Allowed

Punjab National Bank v. M/s August Poultry Vihar and Others

DRT16 Dec 2022OA/168/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by Punjab National Bank to recover a debt of Rs 71,46,976/- along with interest. The court proceeded ex-parte as the defendants failed to appear, accepting the bank's documentary evidence and affidavit to determine the debt and future restoration of assets.

What did the court decide?

The defendants are jointly and severally ordered to pay the applicant bank Rs 71,46,976/- along with pendente-lite and future interest at 12% p.a. with compounded monthly rests from 21.02.2022 till re

Punjab National Bank versus M/s August Poultry… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2022)

¶1

OA 168 of 2022 [JJ

¶2

DRT,PATNA

¶3

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna

¶4

Karpuri Thakur Sadan, Aashiana Digha Road at PATNA-800025

¶5

Presiding Officer : Shri Kaushalendra Yadav

¶6

OA Case no. : 168of 2022

¶7

Punjab National Bank Branch Office Hajipur Vaishali

¶8

....... Applicant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

MIS August Poultry Vihar through its Proprietor Devanand Patel S/O Shri Brahamdeo Prasad RIO Village Karampura PO Jadua Hajipur Vaishali Bihar 844101

¶11

Devanand Patel S/O Shri Brahamdeo Prasad RIO Village Karampura PO Jadua Hajipur Vaishali Bihar 844101, PAN No AKKPP2479G

¶12

Brahamdeo Prasad S/o Late Beni Prasad, RIO Village Karampura PO Jadua Hajipur, District- Vaishali-844101

¶13

Ramanand Patel S/O Shri Brahamdeo Prasad RIO Village Karampura, PO- Jadua Hajipur, District- Vaishali-844101, PAN No BNIPP1514J

¶14

...Defendants.

¶15

Present:

¶16

For the Applicant : Shri Anurag Kumar proxy counsel for Shri Arvind Kumar Advocate For the Defendants : None

¶17

Dated: 16.12.2022

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

1- The Applicant bank has made this application U/S 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (here-in-after referred to as Act) on 21.02.2022 against the defendants to recover its debts from defendants of Rs 71,46,976/- as on 21.02.2022 along with Pendente-lite and future interest with a minimum interest of @13.50% in case of Term Loan and @12% in case of cash credit with monthly rests from 22.02.2022 with costs till realization.

¶20

2- The application has been duly registered and numbered as above.

¶21

3- The brief facts of the case of the applicant bank as stated in the application are as under-

¶22

The applicant bank, a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of undertaking Act 1970) having its Head Office at Plot No 04 Sector 10 Dwarka New Delhi 110075 and Having one of its SASTRA Office at Circle Office

OA 1680(2022 [J)

DRT,PATNA

Muzaffarpur Aghoriya Bazar Muzaffarpur Bihar inter alia carrying on business among other places also at Branch Office Hajipur Vaishali Bihar

¶27

The defendant No 1 is a Proprietorship Firm and its working is fully and completely under his control. Defendant No 1 carries on business of Egg Layering do all other necessary and ancillary works in this regard. Defendant No 3 and 4 are Guarantors. The defendant No 1 approached and applied for the Term Loan limit of Rs 39.72 Lac and Cash Credit Limit of Rs 19.95 Lac for the poultry business to the applicant Bank. On the aforesaid request of Defendant Nol and after considering the worthiness of the Guarantor offered by the defendant No 1 the Applicant Bank sanctioned Cash Credit Facility. The defendants executed the various loan documents i.e. term loan agreement, hypothecation of goods and book debts, agreement of guarantee and defendants further created registered mortgage by deposit of title deed on 17.9.2015 details given at page 16 & 17in schedule-I ofOA.

¶28

All the transactions were entered in the ledger of the loan accounts in the name of the defendant duly maintained by the applicant bank in its usual course of business. After availing the sanctioned credit facilities became irregular in repayment of their dues as per agreed terms and failed to adhere to the financial norms of the bank and avoiding the repayment of its dues to the bank, in spite of several assurances given by it to the applicant bank resulting in the account turning as NPA on 31.03.2021.

¶29

Thus the total liability in the loan account is Rs 71,46,976/- with pendent-lite and future interest with a minimum @13.50%in case of Term Loan and @12% in case of Cash Credit with monthly rests Per Annum from 22.02.2022 till the realization.

¶30

The interest /compound interest has been charged at such rates, and capitalized at such periodical rests as are permitted by and do not run counter to the directives of Reserve Bank of India.

