BANK OF INDIA vs M/s Maltose Agri products Private Ltd Rep by its Managing Director Sri.T.Anand on 27 March 2025

ORDER

1. This Original Application was originally filed and got numbered as OA No.836/2016, which got transferred to this Tribunal and got renumbered as TA No.764/2017, seeking issuance of the Recovery Certificate for Rs.3,71,38,000/- and to allow the same to be recovered with further interest from the Defendants.

2. The case of the applicant as stated in the OA can be encapsulated as under:

2.1 The 1st defendant represented by the 2nd defendant and 3rd defendant as the guarantor had availed the following facilities from the applicant bank.

1. Term loan I - Rs.125 Lakhs

2. Term II - Rs.50 Lakhs

3. Term loan III - Rs.65 lakhs

4. Cash credit - Rs.15 lakhs

5. FITL- I - Rs.64 lakhs

6. FILT- II - Rs.40 lakhs Hence according to the applicant, credit facilities totalling Rs.359 lakhs; one Cash credit for Rs.15,00,000/-and term loans for Rs.3,44,00,000/- were availed by the defendants by execution of loan documents and security documents.

3. It is also the case of the applicant that in lieu of security for the credit facilities, mortgage over the schedule properties were created.

4. It is further contended by the applicant that despite availing the credit facilities by undertaking to pay back the credit facilities, they failed in compliance of the same and defaulted in repayment. However, a Balance and Security confirmation was executed by Defendants on 31.07.2013. As the defendants failed in repaying the loan amount due, this application is filed to recover the loan amount due.

5. This application was originally allowed ex-parte on 18.03.2017 and the ex-parte order was set aside by the order passed in IA.1569/2017.

6. The defendants had, thereafter on 25.9.2018, filed their statement contending inter alia that the 1st defendant submitted a report for setting up a Bio-gas Plant and rural go-down as the defendants 2 and 3 were conducting a poultry farm. The applicant bank had caused irregular disbursement in lieu of which a complaint was lodged before the Banking Ombudsman. It is also stated that, only because of dereliction in duty of the applicant, the business could not be carried on effectively and sustained loss. It is also contended that the claim of the applicant is barred by limitation and that the mortgage is in respect of agricultural properties and as such the same is unsustainable. The defendant is also disputing as to the rate of interest approved in respect of FITL term loans.

7. It is also the case of the defendants that the guidelines of Central government were not followed by the applicant.

8. The applicant had let-in evidence through AW1 and got marked the documents as Ext A3 to A69 in evidence on 3.12.2019. The detailed list of documents marked from the side of applicant is enlisted in the schedule apprehended to the order. Despite granting many opportunities, the defendants had not let- in any evidence in support of their defence.

9. In view of pleadings as raised from both sides, the following questions arise for consideration: i) Whether the case of the applicant as put forth in the OA is proved? ii) Whether there is any dereliction on the part of the Applicant in disbursal of the loan as alleged in the statement of the defendants? iii) Orders as to the relief, cost and interest?

Since all these issues are inter-related, the same are gone into and decided together.

10. The applicant had let-in evidence through AW1 who filed proof affidavit in terms of the pleadings in the OA. The applicant had produced the Board Resolution of the borrower company which evidences that the facilities were sought and availed by the 1st defendant company. The loan documents which include the loan agreement, Demand promissory note, Deed of guarantee and instalment letters evidence that the facilities were availed agreeing for the terms and conditions enumerated there in. The balance confirmation letter along with the uncontroverted evidence as referred to above leads to the unequivocal conclusion that the defendants availed the credit facilities obliging themselves to pay back the amount promptly and regularly without fail.

11. It is also to be noted that even the defendants in their statement have no dispute as to the availment, disbursement or even to the defaults occurred in the loan accounts. Even otherwise, the statement of accounts duly certified and produced by the applicant evidences the defaults and the outstanding amounts as claimed in the OA. In view of the admission as to the availment of credit facilities by the defendants, there cannot be any dispute as to the obligation of the Defendants to pay back the amount.

12. The defence put up by the defendants in their statement is so flimsy and shaking as there is no proof as to alleged deficiency in service on the part of the applicant bank. The next contention as to the nature of mortgage of property also have no foot to stand. The defendants, despite given sufficient opportunity, failed to adduce any defence evidence and the unsubstantiated contentions taken in defence cannot be accepted.

13. Since the applicant was forced to approach this Tribunal for recovery of the loan amounts due, there cannot be any doubt as to the liability of the Defendants to pay the cost of the proceedings.

14. In view of the above, the only conclusion this Tribunal can enter into is that all these issues or questions arise for consideration are to be answered in positive in favour of the applicant bank and hence this application is liable to be allowed.

15. Taking into consideration the fact that the facilities were availed pertains to the agricultural activities such as poultry business and also the fact that the OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at agreed rate, the pendente lite and future interest is to be awarded @ 10% (simple).

16. In the result :- i) TA No.764 of 2017 is allowed; ii) The applicant is allowed to recover the amount of Rs.3,71,38,000/- (Rupees three crore seventy one lakh thirty eight thousand only) with pendente lite and further interest @ 10% per annum (simple) from the Defendants jointly, severally and allow the same to be recovered by proceeding against the schedule property; iii) If the sale proceeds are sufficient to wipe off the liability, the Defendants are jointly, severally and Defendants 2 and 3 are personally liable to be proceeded against for the recovery of the amount due; iv) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings for which applicant to file cost memo in 7 days from the date of receipt of this order; v) A Recovery Certificate to be drawn in terms of this order to enable recovery; vi) Interim Application pending, if any, stands disposed of with this Final Order and vii) A copy of this order be communicated to the parties concerned in terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the Act read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules 1993. (Dictated to my PA directly on the Computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27th day of March 2025) Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER