Original Application No. 218 of 2004. Case: Bank of Baroda Vs Dharampal Sales Corporation and Ors.. Mumbai Debt Recovery Tribunals

Case NumberOriginal Application No. 218 of 2004
CounselFor Appellant: Santosh Kanchan, Adv., i/b., M.V. Kini and Co. and For Respondents: Mahesh Menon, Adv., i/b., Mahesh Menon and Co.
JudgesK.J. Paratwar, Presiding Officer
IssueSecuritisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - Section 19(25)
CitationII (2006) BC 244
Judgement DateJuly 19, 2005
CourtMumbai Debt Recovery Tribunals

Judgment:

K.J. Paratwar, Presiding Officer

  1. This is an application for recovery of following amounts:

    Rs. 26,87,827/- from the defendants being dues under overdraft facility together with further interest thereon @ 13.50% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of the filing of the original application till payment and/or full realisation.

    Rs. 7,27,460/- from the defendants being dues under demand loan facility together with further interest thereon @ 13.50% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of the filing of the original application till payment and/or full realisation.

    The aforesaid amount is sought to be recovered by liquidating mortgaged property of the defendant No. 2 being Flat No. 42, admeasuring 700 sq. ft. being on the 4th Floor of Juhu Ashish Cooperative Housing Society Limited situated at Plot No. 1 of Suit Plot No. 1, off North South Road No. 10 Juhu Vile Parle Scheme, Mumbai-400049.

  2. The borrower (defendant No, 2) carries business in the name of defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 3 is sued as guarantor.

  3. The applicant's case is that on or about 11th October, 2002 it had sanctioned overdraft facility of Rs. 25 lakh to the defendant No, 1 against mortgage of the defendant No. 2 above mentioned flat and guarantee by the defendant No. 3. The defendant No. 1 executed Demand Promissory Note, Hypothecation agreement and deposited title deeds with intention to create equitable mortgage. The defendant No. 3 gave letter of guarantee. On or about 2nd July, 2003 cash credit facility of Rs. 4,75,000/- was sanctioned and on or about 30th December, 2003 overdraft of Rs. 25 lakh was extended and additional loan of Rs. 6,80 lakh was sanctioned against the extension of the equitable mortgage earlier created. The defendant Nos. 1/2 availed of the loan/credit facilities. However, repayments were not made as agreed. Several defaults were committed but the payment was not made despite repeated demands. Therefore, this original application is filed.

  4. The defendants did not appear though served.

  5. The applicant had filed application (Exhibit 13) seeking direction to the respondent (Standard Chartered Bank) to deposit sale proceeds of the mortgaged flat since it sold the mortgaged flat under SRFAESI Act, 2002. The respondent initially did not appear. By order dated 20th May, 2005 this Tribunal had directed the respondent to deposit the amount with show cause notice as to why such order should not be made absolute. The respondent then appeared...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT