Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Sandeep Singh

DRT13 Oct 2023OA/1649/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed Union Bank's application for recovery of ₹39,78,443 from borrowers of a housing loan. The tribunal reduced the interest rate to 7% p.a. due to pandemic circumstances and ordered issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Order allowing OA for recovery of ₹39,78,443 with 7% p.a. simple interest from filing date and directing issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Sandeep Singh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1649/2022

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 08.09.2022

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 13^th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

Union Bank of India , a body constituted under the Banking Company (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act No. V of 1970, having its Head Office at 239, Vidhan Sabha Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai having its Branches all over India amongst other places at Karnal Main, Haryana, through Sh. Rakesh Kumar, its Constituted Attorney and Principal Officer

¶6

…..Applicant Bank

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Sandeep Singh s/o Sh. Balvinder Singh r/o Near Bhagwadia Gas Agency, Anand Vihar, Hansi Road, Karnal, Haryana having its PAN No. EQZPS0677G

¶9

Smt. Lakbir Kaur w/o Shri Balvinder Singh r/o Near Bhagwadia Gas Agency, Anand Vihar, Hansi Road, Karnal, Haryana having its PAN No. DMZPK9397G

¶10

…..Defendants

¶11

Argued by: Sh. Satish Kumar, Senior Manager for the applicant bank Defendants ex parte vide order dated 04.08.2023

¶12

FINAL ORDER

¶13

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity),

¶14

OA/1649/2022 UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs SANDEEP KUMAR AND ANOTHER 2

¶15

against the defendants for recovery of Rs.39,78,443/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lac Seventy Eight Thousand Four Hundred and Forty Three Only) . It has been filed through Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Constituted Attorney and Principal Officer of the applicant bank stated to be competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney, Annexure-A2 (copy).

¶16

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 housing loan facility of Rs. 37.60 lac .

¶17

The applicant bank sanctioned aforesaid facility to the defendants vide sanction letter dated 19.11.2018, Annexure-A3 (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 demand promissory note dated 19.11.2018, Annexure-A4 (copy), housing loan agreement dated 19.11.2018, Annexure-A5 (copy), interest agreement dated 19.11.2018, Annexure-A6 (copy), letter of continuity dated 19.11.2018, Annexure-A7 (copy) and letter dated 19.11.2018 regarding disclosure of information to CIBIL, Annexure-A8 (copy).

¶19

The aforesaid loan was further secured by creation of mortgage by defendant No. 1 in respect of plot measuring 124.44 Square Yard situated at Anand Vihar, Karnal, Haryana, fully detailed in para No. 5.5 of the Original Application.

¶20

OA/1649/2022 UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs SANDEEP KUMAR AND ANOTHER 3

¶21

The documents relating to the mortgage are as under:

¶22

i. Valuation report dated 12.11.2018, Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶23

ii. Registered sale deed No. 7289/1 dated 21.11.2018, Annexure-A9 (copy).

¶24

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 leading to the loan account becoming irregular and it being classified as NPA. The defendants executed simple debt confirmation letter dated 31.03.2022, Annexure-A10 (copy). The applicant bank recalled entire outstanding amount vide legal notice dated 06.08.2022, Annexure-A11 (copy), but to no avail.

¶25

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account, a sum of Rs.39,78,443/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lac Seventy Eight Thousand Four Hundred and Forty Three Only) is recoverable against the defendants as per statement of account, certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891, Annexure-A12 (colly) (copy).

¶26

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

¶27

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 04.08.2023 .

¶28

OA/1649/2022 UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs SANDEEP KUMAR AND ANOTHER 4

¶29

In support of contents of the OA, affidavit of evidence of Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Chief Manager of the applicant bank was filed.

¶30

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

¶31

It was argued by 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 A12 , it is clear 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. 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.39,78,443/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lac Seventy Eight

¶32

Thousand Four Hundred and Forty Three Only) from the defendants.

¶33

In so far as pendent lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank has claimed rate of interest @8.50% per annum with monthly rests. In demand promissory note dated 19.11.2018, Annexure-A4 (copy), rate of interest has been mentioned @14% per annum.

¶34

OA/1649/2022 UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs SANDEEP KUMAR AND ANOTHER 5

¶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. housing, quantum of loan, prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yesteryears and defendant No. 2 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.39,78,443/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lac Seventy Eight Thousand Four Hundred and Forty Three Only) with current and future simple interest @7% per annum w.e.f. 08.09.2022 , 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 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 personal

¶37

OA/1649/2022 UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs SANDEEP KUMAR AND ANOTHER 6

¶38

assets of the defendants. However, the applicant bank is at liberty to

¶39

enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶40

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶41

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 07.11.2023 .

¶42

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.

¶43

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

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Sandeep Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Sandeep Singh

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 India versus M/S Maa Enterprise

Punjab National Bank versus Ms Garage

Canara Bank versus Soumik Chatterjee

State Bank of India versus Sh Prashant Gupta

Hdfc Bank versus Ali Mohammad Ganaiee

Axis Bank versus Mrs. Bhagat Pal Kaur