U D G M E N T
1) This is an application filed under Section 19 of the DRT Act, 1993, by Bank of India praying to issue Recovery Certificate against the defendants for an amount of Rs. 12,44,793.60/- (Rupees Twelve Lakh Forty-Four Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety-Three and Sixty Paise Only) together with further interest @ 16.50% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of filing of the Original Application till realization. The Present OA is initially filled before the DRT-
III, Mumbai, however subsequently after the change of jurisdiction same was transferred to this tribunal on 28/10/2016.
1. 2) Facts as succinctly set out in the TOA are that the defendant no. 1 as the borrower have availed overdraft loan facility with the applicant and defendant no. 2 as a guarantor of the defendant no. 1. They approached applicant bank for granting overdraft loan facility. Same was sanctioned vide sanction letter dated 04/06/2009. The defendants also executed the necessary documents for the said loan.
2. 3) However, after availing the aforesaid loan facility, the defendants failed to keep the account in discipline. Therefore, account was declared NPA on 29/09/2011. The applicant recalled the entire loan vide notice dated 13/05/2015. But after receiving the said notice the defendants neither reply the said notice nor repay the amount. Therefore, the applicant Bank was compelled to file the present TOA for recovery of its dues.
3. 4) Notice was issued on present TOA. However, despite service no one appeared on behalf of defendants. Therefore, were set ex-parte vide order dated 09/02/2018.
4. 5) Bank has filed claim affidavit along with relevant documents.
5. 6) I have heard the ex-parte arguments of Ld. Counsel for Applicant Bank and perused the material on record.
6. 7) The witness of the applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments made in the T.O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the applicant bank is based on documents and the witness has fully proved all these documents as against the defendants. In
A handwritten signature in black ink, consisting of stylized, overlapping loops and a horizontal line extending to the right.
TOA 387 of 2016
my view there is no question of disbelieving the evidence led by the applicant bank and applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The liability of defendants is joint and several.
8) After hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for the applicant and upon perusing the record this Tribunal pass the following order: -
ORDER
- a) I allow the T.O.A. and direct the defendant no. 1 & 2 to pay within a period of 30 days to the applicant bank a sum of Rs. 12,44,793.60/- (Rupees Twelve Lakh Forty-Four Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety-Three and Sixty Paise Only) together with further interest @ 16.50% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of filing of the Original Application till realization.
- b) Failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the personal assets of the defendants.
- c) Defendants are hereby directed not to deal with his properties, till further direction of Ld. Recovery Officer.
- d) The defendants also shall pay costs incurred by the applicant bank in filing the above Original Application including professional fees and other expenses.
- e) The Recovery Certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to the Recovery Officer, DRT-I, Mumbai.
Copy of this Judgment and Recovery Certificate be sent to all the parties as per rules.
Place: Mumbai. Date : 30<sup>th</sup> December, 2021.
(Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar) Presiding Officer, DRT-1, Mumbai.