Appeal No. 111 of 2015. Case: Glare Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs ING Vysya Bank Ltd. and Ors.. Delhi DRAT DRAT (Delhi Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals)

Case NumberAppeal No. 111 of 2015
CounselFor Appellant: Vibha Mahajan Seth, Advocate and For Respondents: S.K. Garg, Advocate
JudgesRanjit Singh, J. (Chairperson)
CitationIV (2015) BC 105 (DRAT)
Judgement DateJuly 17, 2015
CourtDelhi DRAT DRAT (Delhi Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals)


Ranjit Singh, J. (Chairperson)

  1. The O.A. filed by the respondent Bank stands allowed for recovery of Rs. 1,58,93,629/-. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have been held jointly and severally liable for this recovery. The Bank is also held entitled to recover costs, expenses and interest @ 14% simple from the date of filing to the O.A. till realization. The Tribunal has further directed that in the event of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 failing to deposit the said amount within 30 days, then the Bank would be entitled to sell the property bearing No. LA Bhat, Village Rangari, Tehsil Kullu, District Manali (HP), besides the sale of 30% of the property bearing No. 3-B, Pusa Road, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi for realizing the dues of the Bank. The appellant, who is neither borrower nor guarantor but third-party intervenor, is aggrieved against that part of the order holding the Bank entitled to sell 30% of the property at 3-B, Pusa Road, New Delhi by pleading that it had purchased this property as it was not under any attachment when it purchased the same.

  2. To take note of the factual matrix, it is noticed that respondent No. 2 being proprietor of M/s. Shree Ambica Carrier had availed certain credit facilities to which respondent No. 3 was guarantor. The Bank had sanctioned a commercial vehicle loan for a sum of Rs. 28 lac for the purchase of Tata Make Trucks of 3516 Model on 28.7,2007 to respondent No. 2. The loan amount was repayable in 45 monthly instalments of Rs. 80,441/- each. Respondent No. 2 had executed a demand promissory note and agreement for vehicle loan and hypothecation besides the irrevocable general power of attorney, etc. on 30.7.2007. Two more vehicles loans were also sanctioned on 28.12.2007 for a sum of Rs. 30 lac and similar documents were executed by respondent No. 2 on 28.12.2007.

  3. The Bank has alleged that after availing this facility, the respondent borrower siphoned off the money, which they had taken for the purpose of building the body of the vehicles, and diverted and utilized the same for construction of a hotel at Manali. On account of non-payment, the Bank made repeated requests to the respondent and they ultimately surrendered the vehicles which were then got valuated and sold for a sum of Rs. 49,14,336/-.

  4. At the time of surrender of vehicles it was noticed that M/s. Thermoking India Pvt. Ltd. (respondent No. 4) was given an advance of Rs. 12.75 lac on the request of respondent No. 2 for the purpose of providing refrigeration system in the vehicles. The same amount was not provided by respondent No. 4 and hence the Bank was making prayer for refund of this amount from respondent No. 4.

  5. In response to the notice, respondent borrower filed reply pleading that due to agitation by general public in Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh in 2007 they were not allowed to carry meant to pass through these States and so their business was struck. The borrower claimed to have sought permission from the Bank for converting the said vehicles into some other general vehicles so that they could earn profit and clear instalments. The borrower would plead that they had given three options to the Bank which were, surrender of vehicles, conversion of vehicles into semi flat trailers and...

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