Allowed

Canara Bank, v. Messrs Komal Enterprises and Others

DRT20 Dec 2023OA/169/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Canara Bank to recover a sum of approximately Rs. 1.15 crores from sole proprietorship M/s Komal Enterprises and its proprietors. The Tribunal proceeded ex-parte due to non-appearance of respondents and ordered recovery from mortgaged and personal properties.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 1,15,11,788.26 plus costs and interest @10% p.a.; issuance of Recovery Certificate; liberty to enforce.

Canara Bank, versus Messrs Komal Enterprises and Others — Money Laundering | DRT (2023)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.169/2023 PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 13.01.2023

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 20.12.2023

¶5

Canara Bank, a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act 1970, having its Head Office at 112, Jaya Chamarajendra Road, Banglore and inter alia having a branch Office at SME Branch, Sunder Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab through its attorney and Manager Smt. Pratima Singh.

¶6

……..Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s Komal Enterprises, a sole proprietor concern, House No. 1377/A, Ground Floor, Vardhman Nagar,Rahon Road, Ludhiana, Punjab-141007 through its sole Proprietor.

¶9

Sh. Tehseem Ahmed S/o Sh. Abdul Raheem, Sole Proprietor M/s Komal Enterprises, R/o H No. 3680, Street No. 11, New Shivaji Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab-141008.

¶10

Sh. Mohd. Naeem S/o Sh. Mohd. Abdul Raheem, R/o H No. 3680, Street No. 11, New Shivaji Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab-141008.

¶11

Smt. Rahila W/o Mohd. Shamim, R/o House No. 3679/80, New Shivaji Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab-141008.

¶12

….……Defendants

¶13

Advocates:

¶14

Argued by Sh. Yogesh Kumar, counsel of the applicant Defendants are ex-parte

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.1,15,11,788.26p (Rupees One Crore Fifteen Lacs Eleven Thousand

¶17

¶18

Seven Hundred Eighty Eight and paisa Twenty six only). The Original Application has been filed through Smt. Pratima Singh, Manager o f the applicant bank, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Letter of Authority dated 31.03.2022, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶19

The brief facts of the OA are that defendant No.1 through its Proprietor defendant No. 2 had approached the applicant bank for taken over of the Housing Loan of Rs. 37.70 Lacs from UCO Bank and also requested for Working Capital Limit of Rs.70.00 Lacs, which was later on restructured to Rs. 20.00 Lacs with Working Capital Term Loan of Rs. 50.00 Lacs and FITL of Rs. 2,47,500.00 on the request of defendant No.1 and Vehicle Loan of Rs. 11.70 Lacs vide Loan Applications and Renewal Letters dated 03.12.2013, 07.10.2013, 04.04.2015, 29.07.2017, 30.09.2020 and 29.05.2021 and 28.12.2021, which are Annexures A2, A5, A13, A14, A16, A18, A20 and A26 to this OA.

¶20

The applicant Bank sanctioned taken over of the Housing Loan of Rs. 37.70 Lacs from UCO Bank and also sanctioned Working Capital Limit of Rs.70.00 Lacs, which was later on restructured to Rs. 20.00 Lacs with Working Capital Term Loan of Rs. 50.00 Lacs and FITL of Rs. 2,47,500.00 on the request of defendant No.1 and Vehicle Loan of Rs. 11.70 Lacs vide Sanction Letters dated 11.12.2013, 20.01.2014, 30.12.2014, 04.04.2015, 29.07.2017, 30.09.2020, 29.05.2021 and 24.12.2021, which are Annexures A3, A6, A9, A12, A15, A17, A21 and A25 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶21

Defendant No.2 had mortgaged his immovable property equitable mortgage i.e. (A) House measuring 216 Sq. Yards Bearing MC No. B-23-3679, situated at Village Taraf Saidan known as Shivaji Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab vide family settlement deed No. 6913 dated 24.06.2011 along with its Translation, which is Annexure A29 to this OA;

