STATE BANK OF INDIA vs MUKESH ALIAS DATTARAM MAHADEV SHIVJI on 22 March 2019

JUDGMENT

1. This is an application under sub-section (1) of section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (`The 1993 Act’ for short) for the recovery of the dues in the sum of Rs.11,42,450.41ps. together with future interest thereon from the date of filing of the Original Application till repayment/realization & enforcement of the securities.

The factual matrix of the case is as under:

2. Defendant is the proprietor carrying on business in the

ORDER SHEET

[APK] (OA No. 1320/2016) Page 3 of 7 name and style of M/s Danuc Robotics. On 15th January, 2012 defendant approached the applicant seeking financial assistance under the Prime Minister Employment Generation Programme.

3. Pursuant to the loan application made by defendant, on 27th March, 2012 the applicant sanctioned the medium term loan in the sum of Rs.8.83 lakhs and demand cash credit in the sum of Rs.5.42 lakhs aggregating in the sum of Rs.14.25 lakhs.

4. On 27th March, 2012 defendant signed and executed the loan and security documents as set out in paragraph no.5.4 of the Original Application. The allegations made in the original application reveal that defendant signed and executed revival letter on 20th December, 2014.

5. After availing the aforesaid loan facilities, defendant did not adhere to the terms of sanction and the contract. The default committed by defendant was long and persistent. Therefore, the account of defendant was classified as Non-Performing Asset on 31st July, 2013.

ORDER SHEET

[APK] (OA No. 1320/2016) Page 4 of 7

6. Thereafter, on 17th March, 2015 the applicant through its advocate issued demand notice calling upon defendant to liquidate the entire outstanding. Despite service of notice, defendant failed and neglected to make the payment.

7. At the foot of the account there was owing, due and payable by defendant to the applicant the aggregate sum of Rs.11,42,450.41ps. The applicant has maintained the loan ledger extract and entries posted therein are made in the usual and ordinary course of banking business which is supported by the certificate as required under the law. Since defendant failed and neglected to make the payment the applicant was left with no other alternate but, to file the original application which was presented on 07th May, 2015.

8. Defendant was duly served with the summons twice, firstly when the matter was before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-2, Mumbai. The order sheet dated 29th February,2016 reveals that the applicant filed affidavit proving service of summons to defendant. Thereafter, the transfer notice was once again served on 08th January, 2018 as can be seen from the order sheet. Despite service of summons, defendant did

ORDER SHEET

[APK] (OA No. 1320/2016) Page 5 of 7 not choose to enter appearance either personally or through his advocate. Therefore, the matter proceeded ex-parte against defendant.

9. The applicant has filed evidence affidavit (Exhibit-08) of Mr. Shyam Vishnu Sawant and list of documents (Exhibit-

09) thereby adducing in evidence the documents at serial nos.AW-01 to AW-12 which are admitted in evidence, read, recorded and exhibited.

10. I have scrutinized and examined the allegations contained in the Original Application and analyzed the evidence adduced by the applicant which has gone unchallenged, uncontroverted and unrebutted.

11. Mrs. Minas submitted that the applicant does not press into service the reliefs in terms of prayer clauses 6(b) to 6(e), 6(g) of the original application and therefore, the question of granting the reliefs in terms of these prayers does not arise.

12. Mrs. Minas, the learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that pendent lite and future interest at the rate of

ORDER SHEET

[APK] (OA No. 1320/2016) Page 6 of 7 15.60% per annum with regard to the medium term loan and pendent lite and future interest at the rate of 14.70% per annum with regard to the cash credit facility from the date of filing of the original application till payment/ realization be granted. The submission made by Mrs. Minas is fair and reasonable. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, I grant pendent lite and future interest at the rate of 15.60% per annum with regard to the medium term loan and pendent lite and future interest at the rate of 14.70% per annum with regard to the cash credit facility from the date of filing of the original application i.e. 07th May, 2015 till payment/ realization.

13. Upon careful scrutiny and the examination of the Original Application, analyzing the evidence and giving due weightage to the documentary evidence adduced by the applicant, I am of the view that there is no reason to disbelieve the claim made by the applicant bank.

14. In view of the observations hereinabove, the Original Application filed by the applicant deserves to be granted. Hence, I pass the following order:

ORDER SHEET

[APK] (OA No. 1320/2016) Page 7 of 7

ORDER

(A) Original Application No.1320/2016 is allowed with cost. (B) Defendant is ordered and directed to pay to the applicant the aggregate sum of Rs.5,03,569.77ps. (Rupees five lakhs three thousand five hundred and sixty-nine and paise seventy-seven only) (term loan) with pendent lite and future interest @ 15.60% p.a. from the date of filing of the original application i.e. 7th May, 2015 till payment/realization. (C) Defendant is ordered and directed to pay to the applicant the aggregate sum of Rs.6,38,880.64ps. (Rupees six lakhs thirty-eight thousand eight hundred and eighty and paise sixty-four only) (cash credit) with pendent lite and future interest @ 14.70% p.a. from the date of filing of the original application i.e. 7th May, 2015 till payment/realization. (D) Issue Recovery Certificate. (E) The Registrar to send the copy of Judgment

ORDER SHEET

[APK] (OA No. 1320/2016) Page 8 of 7 and Recovery Certificate to the applicant and defendant.

sd/-

(Deepak M Thakkar) I/c Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Mumbai