Allowed

Punjab National Bank (United Bank of India) v. M/s Raghoji Agro Industries and Others

DRT17 Apr 2023OA/151/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte application under Sec 19 RDB Act 1993, the Patna Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the petition by Punjab National Bank for recovery of Rs.49,55,276.50 along with interest and costs against borrowers who failed to appear. The tribunal issued a recovery certificate attaching hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.49,55,276.50 with interest at 14.30% p.a.; issuance of Recovery Certificate under Section 19(22); attachment of hypothecated assets.

Punjab National Bank (United Bank of India) versus… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

DRT,PATNA

¶2

OA 151 of 2022 [JI

¶3

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna

¶4

Karpuri Thakur Sadan, Aashiana Digha Road at PATNA-800025

¶5

Presiding Officer : Shri Kaushalendra Yadav

¶6

OA Case no. : 151 of 2022

¶7

Punjab National Bank, Mohiuddin Nagar Branch, P.O.-Mohiuddin Nagar, District-Samastipur-84850 1.

¶8

. Applicant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1. Mis Raghoji Agro Industries through its proprietor Aakash Kumar Sonu, Recorded address at & Post Office-Hemanpur, P.S.-Mohiuddin Nagar, District-Samastipur-848502

¶11

Aakash Kumar Sonu proprietor Mis Raghoji Agro Industries S/o Sri Kauslendra Singh Recorded Address at and P.O.-Hemanpur, P.S.Mohiuddin Nagar, District-Samastipur-848502 PAN no. BROPS0093M.

¶12

...Defendants.

¶13

Present:
For the Applicant	: Dr. B.B. Sinha, Advocate
For the Defendants	: None

¶14

Dated: 17.4.2023

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

1- The Applicant bank has made this application U/S 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (here-in-after referred to as Act) on 18.2.2022 against the defendants to recover its debts from defendants of Rs.49,55,276.50 as on 30.11.2021 alongwith pendente-lite and future interest at the contractual rate from 1.12.2021 with costs till realization.

¶17

2- The application has been duly registered and numbered as above.

¶18

3- The brief facts of the case of the applicant bank as stated in the application are as under-

¶19

The applicant bank body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, having its Corporate Office Plot no. 4,Sector-l0,Dwarka New Delhi-l10075 and inter alia a Branch Office Mohiuddin Nagar Branch, P.O.-Mohiuddin Nagar, District-Samastipur-84850 1

¶20

The defendant no. 1 is a proprietorship firm managed through its proprietor defendant no. 2. The defendants approached the bank on 4.12.2006 for financial assistance in the shape of term loan of Rs.3.80 lakh and cash credit of Rs.5. 70 lakh. After proper considering the loan

DRT,PATNA

OA 151 0(2022 [J)

application as submitted by the defendants sanctioned the term loan of Rs.3.88 lakh and CC Rs.5.27 lakh on 21.12.2006. The defendants further approached the bank on 12.6.2008 and submitted an application with request for enhancement of the loan. The competent authority of the bank after considering the said request and also after going through the performance of their account sanctioned the loan by enhancing over all limit upto Rs.30.45 lakh on 17.10.2008. The defendants further approached the bank on 4.1.2010 and submitted an application for enhancement of the credit facilities upto Rs.50 lakh. The competent authority of the bank after proper considering the proposal for enhancement of overall limit of Rs.43.71 lakh and also after going through the past performance of their loan account sanctioned the loan under the terms and conditions of the bank the defendants accepted the same by putting their signature upon the sanction letter. The defendants executed the various loan documents i.e. agreement term loan, hypothecation of plant and machinery, hypothecation of goods, hypothecation agreement, DP note, PDR, consent clause and letter of continuity. The defendants agreed to pay the interest @BPLR + 1% and at the time of sanctioning effective rate of interest @14.30% p.a. with monthly rests for value received and changed from time to time as per the guideline of the RBI.

¶25

All the transactions were entered in the ledger of the loan accounts in the name of the defendant duly maintained by the applicant bank in its usual course of business. After availing the sanctioned credit facilities became irregular in repayment of their dues as per agreed terms and failed to adhere to the financial norms of the bank and avoiding the repayment of its dues to the bank, in spite of several assurances given by it to the applicant bank resulting in the account turning as NPA on 29.2.2020.

¶26

Thus the total liability in the loan account is Rs.49,55,276.50 with pendentelite and future interest at the contractual rate from 1.12.2021till the realization.

¶27

The interest /compound interest has been charged at such rates, and capitalized at such periodical rests as are permitted by and do not run counter to the directives of Reserve Bank of India.

¶28

Since, the defendants have failed and neglected in spite of several reminders to make payment of the dues recoverable to bank, hence this application has been filed by the bank.

¶29

4Vis 19 (4) of the Act & Rule of the DRT [Procedure] Rules, 1993, copies of application & paper book was sent by this Tribunal to the defendants by registered/speed post on 17.5.2022, and summons/notices issued requiring the defendants to show-cause within 30 days of the

DRT,PATNA

OA 151 of 2022 [J)

service of summons/notices as to why relief prayed for, should not be granted.

