Allowed

Canara Bank v. Smt. Seema Gupta @ Seema Rani

DRT21 Dec 2023OA/1577/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this ex-parte recovery application, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's suit for recovery of Rs. 24,90,160.38 from borrowers who defaulted on agricultural loans. The court granted relief and directed the issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued; Defendants to pay Rs. 24,90,160.38 plus 7% simple interest payable from date of OA.

Canara Bank versus Smt. Seema Gupta @ Seema Rani — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1577/2022

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 20.08.2022

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 21^st DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

Canara Bank, a body corporate and Nationalised Bank constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, having its Head Office at 112, J.C. Road, Bangalore and amongst other a Branch at Bakana, Yamunanagar, Haryana (earlier known as Syndicate Bank), through its General Power of Attorney, Sh. Yogesh Roshan Kainse

¶6

…..Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Smt. Seema Gupta @ Seema Rani w/o Sh. Latesh Gupta

¶9

Sh. Chakshu Gupta s/o Sh. Latesh Gupta through General Power of Attorney Holder, Sh. Latesh Gupta s/o Sh. Ishwar Dass both residents of House No. 175/13, Near Shiv Temple, Shiv Colony, Radaur, District Yamunanagar, Haryana

¶10

Sh. Rakesh Kumar s/o Sh. Om Parkash r/o House No. 203/7, Bagyan Gali, VPO Radaur, District Yamunanagar, Haryana

¶11

…..Defendants

¶12

Argued by: Ms Hemlata Issar, Advocate for the applicant Bank (through VC) Defendants ex parte vide order dated 26.09.2023

¶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

¶15

OA/1577/2022 CANARA BANK Vs SEEMA GUPTA @ SEEMA RANI AND OTHERS 2

¶16

Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity), against the defendants for recovery of Rs.24,90,160.38/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lac Ninety Thousand One Hundred Sixty and Thirty Eight Paisa Only) . It has been filed through Sh. Yogesh Roshan Kainse, General Power of Attorney holder of the applicant bank stated to be competent to institute the Original Application vide General Power of Attorney dated 25.10.2017, Annexure-A2 (copy) and Gazette Notification dated 04.03.2020, Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶17

The brief facts of the case of the applicant as per Original Application are that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had approached the applicant bank for grant of KCC limit of Rs. 10,00,000/- and Term Loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- vide application Forms dated 07.10.2017 for agriculture credit, Annexures-A3 and A4 (colly) (copy). Defendant No. 3 stood as a guarantor for repayment of the loan amount.

¶18

The applicant bank sanctioned aforesaid facilities to the defendants vide sanction letters dated 13.10.2017, Annexures-A3 and A4 (colly) (copy), as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶19

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facilities, the defendants executed agreements dated 13.10.2017 for agricultural advances, Annexures-A6 and A7 (copy) and deeds of guarantee dated 13.10.2017 for agricultural advances, Annexures-A8 and A9 (copy).

¶20

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

¶21

OA/1577/2022 CANARA BANK Vs SEEMA GUPTA @ SEEMA RANI AND OTHERS 3

¶22

measuring 33 Kanal situated in the revenue estate of Rattan-Garh, Hadbast No. 487, Tehsil Jagadhari, District Yamunanagar, Haryana, fully detailed in para No. 5(vii) of the Original Application. Declaration dated 12.10.2017 under Section 4(1) of the Haryana Agricultural Credit Operations and Miscellaneous Provisions (Banks) Act, 1973 along with copy of ‘Jamabandi’ for the year 2012-2013 and letter dated 26.10.2020 to the Bank Manager for verification of mutation, Annexure-A5 (colly) (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 on 20.01.2021. The defendants executed acknowledgement of debt letter dated 09.04.2020 for all types of facilities, Annexure-A10 (copy). The applicant bank recalled entire outstanding amount vide legal notice dated 27.09.2021 along with postal receipts, AnnexureA11 (colly) (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.24,90,160.38/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lac Ninety Thousand One Hundred Sixty and Thirty Eight Paisa Only) , is recoverable against the defendants as per statements of accounts, certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891, Annexures-A12 and A13 (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

OA/1577/2022 CANARA BANK Vs SEEMA GUPTA @ SEEMA RANI AND OTHERS 4

¶27

Notices of the Original Application were duly served upon the defendants, but since none appeared on behalf of the defendants, thus, defendants were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 26.09.2023 .

¶28

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

¶29

Sh. Yogesh Roshan Kainse, General Power of Attorney-cumBranch Manager of the applicant bank was filed.

¶30

This Tribunal has heard ex-parte arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant bank and gone through the record carefully.

¶31

It was argued by the learned counsel 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 A13 , 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.24,90,160.38/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lac Ninety Thousand

¶32

One Hundred Sixty and Thirty Eight Paisa Only) from the defendants.

¶33

OA/1577/2022 CANARA BANK Vs SEEMA GUPTA @ SEEMA RANI AND OTHERS 5

¶34

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, in relief clause, the applicant bank has not claimed any particular rate of interest. In sanction letters dated 13.10.2013, Annexures-A3 and A4 (colly) (copy), rate of interest has been mentioned @9.75% per annum.

¶35

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 agriculture, 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 @7% per annum from the date of filing of the OA till realisation of the amount ordered vide this order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶36

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.24,90,160.38/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lac Ninety Thousand One Hundred Sixty and Thirty Eight Paisa Only) with current and future simple interest @7% per annum w.e.f. 20.08.2022 , 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/hypothecated property

¶37

OA/1577/2022 CANARA BANK Vs SEEMA GUPTA @ SEEMA RANI AND OTHERS 6

¶38

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.

¶39

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, 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 13.02.2024 .

¶42

Copy of this order be sent to the applicant bank and the defendants through registered/speed post. This order be uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal.

¶43

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

Canara Bank v. Smt. Seema Gupta @ Seema Rani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Smt. Seema Gupta @ Seema Rani

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 Li- Style

Canara Bank versus Messers Yuvaraj Trading

Bank of Baroda versus M/s Shriram Trading

Tilak Raj Pathak versus the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Rajender Singh

State Bank of India versus M/S. Santhosh Enterprises