¶22

¶23

(B) Hypothecation of Toyota Innova GX-7S Car bearing registration no. PB10EZ6002, Engine No. 2KDU686073 and Chassis No. MBJ11JV4007504790 vide Can mobile Agreement dated 30.12.2014, which is Annexure A10 to this OA;

¶24

Documents executed:-Housing Loan Agreement dated 19.12.2013, which is Annexure A4 to this OA; Cash Credit Agreement and Guarantee Agreement dated 21.01.2014, which are Annexures A7 and A8 to this OA; Guarantee Agreement dated 30.12.2014, which is Annexure A11 to this OA; Guarantee Agreement dated 30.09.2020, which is Annexure A19 to this OA; Debt Restructuring Agreement and Debtor Creditor Agreement and Letter of Undertaking dated 29.05.2021, which are Annexures A22, A23 and A24 to this OA; Letter of Guarantee and Letter of Proprietorship dated 28.12.2021, which are Annexures A27 and A28 to this OA; Confirmation Letter dated 21.01.2014, which is Annexure A30 to this OA; Acknowledgment of Debts dated 04.04.2015, 28.06.2016, 29.07.2017, 30.09.2020, 28.12.2021, 15.12.2020 and 19.10.2019, which is Annexure A31 to this OA; CERSAI, which is Annexure A32 to this OA; Notice u/s 13(2) dated 02.06.2022, which is Annexure A33 to this OA and Statement of accounts along with bankers book of evidence Act, Which are Annexures A34 to A38 to this OA. 5. The loan accounts became irregular and were classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan accounts there was a debit of Rs.1,15,11,788.26p (Rupees One Crore Fifteen Lacs Eleven Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty Eight and paisa Twenty six only) which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notices but they did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant bank requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 6. The defendants were served notices to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte on 29.09.2023.

¶25

¶26

In support of the OA, affidavit of Smt. Pratima Singh, Manager, Canara Bank has been filed.

¶27

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record. 9. It was argued by learned counsel that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant bank had proved its case. From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A38 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant bank for availing of the loan facilities which were granted to them and for that they had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. The defendants failed to pay back the loans as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, accounts of the defendants were classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.1,15,11,788.26p (Rupees One Crore Fifteen Lacs Eleven Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty Eight and paisa Twenty six only) along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the accounts.

¶28

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant bank has claimed interest @13.30%p.a. with monthly rests in all the loan accounts from 31.10.2022 till the realization.

¶29

The Tribunal is of the considered opinion that sometimes in appropriate cases the prerogative of mercy is the brightest jewel in the crown of the Judge. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case including nature of the mortgaged property, undertaking of the defendants, quantum of loans and prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yester years, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @10.00%p.a. in the loan account from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶30

¶31

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.1,15,11,788.26p (Rupees One Crore Fifteen Lacs Eleven Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty Eight and paisa Twenty six only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @10.00%p.a. in the loan account from the date of filing of OA till the date of realization of the amount. Accordingly, the applicant bank shall be entitled to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of hypothecated/mortgaged properties of the defendants in execution proceedings if not sold earlier under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. If the dues of the bank still remain unsatisfied, it shall be entitled to recover the same by attachment and sale of personal assets of the defendants. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶32

Any other application pending stands disposed of. 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶33

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 29.12.2023. 15. Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant bank and be sent to defendants through registered/speed post and this order be also uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal and record be consigned. Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal. Dated: 20.12.2023 (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Canara Bank, v. Messrs Komal Enterprises and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank, v. Messrs Komal Enterprises 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Axis Bank Ltd., versus Sh.Gurinderjeet Singh and Another

Hdfc Bank Limited, versus M/S Virk Jewellers and Others

Punjab National Bank, versus Ms. Amarjit Kaur

Dbs Bank India Limited, versus Messrs Chawla Traders and Another

Punjab National Bank, versus Messrs Shakti Industries and Others

Axis Bank Ltd., versus Sh. Balwinder Singh and Another