¶34

On perusal. of the case records, it is clear that on 17.5.2022, summons/notices were sent to the defendants, but the defendants have not appeared, hence, the Registry of this Tribunal has ordered to publish the notice in newspaper and subsequently, substituted service by publication of notice by way of advertisement in newspaper was also made against the defendants on 26.8.2022 in "Dainik Jagaran and The Hindu" newspaper.

¶35

Despite the registered summons/notices and publication of notice in newspaper, the defendants have appeared before this Tribunal to contest the case. The sufficient time has been given to the defendants to file written statement, but they failed to appear and to file WS, hence, the Tribunal has passed an order right to file written statement was closed on 1.11.2022.

¶36

5- To prove its case, the applicant Bank has referred various certified photocopies of documents before this Tribunal. The applicant bank has also given evidence on affidavit by way of affidavit of Shri Purushottam Kumar, Senior Manager of the applicant bank. The details of documents are as follows. :-

¶37

SI.No	Description of photocopies Documents	Date of Execution	Amount	Signature of executant	Ex.! Ann. No.
I	Gazette notification	...,	...	...	I
2	Loan application	4.12.2006	Rs.9.50 lakh	defendants	2
3	Sanction letter	21.12.2006	Rs.9.15 lakh	bank	3
4	application	4.1.2010	Rs.50 lakh	defendant	4
5	Sanction letter	18.3.2010	Rs.43.71 lakh	bank	5
6	term loan agreement	2.6.2010	Rs.43.71 lakh	defendants	6
7	Hypothecation of plant and machinery	2.6.2010	Rs.43.71 lakh	defendants	7
8	Hypothecation of goods	2.6.2010	Rs.43.71 lakh	defendants	8
9	Hypothecation agreement	2.6.2010	Rs.43.71 lakh	defendants	9
10	DP note	2.6.2010	Rs.43.71 lakh	defendants	10
11	PDR	2.6.2010	...	defendants	11
12	Consent clause	2.6.2010	...	defendants	12
13	Letter of continuity	2.6.2010	Rs.43.71 lakh	defendants	13
14	Letter of lien	2.6.2010	...	defendants	14
15	Balance confirmation	15.3.2017	...	defendants	15

OA 151 of 2022 IJI

DRT,PATNA

16	letter	28.10.2019	...	defendants	16
17	DP note	29.11.2019	Rs.37lakh	defendants	17
18	letter of continuity	29.11.2019	Rs.37lakh	defendants	18
19	letter of lien	29.11.2019	...	defendants	19
20	link letter	29.11.2010	...	defendants	20
21	legal notice	15.6.2021	...	bankadv.	21
22	Statement of account	as on 30.11.2021	Rs.49,55,276.50	bank	22

¶42

6- Opportunity of hearing has been fully given to both the parties, but despite several opportunities given to defendants, the defendants have not appeared to contest the case, hence, the ex-parte arguments of learned counsel for applicant bank were heard and perused the case record.

¶43

Ld. counsel of applicant bank submitted that the defendants have taken the loan and utilized the same and also executed the various loan documents to secure the loan. Further, submitted that the claim of the bank has been proved by documentary evidence.

¶44

It is further submitted by ld. Counsel of applicant bank that there is no any stay granted by any Higher Court, in respect of the proceedings of the present OA and requested to issue recovery certificate, as claimed for, inOA.

¶45

7- It has been established that defendants are living in the state of Bihar. Cause of action also arose in the State of Bihar. The said claim on the date of filing of application exceeded Rs.20 lacs. The applicant bank is functioning within jurisdiction of this tribunal. Therefore, this Tribunal has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present application.

¶46

8- On the issue of Limitation, to prove it, the applicant bank has submitted that the applicant bank has declared the account as NPA on 29.2.2020, whereas the present application has been filed on 18.2.2022. Even, it is counted for the purpose of Limitation, then it is established that the applicant bank'has filed the case within the limitation period. As such, it is established that present application has been filed well within the period of limitation.

¶47

9- In the affidavit of Shri Purushottam Kumar, Senior Manager of the applicant bank, has stated that he is well acquainted with the facts of the case and has on verification of record, sworn in the affidavit in support of contents of application and the documents as evidence and established on oath the pleadings and documents of the applicant bank as stated above.

OA 151 of 2022 [J]

DRT,PATNA

The documents as stated above reveal that the defendants have applied for loan and the bank had sanctioned the loan and to secure the loan and for repayment of loan amount with interests etc., the defendants have executed various loan documents, which strength the case of the applicant bank

¶52

The applicant bank has also furnished statement of account as above, which is not only admissible but shall be taken as correct statement of account, more so since the entries in the statement of account has not been challenged.

