Allowed

Punjab National Bank v. Shri Indrajeet

DRT19 Sept 2022OA/180/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an ex-parte application by Punjab National Bank to recover dues of Rs. 70,91,763.86 from a defaulting borrower who failed to repay an overdraft facility and complied with the demand notice.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 70,91,763.86 plus 10% interest from date of application; sale of defendant's assets if not paid; injunction against transferring properties.

Punjab National Bank versus Shri Indrajeet — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2022)

¶1

IN T}IE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT LUCKNOW

¶2

Present: A.H. Khan, Presiding Officer

¶3

Case No. Original Application No.l80 of 2022

¶4

Dated:19.9.2022

¶5

Punjab National Bank, a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking), Act 1970 having its Head Office at Plot No.4, Sector-10, Dwarka, Delhi and a Branch Assets Recovery Branch, KJ-I3, Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP.

¶6

......Applicant Bank

¶7

Versus

¶8

Shri Indrajeet, S/o Mahendra Singh, CG-6, Ajay Vihar, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, Up201002. Also At: Residential plot No.l, Khasra No.1519, Meghraj Enclave Village, Raispur, Pargana Dasna Tehsil and District Ghaziabad, UP.

¶9

........Defendant

¶10

Counsel for the applicant-Bank : Mr. Madhav Kumar pathak. Advocate. Counsel forthe defendant : None.

¶11

JUDGMENT

¶12

This Original Application has been filed b1, the applicant Bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against defendant for the recovery of Rs.70,91 ,763.861- (Rupees Seventy Lac, Ninety One Thousand, Seven Hundred Sixty Three and paisa Eighty Six only) together with pendentelite and future interest, costs and other

¶13

,t) rehets etc. / ./ V /\ ,/. ,/

¶14

O.A. No.l80 of2022

¶15

¶16

The brief facts ofthe case are that the defendant is borrower. The defendant vide loan application approached the bank for grant of Overdraft Loan facility of Rs.55.00 lac, which was duly considered and sanctioned by the bank on 03.12.2015 on certain terms and conditions (Annexure No.A-l/2 to Annexure No.A-l /4) to this original application. 3. To secure the above Overdraft Loan facility of Rs.55.00 lac, the defendant had executed and signed various security documents in favour of the applicant-bank on 03.12.2015 like Process Note, Undertaking, Agreement of Overdraft Loan and Letter of Hypothecation (Annexure No.A-ll5 to Annexure No.A-l/8) to this original application.

¶17

Further in order to secure the repayment of bank dues, the defendant had created mortgage of his immovable property i.e. Residential Plot No.l. Khasra No.l5l9. Meshai Enclave. Villaee Raispur. Parsana Dasna. Tehsil and District Ghaziabad. UP area admeasurins 102 sq yards with boundaries East: 20 ft widE road. West: Other property. North: 20 ft wide road and South: Plot No2 in favour of the applicant-bank by depositing oftitle deed ofthe property (Annexure No.A-1l9) to this original application.

¶18

The defendant had accepted the debts by executing Balance and Security Confirmation Letter dated 30.12.2107 & 01.12.2018 (Annexure No.A-1/10) to this original application.

¶19

For availing the aforesaid credit facility the applicant Bank had opened a loan account in the names of defendant in order to maintain the accounts of the said loan facility.

¶20

After availing the aforesaid credit facility, the defendant failed to maintain financial discipline and also failed to comply with the terms at),

¶21

O.A. No.l80 of 2022

¶22

conditions, consequently, the loan account of the defendant was classified as NPA on 30.6.2019 by the bank as per RBI guidelines (Annexure No.A-l/lI), therefore, the applicant-bank isgued Demand Notice dated 06.7.2llg under Section 13(2) of the SARI'AESI Act 2002 (Annexure No.A-l/l2) to the defendant, but he did not considered the same and the loan account ofthe defendant is still unJiquidated, hence, this Original Application has been instituted.

¶23

As per books of the bank maintained in the usual and ordinary course of banking business, an outstanding of Rs.70,91,763.86/- (Rupees Seventy Lac, Ninety One Thousand, Seven Hundred Six,ty Three and Paisa Eighty Six Only) including interest upto 30. I 1.2021 were lying due for payment, for which, the defendant is liable to repay the same, which he did not pay despite repeated requests and demands. The applicantbank has filed the copy of Statement of Account (Annexure No.A-l/13) to this original application.

¶24

g. The cause of action for filing the present application arose firstly on03.12.2015 the aforesaid overdraft loan facility was sanctioned by the applicant-Bank and the same were availed by defendant and necessary documents were executed. The cause of action further arose again on 06.7.2019 when the applicant-bank issued Demand Notice under Section l3(2) of the Act to the defendant recalling the entire outptanding dues l and he failed to pay the same.