¶31

Since, the defendants have failed and neglected in spite of several reminders to make payment of the dues recoverable to bank, hence this application has been filed by the bank.

¶32

4- D/s 19 (4) of the Act & Rule of the DRT [Procedure] Rules, 1993, copies of application & paper book was sent by this Tribunal to the defendants by registered/speed post on 14/05/2022 and summons/notices issued requiring the defendants to show-cause within 30 days of the service of summons/notices as to why relief prayed for, should not be granted.

¶33

Despite the registered summons/notices and despite service by the registered post, which is evident from the tracking report and the sufficient time has been given to the defendants to defend their case, the defendants failed to appear and to file WS, hence, the Tribunal has passed an order to proceed ex-parte against the defendants on 18.7.2022.

OA 1680(2022 [J]

DRT,PATNA

5- To prove its case, the applicant Bank has referred various certified photocopies of documents before this Tribunal. The applicant bank has also given evidence on affidavit by way of affidavit by Shri Satyendra Kumar Jha, Chief Manager of the applicant bank. The details of documents are as follows. ;-

¶38

SI.No	Description of photocopies Documents	Date of Execution	Amount	Signature of executant	Ex.! Ann. No.
1	Loan Application	22.9.2015	Rs.60 lakh	defendant no. 1 & 2	1
2	Limit Sanction Letter	22.9.2015	Rs.60 lakh	bank	2
3	Hypothecation Agreement	23.9.2015	...	defendant no. 1 & 2	3
4	Guarantee Agreement	23.9.2015	.......	defendant no. 3 & 4	4
5	copy of deed	...	...	...	5
6	Balance and Security Confirmation Letter	15.12.2018	...	defendant no. 1 & 2	6
7	Statement of Accounts	as on 20.2.2022	Rs.71,46,9761-	bank	7

¶39

6- Opportunity of hearing has been fully given to both the parties, but despite several opportunities given to defendants, the defendants have not appeared to contest the case, hence, the ex-parte arguments of learned counsel for applicant bank were heard and perused the case record.

¶40

Ld. counsel of applicant bank submitted that the defendants have taken the loan and utilized the same and also executed the various loan documents to secure the loan. Further, submitted that the claim of the bank has been proved by documentary evidence.

¶41

It is further submitted by ld. Counsel of applicant bank that there is no any stay granted by any Higher Court, in respect of the proceedings of the present OA and requested to issue recovery certificate, as claimed for, inOA.

¶42

7- It has been established that defendants are living and carrying on their business in the state of Bihar. Cause of action also arose in the State of Bihar. The said claim on the date of filing of application exceeded Rs.20 lacs. The applicant bank is functioning within jurisdiction of this tribunal. Therefore, this Tribunal has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present application.

¶43

8- On the issue of Limitation, to prove it, the applicant bank has submitted that the applicant bank has declared the account as NPA on 31.03.2021, whereas the present application has been filed on 21.02.2022 Even, it is counted for the purpose of Limitation, then it is established that the applicant bank has filed the case within the limitation period. As such, it is established that present application has been filed well within the period of limitation.

OA 168 of2022 (J)

DRT,PATNA

9- In the affidavit of Shri Satyendra Kumar Jha, Chief Manager of the applicant bank, has stated that he is well acquainted with the facts of the case and has on verification of record, sworn in the affidavit in support of contents of application and the documents as evidence and established on oath the pleadings and documents of the applicant bank as stated above.

¶48

The documents as stated above reveal that the defendants have applied for loan and the bank had sanctioned the loan and to secure the loan and for repayment of loan amount with interests etc., the defendants have executed various loan documents, which strength the case of the applicant bank.

¶49

The applicant bank has also furnished statement of account as above, which is not only admissible but shall be taken as correct statement of account, more so since the entries in the statement of account has not been challenged.

¶50

10Since, the case was proceeded ex-parte against defendants, all contentions raised and documents produced by plaintiff remained unrebutted and the tribunal may act upon the affidavit of the applicant as per law. Defendants have neither denied the utilization of funds advanced by applicant bank nor have pointed out any specific error and discrepancy in the Statement of Account, which is kept in due course of business, evidence on affidavit, which has supported the claim of the applicant bank, established to have fully correct and believable. Provisions contained in Rule 9(2) of Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 provide that the documents referred in the application shall be duly stated by senior officer of the bank, or financial institution as the case may be and numbered accordingly. The rule 12 (10) provides that the provisions contained in section 4 of the Banker's Books evidence that Act, 1891 (18 of 1891) shall applied to certified copy of an entry in a Banker's Books furnished along with application filed under sub section 1 of section 19 by the applicant.

