Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Smt. Omi

DRT16 Sept 2023OA/1242/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by Union Bank of India for recovery of a loan account. The court, adjudicating ex-parte, ordered the respondents to pay the principal sum with uniform simple interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing, directing issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate and direction to pay Rs. 23,27,180.65 along with uniform simple interest at 9% per annum.

Union Bank of India versus Smt. Omi — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 1242/2022

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 21.06.2022

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 16^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶5

Union Bank of India , a body corporate and Banking Company constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, having its Head Office at 239, Vidhan Bhawan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 and amongst other places, a Branch at Old D. C. Road, Sonepat, Haryana, through Sh. Karan Bajaj s/o Sh. Kulbhushan Bajaj, Principal Officer, General Attorney and Branch Manager of Applicant Bank

¶6

…..Applicant Bank

¶7

Versus

¶8

Smt. Omi w/o Sh. Jai Singh r/o House No. 35/29, Malviya Nagar, Sonipat, Haryana-131001

¶9

Sh. Dalbir s/o Sh. Jai Singh r/o House No. 35/29, Malviya Nagar, Sonipat, Haryana-131001

¶10

....Defendants

¶11

Argued by: Sh. Satish Kumar, Senior Manager for the applicant bank Defendants ex parte vide order dated 01.08.2023

¶12

FINAL ORDER

¶13

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity), against the defendants for recovery of

¶14

Rs.23,27,180.65/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Twenty Seven Thousand One Hundred Eighty and Sixty Five Paisa Only) . It

¶15

OA/1242/2022 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS SMT. OMI AND ANOTHER 2

¶16

has been filed through Sh. Karan Bajaj, Principal Officer of the applicant bank stated to be competent to institute the Original Application vide authority letter dated 21.06.2022, Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶17

The brief facts of the case of the applicant as per Original Application are that the defendants had approached the applicant bank for grant of term loan facility of Rs. 15 lacs and vehicle

¶18

loan facility of Rs. 6.80 lacs .

¶19

The applicant bank sanctioned aforesaid facilities to the defendants vide sanction letters dated 13.04.2018 and 15.11.2018, Annexures-A3 and A9 (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 various loans and security documents, i.e. composite agreements dated 13.04.2018 and 15.11.2018, Annexures-A4 and A10 (copy), undertaking dated 13.04.2018 regarding terms and conditions, Annexure-A5 (copy), letter dated 15.11.2018 of authorisation, Annexure-A11 (copy) and letter dated 16.04.2018 regarding understanding of terms and conditions by illiterate borrower, Annexure-A6 (copy). 5. The aforesaid loan was further secured by creation of mortgage by defendant No. 1 in respect of residential property measuring 152 Square Yards situated in the revenue estate of Malviya Nagar, Tehsil Sonepat, Haryana, fully detailed in para No. 5(v) of the Original Application.

¶21

The documents relating to the mortgage are as under:

¶22

OA/1242/2022 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS SMT. OMI AND ANOTHER 3

¶23

i. Registered sale deed No. 3793 dated 24.07.2008, AnnexureA7 (copy).

¶24

ii. Valuation report dated 03.04.2018 of the mortgaged property, Annexure-A8 (copy).

¶25

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. The applicant bank recalled entire outstanding amount vide legal notices dated 02.07.2021 along with its postal receipts, AnnexuresA12 and A13 (copy), but to no avail.

¶26

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account, a sum of Rs.23,27,180.65/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Twenty Seven Thousand One Hundred Eighty and Sixty Five Paisa Only) is recoverable against the defendants as per statements of accounts, duly certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891, Annexures-A14 and A15 .

¶27

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

¶28

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 01.08.2023 .

¶29

OA/1242/2022 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS SMT. OMI AND ANOTHER 4

¶30

In support of contents of the OA, affidavit of evidence of Sh. Karan Bajaj, Branch Manager of the applicant bank was filed.

¶31

This Tribunal has heard ex-parte arguments advanced by Sh. Satish Kumar, Senior Manager of the applicant bank and gone through the record carefully.

¶32

It was argued by Sh. Satish Kumar, Senior Manager 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 facility which was granted to him. 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

¶33

Rs.23,27,180.65/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Twenty Seven Thousand One Hundred Eighty and Sixty Five Paisa Only) from the defendants.

¶34

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank has claimed rate of interest @9.8% per annum plus penal interest @2% per annum. In sanction letters dated 13.04.2018 and 15.11.2018, Annexures-A3 and A9 (copy), the rate of interest has been mentioned @10.95% per annum in term loan facility and @9.40% per annum in vehicle loan facility.

¶35

OA/1242/2022 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS SMT. OMI AND ANOTHER 5

¶36

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 the mortgaged property, purpose of loan, i.e. personal needs and purchase of private vehicle, quantum of loan, prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yesteryears and defendant No. 1 being a female, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the OA till realisation of the amount ordered vide this order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶37

In the result, the Original Application is allowed with costs holding that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum of Rs.23,27,180.65/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Twenty Seven Thousand One Hundred Eighty and Sixty Five Paisa Only) with current and future simple interest @9% per annum w.e.f. 21.06.2022 , till the date of realisation of the amount. 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 liberty to recover the same by attachment and sale of

¶38

OA/1242/2022 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS SMT. OMI AND ANOTHER 6

¶39

personal assets of the defendants. However, the applicant bank is at

¶40

liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶41

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶42

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 13.10.2023.

¶43

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.

¶44

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

Union Bank of India v. Smt. Omi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Smt. Omi

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 MD Sayeed and Anr.

Uco Bank versus M/S Rupa Medical Hall and Ors.

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Anita Enterprises

Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank) versus Estate of Seema Singh through Her Legal Heirs Satish Bhola Singh

Manoj Kumar Pathak versus Union Bank of India

Neeraj Chaudhary versus Union Bank of India