Allowed

Punjab National Bank v. Sh. Manjeet @ Manjeet Bhokar

DRT19 Sept 2023OA/1146/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the application filed by Punjab National Bank against two borrowers and a guarantor for recovery of a loan amount. The Tribunal proceeded ex parte, found in favor of the bank, and reduced the interest rate to 10% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Recovery order for Rs. 33,17,566.80 with simple interest at 10% per annum issued; parties directed to appear before Recovery Officer.

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Manjeet @ Manjeet… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1146/2022

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 07.06.2022

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 19^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶5

Punjab National Bank, a body corporate and nationalised bank constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 having its head offices at Plot No. 4, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075 and amongst others a Branch at Circle Sastra Centre, Panipat, Circle Office at SCO No. 170, Sector 13-17, District Panipat, Haryana, through its Senior Manager and General Power of Attorney, Sh. Subhash Chander son of Sh. Phool Singh

¶6

…..Applicant Bank

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Manjeet @ Manjeet Bhokar s/o Sh. Jasmer Singh

¶9

Sh. Jasmer Singh s/o Sh. Parbhu (Guarantor)

¶10

Both residents of House No. 371, Village Diwana, Tehsil and District

¶11

Panipat, Haryana-132108

¶12

…..Defendants

¶13

Argued by: Ms Arpita Sonkar, Manager Law for the applicant bank Defendant No.1 ex parte vide order dated 22.11.2022 Defendant No.2 ex parte vide order dated 19.07.2023

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks

¶16

OA/1146/2022 PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs MANJEET @ MANJEET BHOKAR AND ANOTHER 2 and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity), against the defendants for recovery of

¶17

Rs.33,17,566.80/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lac Seventeen Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Six and Eighty Paisa Only) . It has been filed through Sh. Subhash Chander, Senior Manager of the applicant bank stated to be competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 01.06.2007, Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶18

The brief facts of the case of the applicant as per the Original Application are that defendant No. 1 had approached the applicant bank for grant of Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 9.90 lac and Term Loan of Rs. 24,40,000/- vide application Form with forwarding letter dated 09.10.2017, Annexure-A2 (copy). Defendant No.2 stood as a guarantor for repayment of the loan.

¶19

The applicant bank sanctioned above mentioned credit facilities to defendant No. 1 vide sanction letter dated 16.10.2017, Annexure-A3 (copy) as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶20

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facilities, the defendants executed hypothecation of goods and book debt dated 15.12.2017, Annexure-A4 (copy), term loan agreement dated 15.12.2017, Annexure-A5 (copy), hypothecation agreement dated 15.12.2017, Annexure-A6 (copy), guarantee agreement dated 15.12.2017, Annexure-A7 (copy) and master agreement dated 26.10.2020, Annexure-A8 (copy).

¶21

The aforesaid loans were further secured by creation of mortgage by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of agricultural land

¶22

OA/1146/2022 PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs MANJEET @ MANJEET BHOKAR AND ANOTHER 3 measuring 31 Kanals 15 Marlas situated in the revenue estate of Diwana, District Panipat, Haryana, fully detailed in para No. 5(C)(vi) of the OA. Declaration dated 16.11.2017 under Section 4(1) of the Haryana Agricultural Credit Operations and Miscellaneous Provisions (Banks) Act, 1973 is Annexure-A9 (copy).

¶23

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 leading to the loan accounts becoming irregular and those being classified as NPA 31.03.2021. The defendants executed balance and security confirmation letter dated 03.03.2020, Annexure-A15 (copy). The applicant bank recalled the entire outstanding amount vide notices dated 12.03.2021 and 19.05.2021, Annexures-A10 to A12 (copy), but to no avail.

¶24

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan accounts, a sum of Rs.33,17,566.80/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lac Seventeen Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Six and Eighty Paisa Only) , is recoverable against the defendants as per statements of accounts certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891, Annexures-A13 to A14 (copy).

¶25

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

¶26

Notices of the Original Application were duly served upon the defendants, but since none appeared on behalf of the defendants,

¶27

OA/1146/2022 PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs MANJEET @ MANJEET BHOKAR AND ANOTHER 4 thus, defendant No.1 was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 22.11.2022 and defendant No.2 was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 19.07.2023.

¶28

In support of contents of the OA, affidavit of evidence of

¶29

Sh. Subhash Chander, General Power of Attorney-cum-Branch

¶30

Manager of the applicant bank was filed.

¶31

This Tribunal has heard ex-parte arguments advanced by Ms Arpita Sonkar, Manager Law for the applicant bank and gone through the record carefully.

¶32

It was argued by Ms Arpita Sonkar, Manager Law of the applicant bank that in view of unrebutted documentary evidence brought on record, the applicant bank had proved its case against the defendants for recovery of the amount sought. From perusal of Annexures-A1 to A15 , it is clear that the defendants had approached the applicant bank for availing of the loan facilities which were granted to them. It is further clear that the defendants 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.33,17,566.80/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lac Seventeen

¶33

Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Six and Eighty Paisa Only) from

¶34

the defendants.

¶35

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank relief clause, has not claimed any particular rate of interest. In hypothecation of goods and book debt dated

¶36

OA/1146/2022 PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs MANJEET @ MANJEET BHOKAR AND ANOTHER 5 15.12.2017, Annexure-A4 (copy), rate of interest has been mentioned MCLR plus @2.10% per annum.

¶37

This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that sometimes in appropriate cases the prerogatives of mercy and magnanimity are the brightest jewels in the crown of the Judge. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case including the Pandemic Covid-19 affecting businesses, nature of mortgaged property, purpose of loan, i.e. business, quantum of loan and 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.

¶38

In the result, the Original Application is allowed with costs holding that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum of Rs.33,17,566.80/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lac Seventeen Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Six and Eighty Paisa Only) with current and future simple interest @10% per annum w.e.f. 25.01.2022 , 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 mortgaged/hypothecated property 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

¶39

OA/1146/2022 PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs MANJEET @ MANJEET BHOKAR AND ANOTHER 6 liberty to recover the same by attachment and sale of personal assets of the defendants. However, the applicant bank is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶40

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶41

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 16.10.2023 .

¶42

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.

¶43

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

Punjab National Bank v. Sh. Manjeet @ Manjeet Bhokar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. Sh. Manjeet @ Manjeet Bhokar

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

Canara Bank versus M/S Raank Exports and Ors.

Yashwant Singh versus Uco Bank

Smt Ragni Kumari versus Canara Bank

State Bank of India versus Sh. Rajesh Lather

Canara Bank versus M/s Deo Constructions And Others

Canara Bank versus M/s Rehan Communication and Others