¶53

10Since, the case was proceeded ex-parte against defendants, all contentions raised and documents produced by plaintiff remained unrebutted and the tribunal may act upon the affidavit of the applicant as per law. Defendants have neither denied the utilization of funds advanced by applicant bank nor have pointed out any specific error and discrepancy in the Statement of"Account, which is kept in due course of business, evidence on affidavit, which has supported the claim of the applicant bank, established to have fully correct and believable. Provisions contained in Rule 9(2) of Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 provide that the documents referred in the application shall be duly stated by senior officer of the bank, or financial institution as the case may be and numbered accordingly. The rule 12 (10) provides that the provisions contained in section 4 of the Banker's Books evidence that Act, 1891 (18 of 1891) shall applied to certified copy of an entry in a Banker's Books furnished alongwith application filed under sub section 1 of section 19 by the applicant.

¶54

11On consideration of the arguments and on perusal of the application, documents and affidavit, it is proved that the applicant bank has granted the loan facilities, documents were executed by the defendants and facilities were availed by the defendants as stated in the application.

¶55

12The applicant bank has sought for recovery of a sum of Rs.49,55,276.50 with.cost and further interest at the contractual rate from 1.12.2021till realization.

¶56

13Learned Advocate appearing for applicant bank submits that the applicant bank has charged interest in terms of the agreements and that interest has been charged at such rates, and capitalized at such periodical rests as are permitted by and do not run counter to the directives of Reserve Bank of India.

¶57

14On consideration of the arguments and on perusal of the pleadings, documents and affidavit, it is proved that the applicant has charged

DRT,PATNA

OA 151 of20221J)

interest against defendants in terms of documents and as per directives of RBI.

¶62

15None of the defendants appeared before the tribunal to contest the claim made by the applicant, therefore, it necessarily goes to establish that the claim made by the applicant bank is genuine and true. It is manifest that the defendants have not disputed the claim, therefore, the claim referred to the tribunal is recoverable till full and final realization of the claim.

¶63

16In Indian Bank Vs. Blue Jaggers Estates Limited and others [2010] 8 SCC 129,the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed as under-

¶64

"The Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the bank is a trustee of public fund. It cannot compromise the public interest for benefiting private individuals. Those who take loan and avail financial facilities from the bank are duty bound to repay the amount strictly in accordance with the terms of the contract. Any lapse in such matters has to be viewed seriously and the bank is not only entitled but duty bound to recover the amount by adopting all legally permissible methods. Parliament enacted the act because it was found that legal mechanism available till then was wholly insufficient for recovery of the outstanding dues of the banks and Financial Institutions."

¶65

17In my view, Facts of the case stand proved by evidence of the applicant bank ex-parte. Accordingly, The applicant bank is entitled to recover from defendants jointly and severally of Rs.49,55,276.50 alongwith pendente-lite and future interest @14.30% p.a. with compounded monthly rests from 18.2.2022 (The date of filing of this O.A.) till realization. So the final order may be passed accordingly, to meet the ends ofjustice.

¶66

ORDER

¶67

In the result, the application of the applicant bank is, allowed exparte and debt is determined with costs against the defendants. The defendants is hereby jointly and severally, ordered to pay the applicant bank it's debts amounting to Rs.49,55,276.50 alongwith pendente-lite and future interest @14.30% p.a. with compounded monthly rests from 18.2.2022 (The date of filing of this O.A.) till realization of the entire sum due and recoverable with costs.

¶68

It is made clear that any amount deposited by the defendants, be deducted in the claim amount, if not deducted.

¶69

Defendants are debarred from transferring, alienating encumbering or otherwise dealing with or disposing of the mortgaged or hypothecated or any other properties and assets without paying the aforesaid /

DRT,PATNA

OA 151of 2022[J)

adjudicated dues to the applicant bank to secure the ends of justice. The mortgaged or hypothecated assets to secure the loan in question are hereby attached and shall be subject to the final order under the recovery proceedings in pursuance of the Recovery certificate issued under Section 19(22) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993. The applicant may submit the certified copy of this Judgment and the Recovery Certificate before the Registrar/ Sub- registrar to endorse the charge over the secured assets.

¶74

Let a certificate of recovery be drawn up forthwith and put up for signatures in terms of provisions contained in Section 19(22)of the Act to be issued, on the basis of the order of the Tribunal to the Recovery Officer. The Recovery Officer shall realize the amount as per the certificate in the manner and mode prescribed under the Act from the defendants, by sale of mortgaged! hypothecated assets as well as other personal movable/immovable assets of the defendants.

¶75

Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT, Patna on 31.5.2023. The order be communicated accordingly.

¶76

Judgment signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open court on this 1th Day of April, 2023.

¶77

'iF ,J/~ (J1'v \ vI.. \r v-: eyV CJ [Kausliafendra Yadav] Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna

¶78

Dictated & corrected by me.

¶79

t;Y;'

Punjab National Bank (United Bank of India) v. M/s Raghoji Agro Industries and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank (United Bank of India) v. M/s Raghoji Agro Industries and Others

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

United Bank of India versus M S Icon J J Beverages Pvt. Ltd.

Punjab National Bank versus Lalit Chimney

Uco Bank versus Gangadhar Choudhary

Punjab National Bank versus Praveen Kumar and another

Punjab National Bank versus Pratik Kumar

Birendra Pratap Singh versus Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank