Allowed

Canara Bank v. Manish Dhiman and Others

DRT19 Jun 2023OA/1496/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the bank's application for recovery of Rs. 24.37 lakhs along with future interest at 7% per annum against borrowers and a guarantor who defaulted on a housing loan, issuing a Recovery Certificate for enforcement.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs. 24,37,754.79 plus 7% simple interest w.e.f. 10.08.2022 till realisation, recoverable from mortgaged property or personal assets.

Canara Bank versus Manish Dhiman and Others — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1496/2022

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 10.08.2022

¶4

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

¶5

Canara Bank, having its Head Office at 112, J.C. Road, Banglore and Branches all over India and one of its Branches amongst other places a Branch at Sector-21, Panchkula, through its Attorney holder

¶6

…..Applicant Bank

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Manish Dhiman S/o Sh. Rajinder Singh R/o House No.54, Harmilap Nagar, Phase-2, Baltana, SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab, Pin Code-140604

¶9

Sh. Shubham Dhiman S/o Sh. Rajinder Singh R/o of House No.54, Harmilap Nagar, Phase-2, Baltana, SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab, Pin Code-140604 (Borrowers)

¶10

Sh. Rakesh Kumar S/o Sh. Darshan Lal R/o of SCF 54, Preet Colony, Lohgarh, SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab (Guarantor)

¶11

…..Defendants

¶12

Argued by: Sh. Loveneet, Manager (Law) for the applicant bank Defendants ex parte vide order dated 23.01.2023

¶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 Act’ for brevity), against the defendants for recovery of Rs.24,37,754.79 (Rupees Twenty Four lacs Thirty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Four and Seventy Nine Paisa only) . The OA has been filed through Sh. Joginder Kumar, Authorised Officer of the applicant bank, stated to be competent to institute the Original Application vide General Power of Attorney dated 21.12.2012, Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶15

OA/1496/2022 CANARA BANK VS MANISH DHIMAN AND OTHERS 2

¶16

The brief facts of the case of the applicant as per the Original Application are that defendant No.1 and 2 had approached the applicant bank for grant of housing loan of Rs.20,40,000/- vide home loan application Form dated 04.06.2018, Annexure-A2 (copy). Defendant No.3 stood as a guarantor for repayment of the loan.

¶17

The applicant bank sanctioned the above said loan facility to the defendants vide letter of sanction dated 27.07.2018, Annexure-A7 (copy) as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶18

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facility, the defendants executed housing loan agreement dated 27.07.2018, Annexure-A3 (copy) and defendant No.3 executed guarantee covering letter dated 27.07.2018, Annexure-A6 (copy).

¶19

The aforesaid loan facility was further secured by equitable mortgage by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of Flat No.224, First Floor, measuring 0 Bigha 0 Biswas 13 Biswasi situated in Simran City, Madhopur, Municipal Corporation Derabassi, District SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab, fully described in para No. 5 (E) of the Original Application.

¶20

Documents related to mortgage are as under:

¶21

i. Agreement to mortgage dated 27.07.2018, Annexure-A4 (copy).

¶22

ii. Letter dated 01.08.2018, regarding confirmation of deposit of sale deed dated 31.07.2018, Annexure-A5 (copy).

¶23

It is further the case of the applicant bank that the loan facility was 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 and it was declared NPA on 31.03.2020.

¶24

OA/1496/2022 CANARA BANK VS MANISH DHIMAN AND OTHERS 3

¶25

Defendant Nos.1 and 2 executed acknowledgement of debt and security letter dated 25.06.2021, Annexure-A8 (copy). The applicant bank recalled entire outstanding amount vide legal notice dated 12.10.2021, Annexure-A9 (copy) and notices dated 02.04.2021 and 11.03.2022 under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, Annexures-A10 and A11 (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.24,37,754.79 (Rupees Twenty Four lacs Thirty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred

¶27

Fifty Four and Seventy Nine Paisa only) is recoverable against the defendants as per statement of account, Annexure-A12 (copy), certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act.

¶28

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

¶29

Notices of the Original Application were duly served upon the defendants, but since none appeared on behalf of the defendants despite service, thus, the defendants were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 23.01.2023.

¶30

In support of contents of the OA, affidavit of evidence of Sh. Joginder Kumar, Authorised Officer of the applicant bank was filed.

¶31

This Tribunal has heard ex-parte arguments advanced by Sh. Loveneet, Manager (Law) of the applicant bank and gone through the record carefully.

¶32

OA/1496/2022 CANARA BANK VS MANISH DHIMAN AND OTHERS 4

¶33

It was argued by Sh. Loveneet, 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 A12 , it is clear that the defendants had approached the applicant bank for availing of the loan facility which was granted to them after they 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.24,37,754.79

¶34

(Rupees Twenty Four lacs Thirty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Four and Seventy Nine Paisa only) from the defendants.

¶35

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank has claimed in relief clause, interest @7.50% per annum with monthly rests plus penal interest @2% per annum. In letter of sanction dated 27.07.2018, Annexure-A7 (copy), the rate of interest has been mentioned @8.65% per annum with monthly rests.

¶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 properties, purpose of loan, i.e. housing 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 @7% per annum from the date of filing of the OA

¶37

OA/1496/2022 CANARA BANK VS MANISH DHIMAN AND OTHERS

¶38

¶39

till realisation of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶40

In the result, the Original Application is allowed with costs declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum of Rs.24,37,754.79 (Rupees Twenty Four lacs Thirty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Four and Seventy Nine Paisa only) with current and future simple interest @7% per annum , w.e.f. 10.08.2022 , 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 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, applicant bank shall be at liberty to recover the same by attachment and sale of personal assets/property of the defendants. The applicant bank is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶41

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶42

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 16.08.2023.

¶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

Canara Bank v. Manish Dhiman and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Manish Dhiman and Others

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

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Ronit Enterprises and Others

Bank of Baroda versus Ms Vinita Automobiles and Others

Bank of Maharashtra versus Ms Anand Mine Tools PvtLtd

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Shish Pal

Md Pharmaceticals Proprietor Sri Anup Das versus Punjab National Bank

Deva Matha Rock Products versus Hero Fincorp Ltd.