Allowed

Sarv Haryana Gramin Bank v. M/S Nag Nath Trading Company

DRT2 Aug 2023OA/1790/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank for recovery of Rs. 36,03,296/- against the defendants in an ex-parte proceeding, granting uniform simple interest at 9% per annum.

What did the court decide?

The applicant bank was granted recovery of Rs. 36,03,296/- with uniform simple interest at 9% per annum from 23.09.2022 and issued a Recovery Certificate.

Sarv Haryana Gramin Bank versus M/S Nag Nath Trading Company — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 1790 of 2022

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 23.09.2022

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 2^nd DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶5

Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank , a body corporate constituted under the Regional Rural Bank Act 1976, Act No. 21 of 1976, having its Head Office, at Sector 3, Rohtak, Haryana and having its Branches at different places including one at Mohammadpur Ahir, Tehsil Tauru, District Nuh, Mewat, Haryana, through its Constituted Attorney/ Officer, Ms Parvesh

¶6

.......Applicant Bank

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s Nag Nath Trading Company, through its Proprietor, Sh. Prahlad @Pahlad

¶9

Sh. Prahlad @Pahlad s/o Sh. Ram Rattan s/o Ramji Lal r/o Village Mohammadpur-Ahir, Tehsil Tauru, District Mewat, Haryana

¶10

Sh. Jai Pal s/o Sh. Ramji Lal r/o Village Mohammadpur-Ahir, Tehsil Tauru, District Mewat, Haryana

¶11

......Defendants

¶12

Argued by: Sh. Parveen Kumar Saxena, Assistant Manager for the applicant bank Defendants ex parte vide order dated 08.02.2023

¶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 Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity) , against the defendants for recovery of Rs.36,03,296/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lacs Three Thousand Two

¶15

OA/1790/2022 SARV HARYANA GRAMIN BANK Vs M/S NAG NATH TRADING COMPANY AND OTHERS 2 Hundred and Ninety Six Only) . The OA has been filed through Ms Parvesh, Manager of the applicant bank, stated to be competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 30.10.2014, Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶16

The brief facts of the case of the applicant as per Original Application are that defendant No. 1 through defendant No. 2 had approached the applicant bank for grant of Overdraft facility of Rs. 30 lacs and term loan facility of Rs. 4.80 lacs vide loan applications dated 27.12.2017 and 25.10.2016, Annexures-A2 and A2/1 (copy). Defendant No. 3 stood as a guarantor for repayment of the loan.

¶17

The applicant bank sanctioned aforesaid credit facilities vide sanction letters dated 27.12.2017, 30.12.2017 and 25.10.2016, Annexures-A3, A3/1 and A3/2 (copy) as per terms and conditions duly accepted by the defendants.

¶18

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facilities, the defendants executed various loans and security documents, i.e. agreement dated 05.01.2018 of hypothecation of goods and book debts, Annexure-A4 (copy) and hypothecation agreement dated 25.10.2016 for car loan, Annexure-A4/1 (copy). Defendant No. 3 executed agreements of guarantee dated 05.01.2018 and 25.10.2016, Annexures-A4/2 and A4/3 (copy).

¶19

The aforesaid loans were further secured by creation of mortgage by defendant No. 2 in respect of two parcels of agricultural land measuring 5 Kanals 8 Marlas situated in the revenue estates of Mohammadpur-Ahir and Dadu, Tehsil Tauru, District Nuh, Mewat, Haryana fully detailed in para No. 5.6 of the Original Application.

¶20

OA/1790/2022 SARV HARYANA GRAMIN BANK Vs M/S NAG NATH TRADING COMPANY AND OTHERS 3 Registered mortgage deed Nos. 2106 and 2107 dated 04.01.2018, Annexures-A5 and A5/1 (copy).

¶21

It is further the case of applicant that the loan facilities were 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 03.09.2020. The defendants executed balance and security confirmation letter dated 15.10.2019 and 03.09.2020, Annexures-A7 and A7/1 (copy). The applicant bank recalled the entire outstanding amount vide legal notices dated 03.01.2022 along with its postal receipts, Annexures-A6 and A6/1 (colly) (copy), but to no avail.

¶22

It is further the case of applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan accounts, a sum of Rs.36,03,296/(Rupees Thirty Six Lacs Three Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Six Only) is recoverable against defendants as per statements of accounts, certified under Bankers’ Book Evidence Act, AnnexuresA8 and A8/1 (copy).

¶23

Since the defendants did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant bank preferred the present Original Application for issuance of Recovery Certificate. 7. Notices of the Original Application were duly served upon the defendants, but since none appeared on behalf of the defendants despite service, thus, defendants were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 08.02.2023 .

¶24

In support of contents of the Original Application, affidavit of evidence of Ms Parvesh, Manager of the applicant bank was filed.

¶25

OA/1790/2022 SARV HARYANA GRAMIN BANK Vs M/S NAG NATH TRADING COMPANY AND OTHERS 4 9. This Tribunal has heard ex parte arguments advanced by Sh. Parveen Kumar Saxena, Assistant Manager of the applicant bank and gone through the record carefully.

¶26

It was argued Sh. Parveen Kumar Saxena, Assistant 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 A8 , it comes out 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. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.36,03,296/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lacs Three Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Six Only) from the defendants, from the date of filing the present Original Application, till realization of the amount.

¶27

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has claimed rate of interest @11% per annum in overdraft facility plus penal interest @2% per annum and @9.75% per annum plus penal interest @2% per annum in term loan facility. In sanction letter dated 30.12.2017, Annexure-A3/1 (copy) and car loan agreement dated 25.10.2016, Annexure-A4/1 (copy), rate of interest have been mentioned @11.50% per annum in overdraft facility and @9.75% per annum in term loan facility, respectively.

¶28

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

¶29

OA/1790/2022 SARV HARYANA GRAMIN BANK Vs M/S NAG NATH TRADING COMPANY AND OTHERS 5 and circumstances of the instant case including the Pandemic Covid-19 affecting businesses, nature of the mortgaged property, purpose of loan, i.e. business, area of place of abode of the defendants, quantum of loan and prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yesteryears, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶30

In the result, the Original Application is allowed with cost declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum Rs.36,03,296/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lacs Three Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Six Only) with current and future simple interest @9% per annum w.e.f. 23.09.2022 , 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 defendants in execution proceedings, if not sold earlier under the provisions of the Securitization 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 assets of the defendants. The applicant bank is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶31

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶32

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 28.09.2023.

¶33

OA/1790/2022 SARV HARYANA GRAMIN BANK Vs M/S NAG NATH TRADING COMPANY AND OTHERS 6

¶34

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.

¶35

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

Sarv Haryana Gramin Bank v. M/S Nag Nath Trading Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarv Haryana Gramin Bank v. M/S Nag Nath Trading Company

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

Punjab National Bank versus Messers Kamakhya Steel

Central Bank of India versus Shri Rajendra Kumar Chaturvedi

Hdfc Bank versus Dropadi Enterprises

Canara Bank versus M/S Man Singh Lakdi Furniture Udhyog

Canara Bank versus M/S Ompal Steel Fabrication

Ms Shree Hargobind Plastic and General Store versus Cholamandalam Investments and Finance Co.Ltd