¶25

The summons were served upon defendant throu{h registered

¶26

post, but the defendant did not tum up to corfiesffe case, hence, the

¶27

matter proceeded ex-parte against the defen

dant.

O.A. No.180 of2022

In support of the case, Sri Vir Singh, Chief Manager of the applicant Bank has filed affidavit (As per this original application). 12. On a careful scrutiny of the evidence on affidavit and Arurexure marked as (Annexure No.A-l/2 to Annexure No.A-l/l3 to this original application), it is proved that defendant had availed the abovementioned credit facility from the applicant bank by executing loan and security documents detailed as above in favour of the applicant-Bank. A perusal ofthe application, evidence and documents relied upon clearly show that defendant had utilized the credit facility as granted to him. The applicantbank had maintained the Books of account in the ordinpry course of banking business showing disbursal of the loan amount. It further shows that bank had regularly credited the amount paid by the defendant in the books of account. The Bank had also charged interest frorn time to time and the entries are relevant u/s 4 ofthe Bankers Books ofEvidence Act. It is also proved that the applicant bank's claim is within liiritation from execution of Balance and Security Confirmation Letter. Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the dues ofthe appticant-bank.

¶33

Accordingly, the defendant is directed to pay the balance dues to the applicant bank within a period of 2 months from the date ofjudgment failing which the applicant bank will be entitled to sell the personal assets/properties of defendant.

¶34

The applicant-bank has claimed interest @12.25% per annum in the toan Account together with pendent-lite and future interest till the date of its realization and costs. The contest between the applicant-bank and the defendant comes to an end and after filing of the O.A. as per the provisions of Section l9(2) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy

¶35

zt-t

¶36

O.A. No.l80 of 2022

¶37

Act, 1993 (as amended from time to time) which is analogous to Section 34 to the CPC, the Tribunal/Couft has discretion in awarding. pendet-lite and future interest. I am also supported in rny view by Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled Central bank of India vs. Ravindra and othors reported in AIR 2001 SC page 3095. On the basis of the loregoing discussion, interest of justice will be served if pendete-lite ancl future interest is granted @lO.0O% per annum in the Loan Account with monthly rate on reducing balance from the date of filing ol' rhe o.A. till the date of realization with costs.

¶38

l5' In the result, the original Application succeeds exparre against the defendant, with costs. The bank has proved the roan execution of loan documents in favourofthe bank. The defendant is liable to pay the dues of the bank and the hypothecated assets/mortgage propert), as well as personal property/properties of the defendant are liable to be sold.

¶39

It is, therefore, ordcred:-

¶40

(i) That the Original Application No.l80 of 2022 of the applicant bank for issuance of Recovery Certificate to the tune of Rs.70,91,763.861- (Rupees Seventy Lac, Ninety One Thousand, Seven Hundred Sixty Three and paisa Eighty Six Only) with interest @10.00% per annum in the loan account with monthly rest from the dare of filing of the Original Application till the loan is fully liquidated and costs succeeds and is hereby allowed exparte against de1-endant.

¶41

(ii) The defendant is directed to pay the dues within a period of /--' two months from the date of judgment, failirrg utrich the ,,/

No.l80 of 2022

(iii)

applicant bank will be entitled to recover the from the personal movables and immovable assets of the The applicant-Bank is entitled to recover amount by the sale of hypothecated assets/mortgage (Ifnot sold earlier under the provisions of the S.A.R.F S.l. Act, 2002) the, amount, if any recovered by sale of assets/mortgage property or otherwise shall be adjusted towards the debt and only the balance amc shall be recoverable. If the dues of the applicant still remain unsatisfied, the same be recovered by and sale of the personal movable and immovable of the defendant.

¶46

(iv)

¶47

(iv) The defendant is hereby restrained by means of injunction from depleting, transferring, encumbering, al any way dealing with his properties/ without first paying the claim ofthe applicant bank. (v) Let Recovery Certificate be issued u/s 19(22) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Fi Institution Act, 1993 by fixing 19.l2.2022,before R.O., ,^Lucknow. 17. The applicant bank is directed to file a memo of for preparing Recovery Certificate uls 19(22) of the Recovery o Bankruptcy Act, 1993.

¶48

/'-) t

¶49

Judgment is pronounced in the open

¶50

Dated:19.9.2022

¶51

Khan) ding Officer

Punjab National Bank v. Shri Indrajeet

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. Shri Indrajeet

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

Similar cases

Icici Bank Limited versus Abhishek Builders

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Vishakha Collection

Union Bank of India versus Rahul Kumar Sharma

M S Shree Kuber Traders versus Uco Bank

Raj Kumar Verma versus Icici Bank Limited

Smt Shelly Tyagi versus Punjab National Bank