Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Satyawan

DRT16 Sept 2023OA/1275/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by Union Bank of India against borrowers and guarantor for recovery of Rs. 31,66,016.22. The Tribunal exercised discretion to grant interest at 8% per annum and issued a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued for principal amount of Rs. 31,66,016.22 with simple interest at 8% per annum from 27.06.2022 till realization.

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Satyawan — DRT (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 1275 of 2022

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 27.06.2022

¶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 Branch at Model Town, Panipat, Haryana, through Sh. Parmod Kumar, Principal Officer, General Attorney and Branch Manager of the Applicant bank

¶6

…..Applicant Bank

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Satyawan s/o Sh. Chet Ram r/o Pana Karmu, Village Chidana, Sub-Tehsil Khanpur, District Sonipat, Haryana

¶9

(Borrower/Mortgagor)

¶10

Sh. Dalbir s/o Sh. Balwant r/o VPO Dhurana Sub-Tehsil Khanpur, District Sonipat, Haryana (Guarantor)

¶11

.….Defendants

¶12

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

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

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

¶15

OA/1275/2022 UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs SATYAWAN AND ANR 2 Act’ for brevity) , against the defendants for recovery of Rs.31,66,016.22/- (Rupees Thirty One Lacs Sixty Six Thousand Sixteen and Twenty Two Paisa Only) . The OA has been filed through Sh. Parmod Kumar, Branch Manager of the applicant bank, stated to be competent to institute the Original Application vide authority letter dated 06.07.2022, Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶16

The brief facts of the case of the applicant as per Original Application are that defendant No. 1 had approached the applicant bank for grant of KCC Limit of Rs. 24 lacs vide common loan application Form dated 12.01.2018, Annexure-A3 (copy). Defendant No. 2 stood as a guarantor for repayment of the loan. 3. The applicant bank sanctioned aforesaid credit facility to the defendants vide sanction letter dated 12.01.2018, Annexure-A4 (copy) as per terms and conditions duly accepted by the defendants. 4. In order to secure the aforementioned credit facility, the defendants executed various loan and security documents, i.e. composite agreement (for agriculture) dated 12.01.2018, AnnexureA5 (copy), undertaking dated 12.01.2018 regarding terms and conditions, Annexure-A6 (copy) and General Form of Guarantee dated 12.01.2018, Annexure-A7 (copy).

¶17

The aforesaid loan was further secured by creation of mortgage by defendant No. 1 in respect of two parcels of agricultural land measuring 57 Kanals 10 Marlas 1 Sarsai situated in the revenue estate of Chidana, Sub-Tehsil, Khanpur, District Sonipat, Haryana, fully detailed in para No. 5(vi) of the Original Application. Declaration dated 15.12.2017 under section 4(1) of the Haryana Agricultural Credit

¶18

OA/1275/2022 UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs SATYAWAN AND ANR 3 Operations and Miscellaneous Provisions (Banks) Act, 1973, is Annexure-A8 (copy).

¶19

It is further the case of applicant that the loan facility was duly availed of by the defendants but they failed to maintain the financial discipline of the applicant bank leading to the loan account becoming irregular and it being classified as NPA. The applicant bank recalled the entire outstanding amount vide legal notice dated 03.05.2021, Annexure-A9 (copy), but to no avail.

¶20

It is further the case of applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan account, a sum of Rs.31,66,016.22/(Rupees Thirty One Lacs Sixty Six Thousand Sixteen and Twenty Two Paisa Only) is recoverable against defendants as per statement of account duly certified under Bankers’ Book Evidence Act, 1891, Annexure-A10 (copy).

¶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

Notices of the Original Application were duly served upon the defendants, but since none appeared on behalf of the defendants despite service, thus, defendants were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 01.08.2023 .

¶23

In support of contents of the Original Application, affidavit of evidence of Sh. Parmod Kumar, Branch Manager of the applicant bank was filed.

¶24

OA/1275/2022 UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs SATYAWAN AND ANR 4 9. This Tribunal has heard ex parte arguments advanced by Sh. Satish Kumar, Senior Manager of the applicant bank and gone through the record carefully.

¶25

It was argued Sh. Satish Kumar, Senior Manager 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 A10 , it comes out that the defendants had approached the applicant bank for availing of the loan facility which was 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. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.31,66,016.22/- (Rupees Thirty One Lacs Sixty Six Thousand Sixteen and Twenty Two Paisa Only) from the defendants, from the date of filing the present Original Application, till realisation of the amount.

¶26

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has not claim any specific rate of interest. In sanction letter dated 12.01.2018, Annexure- A4 (copy), rate of interest has been mentioned @10.35% per annum.

¶27

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. agricultural, present conditions of economy based on

¶28

OA/1275/2022 UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs SATYAWAN AND ANR 5 agriculture, 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 @8% per annum from the date of filing of the OA till realisation of the amount ordered vide this order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶29

In the result, the Original Application is allowed with cost holding that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum Rs.31,66,016.22/- (Rupees Thirty One Lacs Sixty Six Thousand Sixteen and Twenty Two Paisa Only) with current and future simple interest @8% per annum w.e.f. 27.06.2022 , 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 defendants in execution proceedings, if not sold earlier under the provisions of the Securitization 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 the defendants. However, applicant bank is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶30

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶31

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 13.10.2023.

¶32

OA/1275/2022 UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs SATYAWAN AND ANR 6

¶33

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.

¶34

Pronounced in the open Tribunal

¶35

(M.M. Dhonchak) Presiding Officer DRT-2, Chandigarh

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Satyawan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Satyawan

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

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