Allowed

Punjab National Bank v. M/S Haryana Truck Body Builder

DRT18 Oct 2022OA/542/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Applicant Bank applied under RDDBFI Act for recovery of Rs. 20,48,340.60 outstanding from two defendants who defaulted on a term loan. The Tribunal, proceeding ex parte, allowed the application, declaring the interest rate as 10% per annum and ordering issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 20,48,340.60 plus simple interest at 10% per annum w.e.f. 23.03.2022 upon realization.

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Haryana Truck Body… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2022)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, CHANDIGARH, PRESIDED OVER BY M.M. DHONCHAK

¶2

DATED THE 18^th DAY OF OCTOBER , 2022

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.542/2022

¶4

Punjab National Bank , a Body Corporate and perpetual succession, constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, carrying on Banking Business and having its Head Office at Plot No.4, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075 and Branches all over India including one at Rani-Talab, Jind (erstwhile Oriental Bank of Commerce) through Shri Sohan Lal, Chief Manager/Principal Officer and General Power of Attorney Holder

¶5

....Applicant Bank

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s Haryana Truck Body Builder, Near H.P. Gas Plant, Village Bishanpura, Opposite Vishnu Garden, Rohtak through its Proprietor Sh. Gaze Singh S/o Amar Singh Road, Jind

¶8

Sh. Gaze Singh S/o Sh. Amar Singh, HNo.644/25, Gurudwara Colony, Rohtak Road, Jind, Haryana

¶9

Second Adress :

¶10

H.No.267, VPO Kinana, District Jind, Haryana

¶11

....Defendants

¶12

Argued by: Sh. Gaurav Thakur proxy counsel Sh. Tarun Dhingra counsel for the applicant bank Defendants ex parte

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

Present Original Application was instituted on 08.10.2018 by the applicant bank under Section 19 (1) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.20,48,340.60 (Rupees Twenty Lacs, Forty Eight Thousand and Three Hundred Forty and Sixty Paisa Only) . It has been filed through Shri Sohan Lal, Chief Manager of the applicant bank, who is competent to institute the Original Application. A copy of the Power of Attorney is Annexure-A1 .

¶15

OA/2426/2018PNB VS M/s APEX METAL INDUSTRIES AND ANOTHER 2

¶16

The brief facts of the Original Application are that the defendants had approached the applicant bank for grant of credit facility of Rs. 30.00 Lacs (Term Loan facility of Rs. 30.00 Lac) vide loan application dated 26.05.2016, Annexure-A2 (copy).

¶17

The applicant bank sanctioned the credit facility of Rs. 30.00 Lacs (Term Loan facility of Rs. 30.00 Lac) to the defendants vide sanction letter dated 28.06.2016, Annexures-A2 (copy), as per the terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶18

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facility, defendants executed various loan and security documents, i.e. Agreement of term loan dated 28.06.2016, Annexure-A3 (copy), Common Agreement dated 28.06.2016, Annexure-A4 (copy) and Balance and Security Confirmation letter dated 31.05.2019, Annexure-A5 (copy).

¶19

It is further the case of the applicant bank that the loan facilities were duly availed of by the defendants but they failed to maintain the financial discipline of the applicant bank and resultantly, the loan account became irregular which was declared as NPA on 31.03.2021. The applicant bank recalled the entire outstanding amount vide legal/demand notice dated 07.06.2021, Annexure-A6 (copy), but to no avail.

¶20

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan account, a sum of Rs.20,48,340.60/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs, Forty Eight Thousand and Three Hundred Forty and Sixty Paisa Only) is recoverable against the defendants as per statement of account Annexures-A7 (copy), duly certified under Banker’s Books Evidence Act, 2000.

¶21

Since the defendants did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant bank preferred the present Original Application for issuance of Recovery Certificate.

¶22

OA/2426/2018PNB VS M/s APEX METAL INDUSTRIES AND ANOTHER 3

¶23

Notices of the Original Application were duly served upon the defendants, but since none appeared on behalf of the defendants thus, the defendants were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 30.07.2022.

¶24

In support of the contents of the OA, affidavit of evidence of Shri Sohan Lal, Chief Manager and Authorised Representative of the applicant bank was filed.

¶25

This Tribunal has heard ex-parte arguments advanced by the learned proxy counsel and gone through the record carefully. 10. It was argued by the learned proxy counsel that in view of unrebutted documentary evidence brought on record, the applicant bank had proved its case for recovery of the amount sought against the defendants. From perusal of Annexures A1 to A7, it is clear that the defendants had availed of the loan facilities which were granted to them by the applicant bank and for that he had executed all the relevant documents as stated above in favour of the applicant bank. Unfortunately, the defendants failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement executed between the parties. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.20,48,340.60 (Rupees Twenty Lacs, Forty Eight Thousand and Three Hundred Forty and Sixty Paisa Only) from the defendants.

¶26

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has claimed rate of interest @16% annum with monthly rests. In sanction letter Annexures-A2, the rate of interest has been mentioned @12.10% per annum in with monthly rests.

¶27

This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that sometimes in appropriate cases the prerogative of mercy is the brightest jewel in the crown of the Judge. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the

¶28

OA/2426/2018PNB VS M/s APEX METAL INDUSTRIES AND ANOTHER

¶29

¶30

instant case including the Pandemic Covid-19 affecting businesses, nature of the mortgaged properties, purpose of loan, i.e. business, quantum of loan, prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yesteryears, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, This Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @10% per annum from the date of filing of the OA till realisation of the amount ordered vide this order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶31

In the result, the Original Application is allowed with costs declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum Rs.20,48,340.60 (Rupees Twenty Lacs, Forty Eight Thousand and Three Hundred Forty and Sixty Paisa Only) with current and future simple interest @10% per annum w.e.f. 23.03.2022 , till the date of realisation of the amount. The liability of the defendants shall be joint as well as several. Accordingly, the applicant bank shall be at liberty to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of hypothecated properties of the defendants in execution proceedings, if not sold earlier under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 or otherwise. If the dues of the bank still remain unsatisfied, the applicant bank shall be at liberty to recover the same by attachment and sale of personal assets of defendants. The applicant bank is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶32

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶33

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 22.11.2022.

¶34

Copy of this order be sent to the applicant bank and the defendants through registered/speed post. This order be also uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal.

¶35

Announced in the open Tribunal (M.M. Dhonchak) Presiding Officer DRT-2,Chandigarh

Punjab National Bank v. M/S Haryana Truck Body Builder

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. M/S Haryana Truck Body Builder

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Ms Sri Vijayalaxmi Bullion and Jewellery

Pooja Creation and Anr. versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

Woodman Venneers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. versus Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank)

Bank of Baroda (Dena Bank) versus Hasmukhbhai

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Pooja Interlocking Brick Udyog

Bank of Baroda versus Zulfikar Samnani