¶51

11On consideration of the arguments and on perusal of the application, documents and affidavit, it is proved that the applicant bank has granted the loan facility, documents were executed by the defendants and facility was availed by the defendants as stated in the application.

¶52

12The applicant bank has sought for recovery of a sum of Rs71,46,976/- with cost and further interest at the contractual rate from 21.02.2022 till realization.

¶53

13Learned Advocate appearing for applicant bank submits that the applicant bank has charged interest in terms of the agreements and that interest has been charged at such rates, and capitalized at such periodical rests as are permitted by and do not run counter to the directives of Reserve Bank of India.

OA 168 of 2022 [J]

DRT,PATNA

14On consideration of the arguments and on perusal of the pleadings, documents and affidavit, it is proved that the applicant has charged interest against defendants in terms of documents and as per directives of RBI.

¶58

15None of the defendants appeared before the tribunal to contest the claim made by the applicant, therefore, it necessarily goes to establish that the claim made by the applicant bank is genuine and true. It is manifest that the defendants have not disputed the claim, therefore, the claim referred to the tribunal is recoverable till full and final realization of the claim.

¶59

16In Indian Bank Vs. Blue Jaggers Estates Limited and others [2010] 8 SCC 129,the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed as under-

¶60

"The Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the bank is a trustee of public fund. It cannot compromise the public interest for benefiting private individuals. Those who take loan and avail financial facilities from the bank are duty bound to repay the amount strictly in accordance with the terms of the contract. Any lapse in such matters has to be viewed seriously and the bank is not only entitled but duty bound to recover the amount by adopting all legally permissible methods. Parliament enacted the act because it was found that legal mechanism available till then was wholly insufficient for recovery of the outstanding dues of the banks and Financial Institutions."

¶61

17In my view, Facts of the case stand proved by evidence of the applicant bank ex-parte. Accordingly, The applicant bank is entitled to recover from defendants jointly and severally of Rs 71,46,976/- along with pendente-lite and future interest @12% p.a. with compounded monthly rests from 21.02.2022 (The date of filing of this O.A.) till realization. So the final order may be passed accordingly, to meet the ends ofjustice.

¶62

ORDER

¶63

In the result, the application of the applicant bank is, allowed exparte and debt is determined with costs against the defendants. The defendantsare hereby jointly and severally, ordered to pay the applicant bank it's debts amounting to Rs 71,46,976/- along with pendente-lite and future interest @12% p.a. with compounded monthly rests from 21.02.2022 (The date of filing of this O.A.) till realization of the entire sum due and recoverable with costs.

¶64

It is made clear that any amount deposited by the defendants, be deducted in the claim amount, if not deducted.

¶65

Defendants are debarred from transferring, alienating encumbering or otherwise dealing with or disposing of the mortgaged or hypothecated or any other properties and assets without paying the aforesaid adjudicated dues to the applicant bank to secure the ends ofjustice.

· .,

OA 168 0£2022 [J]

DRT,PATNA

Let a certificate of recovery be drawn up forthwith and put up for signatures in terms of provisions contained in Section 19(22) of the Act to be issued, on the basis of the order of the Tribunal to the Recovery Officer. The Recovery Officer shall realize the amount as per the certificate in the manner and mode prescribed under the Act from the defendants, by sale of mortgaged! hypothecated assets as well as other personal movable/immovable assets of the defendants.

¶71

Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT, Patna on 3.2.2023. The order be communicated accordingly.

¶72

Judgment signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open court ~ on ie" Day of December, 2022.

¶73

~ ..( ~\-v.,,/ [Kaushalendra Yadav] Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna

¶74

Dictated &corrected by me.

Punjab National Bank v. M/s August Poultry Vihar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. M/s August Poultry Vihar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Supreme Bed House versus Punjab National Bank

Mr Vijaykumar R Bhakhaswala and Ors. versus Cholamandlam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

Mrs Sheela So Sunil Laxmanrao Kurrewar versus Home First Finance Company

Punjab National Bank versus Ms Vaishali Enterprises and Others

Punjab National Bank versus M/s Swastika Agencies and others

Indian Overseas Bank versus K Gurunadham