Allowed

Sarv Haryana Gramin Bank v. Sh. Kammu @ Kamruddin

DRT4 Jul 2023OA/1809/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DrT-2 allowed an application by Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank for recovery of a housing loan of Rs. 22.15 lakhs from borrowers who failed to repay. The court scaled down the claimed interest rate to 8% per annum and issued a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

The defence was declared liable to pay Rs. 22,15,164 plus simple interest @8% p.a. from the date of filing the Original Application.

Sarv Haryana Gramin Bank versus Sh. Kammu @… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1809/2022

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 23.08.2022

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 4^th DAY OF JULY, 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 Plot No.1, Sector-3, Rohtak, Haryana and one of its Branches at Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, Haryana, through its Branch Manager and duly constituted Attorney, Sh. Gajender Singh, its Principal Officer and General Attorney

¶6

…..Applicant Bank

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Kammu @Kamruddin S/o Sh. Babu Khan R/o New Patel Park, Ward No.1, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, Haryana-124507

¶9

Sh. Ashok Kumar S/o Sh. Itwari Lal R/o 292, Bhola Nath Nagar, Balmiki Mohalla, Shadra, Delhi-110032

¶10

…..Defendants

¶11

Argued by: Sh. Veer Sen Sarkar, Manager for the applicant bank Defendants ex parte vide order dated 08.02.2023

¶12

FINAL ORDER

¶13

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.22,15,164/(Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Fifteen Thousand One Hundred and Sixty Four only) . The OA has been filed through Sh. Gajender Singh, Principal Officer of the applicant bank, stated to be competent to institute

¶14

OA/1809/2022 SARV HARYANA GRAMIN BANK VS SH. KAMMU @KAMRUDDIN AND OTHERS 2

¶15

the Original Application vide General Power of Attorney dated 01.11.2019, Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶16

The brief facts of the case of the applicant as per the Original Application are that the defendant No.1 had approached the applicant bank for grant of housing loan of Rs. 4 lacs vide loan application dated 22.04.2006, Annexure- A2 (colly) (copy). Defendant No.2 stood as guarantor for repayment of the loan.

¶17

The applicant bank sanctioned the above said credit facility vide sanction letter dated 22.04.2006, Annexure- A2 (colly) (copy) to the defendants as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶18

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facility, the defendants executed various loan and securities documents, i.e. priority sector term loan agreement dated 22.04.2006, Annexure-A3 (copy), housing loan agreement dated 22.04.2006, Annexure-A4 (copy) and guarantee agreement dated 22.04.2006, Annexure-A5 (copy).

¶19

The aforesaid loan was further secured by creation of mortgage by the defendant No.1 in respect of immovable property measuring 50 Square Yards situated in Patel Park, Bahadurgarh, Haryana fully detailed in para No. 5.9 of the Original Application.

¶20

The documents relating to the mortgage are as under:

¶21

i. Extract of mortgage deed register, Annexure-A6 (copy) .

¶22

ii. Sale deed dated 15.02.2006, Annexure-A7 (copy).

¶23

iii. Letter dated 22.04.2006 regarding intent to deposit tile deed and acknowledgment, Annexure- A8 (copy)

¶24

OA/1809/2022 SARV HARYANA GRAMIN BANK VS SH. KAMMU @KAMRUDDIN AND OTHERS 3

¶25

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 and resultantly, the loan account became irregular and it was declared as NPA on 29.04.2010. The defendants executed balance and security confirmation letters dated 24.04.2008, 23.03.2010, 30.08.2012, 07.07.2014, 07.09.2016 and 03.09.2019, Annexures-A9 to A14 (copy). The applicant bank recalled entire outstanding amount vide notice dated 19.02.2013, Annexure-A15 (copy) and legal notices dated 18.07.2022, AnnexureA16 (colly) (copy), but to no avail.

¶26

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account, a sum of Rs.22,15,164/(Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Fifteen Thousand One Hundred and Sixty Four only) , is recoverable against the defendants as per statement of account, certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, Annexures-A17 (copy).

¶27

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

¶28

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 08.02.2023 .

¶29

In support of contents of the OA, affidavit of evidence of Sh. Gajender Singh, Manager of the applicant bank was filed.

¶30

OA/1809/2022 SARV HARYANA GRAMIN BANK VS SH. KAMMU @KAMRUDDIN AND OTHERS 4

¶31

This Tribunal has heard ex-parte arguments advanced by Sh. Veer Sen Sarkar, Manager of the applicant bank and gone through the record carefully.

¶32

It was argued by Sh. Veer Sen Sarkar, 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 A17 , it is clear that the defendants had approached the applicant bank for availing of the loan facility which was 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.22,15,164/(Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Fifteen Thousand One Hundred and Sixty Four only) from the defendants.

¶33

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank has claimed in relief clause rate of interest @10.7% per annum with monthly rests. In priority sector term loan agreement dated 22.04.2006, Annexure-A3 (copy), the rate of interest has been mentioned @9.25% per annum.

¶34

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, purpose of loan, i.e. housing, quantum of loan and prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in

¶35

OA/1809/2022 SARV HARYANA GRAMIN BANK VS SH. KAMMU @KAMRUDDIN AND OTHERS 5

¶36

yesteryears, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @8% per annum from the date of filing of the OA till realisation of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶37

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.22,15,164/(Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Fifteen Thousand One Hundred and Sixty Four only) with current and future simple interest @8% per annum , w.e.f. 23.08.2022 , 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 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.

¶38

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶39

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 05.09.2023

¶40

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.

¶41

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

Sarv Haryana Gramin Bank v. Sh. Kammu @ Kamruddin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarv Haryana Gramin Bank v. Sh. Kammu @ Kamruddin

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 Maharashtra versus Mandavagade Hardware

Bank of Baroda versus Sidheshwar Prasad Singh

Punjab National Bank (United Bank of India) versus M/s Diksha Steel and others

Hdfc Bank Limited versus God Blessing Public School

Punjab National Bank versus M/s Ayush Agro Industries and Others

Amrika Devi and Others versus Indian Bank