GIRIJA SHARMA v. BANK OF BARODA, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The present Suit Application (S.A.) was filed by Smt. Girija Sharma on 11.09.2018 and amended on 18.12.2018 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur, challenging notices issued under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act. The applicant contended that she never received or was served with these notices and disputed the issuance of symbolic and physical possession by the respondent bank. She denied standing as a guarantor for the credit facility availed by M/s Weavetex Fashions, a proprietorship firm owned by her son, Sh. Manish Swami, residing with her. The applicant also alleged forgery of her signatures on mortgage and guarantee documents by the bank officials. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had filed a prior S.A. No. 144/18 against another bank concerning a different property and loan facility, which was dismissed with costs. The present case involves disputed loan amounts totaling over Rs. 3.5 crores availed by her son and daughter-in-law from two banks, with the applicant denying involvement in the mortgage or guarantee of the loan facilities.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the notices issued under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act were validly served upon the applicant.

Whether the applicant stood as a guarantor or executed mortgage documents related to the credit facilities availed by M/s Weavetex Fashions and other firms owned by her son and daughter-in-law.

Whether the alleged forgery of the applicant's signatures on mortgage and guarantee documents by the bank officials is substantiated.

Whether the applicant's challenge to the bank's possession proceedings and recovery actions is sustainable.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

Denied standing as guarantor in the credit facility availed by M/s Weavetex Fashions.

Denied signing any mortgage documents related to the property at Plot no. A-764, Jaipur.

Asserted that the property was rented out prior to the mortgage, supported by rent agreements dated 30.09.1999 and 15.12.2015.

Alleged forgery of her signatures on mortgage and guarantee documents by the respondent bank officials.

Denied receipt of any notices from the respondent bank and challenged the legality of all bank actions including notices and possession proceedings.

Claimed victimization and harassment at her age of 70 years, deprived illegally of her rights and property.

Respondent Bank's Arguments

Asserted that the S.A. was filed with ulterior motives and criminal intent to cause wrongful loss to the bank.

Noted that the applicant habitually raises the same pleas denying guarantor status, loan availing, and signing documents, including allegations of forgery.

Questioned the motive behind alleged forgery since the loan was availed by the applicant's son who directly benefited.

Pointed out that the applicant never accused her son or took steps to investigate the origin of mortgage documents.

Observed that the signatures on the mortgage and guarantee documents matched the applicant's own signatures, undermining forgery claims.

Alleged collusion between the applicant and her son to cheat the bank and avoid repayment of loans.

Characterized the S.A. as frivolous and based on false grounds, with habitual filing of bogus litigations by the applicant.

Noted ongoing recovery proceedings by the respondent and another bank, with the applicant and her family enjoying borrowed money without repayment intent.

Highlighted contradictory statements by the applicant regarding sale or rent of the mortgaged property, demonstrating mala fide intentions.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Tribunal examined the grounds presented by the applicant and found them to be repetitive, frivolous, and motivated by an intent to wrongfully evade loan repayment. The court noted the habitual nature of the applicant's pleas denying involvement in the loan transactions and allegations of forgery, which were unsupported by credible evidence. The Tribunal observed that the signatures on the mortgage and guarantee documents matched the applicant's own signatures, negating forgery claims. The applicant's failure to implicate her son or investigate the origin of documents further undermined her case. Contradictory statements about the property's status (sale versus rent) were taken as evidence of mala fide intent. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant and her family conspired to cheat the bank and obstruct recovery, rendering the application baseless and liable to be dismissed with costs.

Holding and Implications

The application filed by Smt. Girija Sharma is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- payable to the respondent bank.

The direct consequence of this decision is the rejection of the applicant's challenge to the notices, mortgage documents, and possession proceedings initiated by the respondent bank. The order imposes a financial cost on the applicant, reinforcing the Tribunal's stance against frivolous and mala fide litigation. No new legal precedent was established by this decision; it primarily serves to uphold the validity of the bank's recovery process against the applicant and her family members.

GIRIJA SHARMA v. BANK OF BARODA

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur Case No. S.A. 182/18

Girija Sharma V/s BOB

Date : 14.02.2019

Present

Shri Arvind Gupta, Counsel for the Applicant, argued on behalf of the applicant 01.02.2019

Shri Rakesh Choudhary, Counsel for the Respondent bank, argued on behalf of the respondent bank on

01.02.2019

Present S.A. was filed on 11.09.2018 and amended S.A. was filed on 18.12.2018. Perused the grounds of S.A. and found that para no. 5.01 to 5.11 are same and so grounds of S.A till XVII are also same. New grounds from para XVIII to XXXI were added.

In totality, the applicant has challenged notices u/s 13 (2) and 13 (4) of the Act, on the ground that none of the notices were received by her or were never served upon her. She has challenged all the process issued by the defendant bank in respect of issue of notices, symbolic possession and physical possession etc. The applicant has also argued that she never stood as a guarantor in the credit facility availed by M/s Weavetex Fashions. M/s Weavetex Fashions is a proprietorship firm, owned by Sh. Manish Swami, R/o R- 254, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur and son of the S.A applicant Smt. Girija Sharma, living together in the same residence.

Perused the original S.A. was well as amended S.A. and gone through the copies of documents enclosed with the S.A. Heard arguments of both Ld. Counsel on behalf of the parties.

The objections raised by the applicant are as under:-

1. That she never stood as a Guarantor in the credit facility availed by M/s Weavetex Fashions with the respondent bank.

2. That she never signed any document related to mortgage of the property at Plot no. A-764 (Old no.

A-166), Siddarth Nagar, Block-A, Jawahar Nagar, JLN Road, Jaipur (Hereinafter referred as

"property").

