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.
1
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.
2
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
3
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
4
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
5