Allowed

Canara Bank v. Mrs. Harbans Kaur

DRT7 Jun 2023OA/1650/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by Canara Bank for recovery of an agricultural loan of approximately Rs. 22.45 lakhs outstanding against the defendants. The tribunal decreed the principal amount with future simple interest at 7% per annum and issued a recovery certificate despite the defendants appearing ex parte.

What did the court decide?

Decree for payment of Rs. 22,45,084.22 with future simple interest at 7% p.a. from application date; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Canara Bank versus Mrs. Harbans Kaur — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 1650/2022

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 12.09.2022

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 7^th DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶5

Canara Bank, Head Office at #112, J.C. Road, Halsurpete, Nagarathpete, Begaluru, Karnataka-560002 and Branch at Dachar, District Karnal, Haryana, through its constituted Power of Attorney, Sh. Ashish Juneja

¶6

…..Applicant Bank

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mrs. Harbans Kaur W/o Sh. Gurbachan Singh

¶9

Sh. Bhagel Singh S/o Sh. Gurbachan Singh

¶10

Sh. Gurdeep Singh S/o Sh. Gurbachan Singh

¶11

All residents of Village Dera Fatehgarh, VPO Dachar, Tehsil Nissing, District Karnal, Haryana-132024

¶12

…..Defendants

¶13

Argued by: Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Divisional Manager for the applicant bank Defendants ex parte vide order dated 02.02.2023

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

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.22,45,084.22/(Rupees Twenty Two lacs Forty Five Thousand Eighty Four and Twenty Two Paisa only) . The OA has been filed through Sh. Ashish Juneja, attorney holder of the applicant bank, stated to be competent to institute the Original Application vide

¶16

OA 1650/2022 CANARA BANK V/S HARBANS KAUR AND OTHERS 2

¶17

General Power of Attorney dated 20.10.2016, Annexure-A1 (copy) and gazette notification dated 04.03.2020, Annexure-A2 (copy).

¶18

The brief facts of the case of the applicant as per the Original Application are that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had approached the applicant bank for grant of agriculture loan of Rs. 3,40,000/- vide loan application dated 10.09.2007, Annexure-A3 (copy) and cash credit of Rs. 60,000/- vide letter dated 16.09.2016, Annexure-12 (copy). Defendant No.3 stood as a guarantor for repayment of the loan.

¶19

The applicant bank sanctioned the above said loan facilities to the defendants as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶20

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facilities, the defendants executed loan and security documents, i.e. agreement dated 04.10.2007, Annexure-A6 (copy), deed of guarantee dated 04.10.2017, Annexure-A7 (copy), letter dated 04.10.2007 regarding rate of interest, Annexure-A8 (copy), demand promissory note dated 12.10.2013, Annexure-A11 (copy) and letter for time barred debts, Annexure-A13 (copy).

¶21

The aforesaid loans were further secured by creation of mortgage by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of agricultural land measuring 23 Kanals 18 Marlas situated in the revenue estate of Dachar, Tehsil Nissing, District Karnal, Haryana, fully detailed in para No. 3(A) of the Original Application.

¶22

The documents related to mortgage are as under:

¶23

OA 1650/2022 CANARA BANK V/S HARBANS KAUR AND OTHERS

¶24

¶25

i. Registered mortgaged deed dated 18.09.2017, AnnexureA4 (copy) .

¶26

ii. Copy of ‘rapat’ dated 21.09.2007 and copy of ‘Jamabandi’ years 2005-2006, Annexure-A5 (colly) (copy).

¶27

It is further the case of the applicant bank that the loan facilities was duly availed of by the defendants but they failed to maintain the financial discipline of the applicant bank and resultantly, the loan accounts became irregular and those were declared as NPA on 23.11.2009. The defendants executed acknowledgment of debt letter dated 13.09.2019. The applicant bank recalled the entire outstanding amount vide legal notices dated 15.01.2011, 20.12.2011 and 08.02.2013, along with postal receipts Annexure-A9 (colly) (copy) and Annexure-A10 (colly) (copy), but to no avail.

¶28

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account, a sum of Rs.22,45,084.22/(Rupees Twenty Two lacs Forty Five Thousand Eighty Four and Twenty Two Paisa only) is recoverable against the defendants as per statement of account certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, Annexure-A14 (copy).

¶29

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

¶30

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 02.02.2023 .

¶31

OA 1650/2022 CANARA BANK V/S HARBANS KAUR AND OTHERS 4

¶32

In support of the contents of the OA, affidavit of evidence of Sh. Ashish Juneja, Power of Attorney holder of the applicant bank was filed.

¶33

This Tribunal has heard ex-parte arguments advanced by Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Divisional Manager of the applicant bank and gone through the record carefully.

¶34

It was argued by Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Divisional 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-1 to 14, it is clear that the defendants had approached the applicant bank for availing of the loan facilities which were 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.22,45,084.22/- (Rupees Twenty Two lacs Forty Five Thousand Eighty Four and Twenty Two Paisa only) from the defendants.

¶35

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has claimed rate of interest @18% per annum with monthly rests plus @2% per annum penal interest.

¶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

¶37

OA 1650/2022 CANARA BANK V/S HARBANS KAUR AND OTHERS 5

¶38

and circumstances of the instant case including the Pandemic Covid-19 affecting businesses, nature of 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 lady, 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 final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶39

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.22,45,084.22/- (Rupees Twenty Two lacs Forty Five Thousand Eighty Four and Twenty Two Paisa only) with current and future simple interest @7% per annum , w.e.f. 12.09.2022 , till the date of realisation of the amount. The liability of 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, 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.

¶40

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶41

OA 1650/2022 CANARA BANK V/S HARBANS KAUR AND OTHERS 6

¶42

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 07.08.2023.

¶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

¶45

DRT-2, Chandigarh

Canara Bank v. Mrs. Harbans Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Mrs. Harbans Kaur

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

M/S Ramdeo Traders Proprietor Uday Subhaschandra Bothra versus Icici Bank Limited

Smt Kokila Wo Gajananrao Shete versus Indian Bank

Punjab National Bank versus Smt. Babita Rani

Mustaaq Ahmad Seikh versus Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited

Punjab National Bank (Oriental Bank of Commerce) versus Sh. Kushi Ram

State Bank of India versus Sh. Shamsher Singh