3. That she gave the above property on rent to Mrs. Astha Jain, through an agreement and agreement to rent dt. 30.09.1999 and 15.12.2015 respectively. These agreements were executed before the execution of loan document on 17.04.2017.

4. That she took plea that she never signed any document in respect of mortgage of the property with the respondent bank, she never stood as a guarantor in the credit facility.

5. That, she alleged the bank authorities of respondent bank that they have forged her signatures on the documents related to the mortgage of the property and documents of guarantor. Following is the contention in this regard:-

"The humble applicant has been made victim of fraud and collusion and is being harassed at the age of 70 years who is also being deprived from her valuable right and property in such an illegal manner which is not sustainable in the eye of law."

6. At last she denied to having received any notice from the respondent bank and all the acts of the bank are illegal void and so are liable to be quashed and set- aside.

Before giving any conclusion it is necessary to have a look on the S.A. no. 144/18, filed by the same applicant Smt. Girija Sharma before this Tribunal. The present applicant i.e. Smt. Girija Sharma, has moved one more S.A. no. 144/18 against the Syndicate Bank and in that she alleged that she never mortgaged the property at B-254, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur to the bank in the credit facility granted to M/s Kaman Exim whose proprietor are none other than Smt. Nisha Swami w/o Shri Manish Swami, who is her son.

Smt. Girija Sharma, raised serious allegations against Sh. Desh Raj Meena, the then manager of the respondent bank, in the S.A. no. 144/18 and held liable the bank officers for forgioing the mortgage and guarantee documents.

In S.A. no. 144/18, she also alleged that she never availed any loan facility and never executed any document in the bank.

For the sake of convenience, following are the details in respect of credit/ loan facility availed by Sh. Manish Swami S/o the applicant in different name of firm etc. Name of the Amount Date of Name Details of Owner of Outstanding firm & sanctioned sanction of the property the amount owner as loan bank mortgaged mortgaged

property

M/s Rs. 17.04.2 BOB Plot no A- Smt. Girija Rs. Weavetex 95.00 017 764, Sharma 85,47,187/-

Fashion Lakhs Siddharth +interest

owner- Cash Nagar,

Sh. Credit Block-A,

Manish Limit Jawahar

Swami Circle,

JLN Road

Jaipur

M/s Rs. 2.50 Syndi Plot no. Smt. Girija Rs.

Kaman Crore cate B-254, Sharma 2,66,58,861.26 Exim Working Bank Malviya +interest

Owner- Capital Nagar,

Smt. Limit Jaipur

Nisha

Swami

Total amount of loan availed by son and daughter-in-law of 3,45,00,000/- Applicant Smt. Girija Sharma

Total amount as outstanding 3,52,06,048.26

The S.A. no. 144/18 was dismissed by this

Tribunal on 23.01.2019 with the cost of Rs. 50,000/-. O.A. no. 755/18 Bank of Baroda Vs. M/s

Weavetex Fashion filed on 06.09.2018 and O.A. no.

44/2019 Syndicate Bank Vs. M/s Kaman Exim & Ors.

filed on 26.12.2018, are pending, for recovery of

outstanding dues.

Present S.A. is also based on bogus grounds and

so is liable to rejected mainly on the following grounds:-

1. The applicant Smt. Girija Sharma, filed this S.A. with ulterior motive, on false grounds, with an criminal intent to cause wrongful loss to the respondent bank as she alongwith her son Sh. Manish Swami tired their level best to stop the bank from recovering

their dues of Rs. 95,47,187/- by way of filing present

S.A.

2. That the applicant Smt. Girija Sharma is habitual of taking same pleas, such as never stood as guarantor, never availed any loan or credit facility, never signed any documents and bank officials forged her signature.

3. It is not clear that if a bank officer of the respondent bank forged her signature on the mortgaged /guarantee document, than what was the motive behind it because in any case loan/credit facility was availed by her son Sh. Manish Swami and he was directly benefited with the loan/credit amount.

4. That she always alleged the bank officials not only in the present S.A. but in other S.A. no. 144/18 also but, never alleged her son and never took any step to find out that how original documents of the property reached in bank.

5. A careful perused of signatures of the applicant on each page of S.A. and on the documents related to mortgage/guarantee, it is clear that these signatures are of same person, therefore, I do not find any force in the allegation of forging her signature by bank officials, as motive of forging her signature by bank officers is also not clear.

6. That the applicant alleged the bank officials but never alleged anything against her son, the reason behind it, is clear, that she is hands in gloves with her son and the intention of both of them was clear, that is to cheat the bank and not to repay the outstanding loan amount.

7. That the entire S.A. based on frivolous grounds and none of the fact is acceptable as based on criminal intent the applicant is habitual of filing such bogus S.A. also.

8. It is also clear that the respondent bank as well as syndicate bank are struggling for recovery of their outstanding dues by way of filing OA's before this Tribunal and the S.A. applicant alongwith his son and daughter-in-law are enjoying with the borrowed money and do not have any intent to pay back. Rather they are habitual of filing false/bogus litigations.

In S.A. at page 12, ground (ix) the applicant took plea that "Actually property was already sold to Ms. Astha

Jain prior to creation of mortgage" is also false as she admitted in Para 5.4 at page no. of S.A. that she rented out the property to Ms. Astha Jain on 15.12.2015. These misleading and contradictory statements of sale/rent are itself sufficient to prove the malafide of the S.A. applicant.

Accordingly, the present S.A. of the applicant is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- payable to the respondent bank.

Copy of the order be given free to the parties. File be placed before the Registrar for compliance. After compliance file be consigned to record. Presiding Officer

DRT, Jaipur

SA/182/2018

GIRIJA SHARMA v. BANK OF BARODA

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

Respondent Bank's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

GIRIJA SHARMA v. BANK OF BARODA

Comments