Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S Yogender Aggarwal

DRT9 Nov 2023OA/1842/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed Canara Bank's application for recovery of Rs. 55,25,927.70/- from M/s Yogender Aggarwal. The court granted a recovery certificate and awarded simple interest at 9% per annum, ordering that the liability be recovered via sale of mortgaged property or attachment of personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 55,25,927.70/- with simple interest at 9% per annum via sale of mortgaged property or attachment of personal assets.

Canara Bank versus M/S Yogender Aggarwal — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1842/2022 DATE OF INSTITUTION: 01.08.2022

¶3

DATE OF DECISION: 9 th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

Canara Bank, body corporate, constituted under the Banking Companies, (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, having its Head Office at Plot No. 112, J.C. Road, Town Hall Junction, Bengaluru, Karnataka and one of its Branches at 1st Floor, Push pa Complex, Hall No. 1, Near Agra Cho\fl{k, Palwal, District Palwal (Haryana)-121102, through its Senior Manager, Sh. Sheesh Ram, duly authorised signatory of the bank being Principal Officer and duly constituted Attorney of Applicant Bank

¶5

..... Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s Yogender Aggarwal, Ward No. 28, Near Committee Chowk, 1988/1 Painth Mohalla, Inderpuri, District Pal":-'al, Haryana 121102, through its Proprietor, Sh. Yogender Aggarwal

¶8

Alternate Address:

¶9

'b,,~ M/s Yogender Aggarwal, Branch at Agra Chowk, Palwal, District Palwal (Haryana) 121102 through its Proprietor, Sh. Yogender Aggarwal

¶10

~rt-v' Sh. Yogender Aggarwal s/o Sh. Suresh Chand Goel r/o House No.

¶11

I I'

¶12

119, Behind Old PNB, Ward No. 28, Inderpuri Mohalla, District Palwal, Haryana 121102

¶13

Smt. Urmila Devi w/o Sh. Suresh Chand Goel r/o House No. 119, t

¶14

..... Defendants

¶15

OA/1842/2022 CANARA BANK Vs M/S VOGENDER AGGARWAL AND OTHERS 2 Street No. 1, Behind Old PNB, Ward No. 28, Inderpuri Mohalla, District Palwal, Haryana 121102

¶16

Argued by: Sh. Randeep Singh counsel for the applicant bank Defendants ex parte vide order dated 20.05.2023

¶17

FINAL ORDER

¶18

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.55,25,927.70/(Rupees Fifty Five Lac Twenty Five Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Sev~n and Seventy Paisa Only). It has been filed through Sh. Sheesh Ram, Senior Manager of the applicant bank stated t_o be competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 16.08.2018, Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶19

The brief facts of the case of the applicant as per the Original Application are that defendant Nos. 1 to 3 had approached the applicant bank for grant of Over Draft limit of Rs. 40,00,000/and Term Loan of Rs. 7,39,000/under Guaranteed Emergency Credit Limt vide loan application Forms dated 30.01.2019 and 06.07.2020, Annexures-A2 and A11 (copy). Defendant No. 4 stood as guarantor for repayment of the loan.

¶20

The applicant bank sanctioned aforesaid facilities to the defendants, as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted

¶21

by the defendants. Sanction letter dated 06.07.2020 is Annexure- 3 A14 (copy). OA/1842/2022 CANARA BANK Vs M/5 YOGENDER AGGARWAL AND OTHERS

¶22

(copy), 4. defendants executed various loan and security documents, i.e. cash credit agreement dated guarantee covering letter dated 30.01.2019, Annexure-A4 (copy), pronotes dated 30.01.2019 and 06.07.2020, Annexures-A6 and regarding terms and conditions, Annexures-A7 and A13 (copy), request offer letter dated 06.07.2020, Annexure-AlO (copy) and agreement-cum-deed hypothecation dated 06.07.2020, In order to secure the aforementioned credit facilities, the 30.01.2019, Annexure-A3 A15 (copy), letter of undertakings dated 30.01.2019 and 06.07.2020 letter of proprietorship dated 28.01.2019, Annexure-AS (copy), of

¶23

Annexure-A12 (copy).

¶24

The aforesaid limits were further secured by creation of equitable mortgage by defendant No. 4 in respect of residential situated at Painth Mohalla, Inderpuri, District Palwal, Haryana, fully detailed in para No. 5.15 of the OA. property bearing house No. 1988/1 measuring 192 Square Yards

¶25

The documents related to mortgage are as under:

¶26

i. Letter dated 30.01.2019 for depositing of title deed,

¶27

Annexure-AS (copy).

¶28

ii. Registered sale deed dated 03.12.2018, Annexure-A9 (copy).

¶29

facilities were duly availed of by the defendants but they failed to maintain the financial discipline of the applicant bank leading to the loan accounts becoming irregular and those being classified as NPA It is further the case of the applicant bank that the loan

¶30

4 OA/1842/2022 CANARA BANK Vs M/S YOGENDER AGGARWAL AND OTHERS

¶31

on 30.07.2021. The defendants executed acknowledgement of debt and security dated 29.08.2020, Annexure-A16 (copy).

¶32

Twenty Five It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan accounts, a sum of Rs.55,25,927.70/(Rupees Fifty Five Lac Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Seven and Seventy Paisa Only), is recoverable against the defendants as per statements of accounts, certified under Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891, Annexures-A17 and A18 (copy).

¶33

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

¶34

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 20.05.2023.

¶35

In support of contents of the OA, affidavit of evidence of Sh. Sheesh Ram, Senior Manager of the applicant bank was filed. 9. This Tribunal has heard ex-parte arguments advanced by the learned counsel and gone through the record carefully.

¶36

It was argued by the learned counsel 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-Al to A18, it is clear 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

¶37

OA/ 1842/2022 CANARA BANK Vs M/S YOGENDER AGGARWAL AND OTHERS Fifty Five Lac Twenty Five Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty stated above in favour of the applicant bank. Unfortunately, the defendants failed to pay back the loans 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.55,25,927.70/- (Rupees Seven and Seventy Paisa Only) from the defendants. 5

¶38

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has not claimed any particular rate of interest. In sanction letter dated 06.07.2020, Annexure-A14 (copy), rate of interest has been mentioned @7.5% per annum. 11.

¶39

market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in 12. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that sometimes in 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 mortgaged property, purpose of loan, i.e. business, quantum of loan and prevalent the date of filing of the OA till realisation of the amount ordered vide appropriate cases the prerogatives of mercy and magnanimity are yesteryears and defendant No. 4 being a female, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @9% per annum from this order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶40

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.55,25,927.70/- (Rupees Fifty Five Lac Twenty Five

¶41

OA/1842/2022 CANARA BANK Vs M/5 YOGENDER AGGARWAL AND OTHERS 6

¶42

Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Seven and Seventy Paisa

¶43

Only) with current and future simple interest @90/o per annum w.e.f. 01.08.2022, 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, 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.

¶44

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶45

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 22.12.2023.

¶46

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.

¶47

Pronounced in the open Tribunal

¶48

(M.M. Dhonchak) Presiding Officer DRT-2, Chandigarh

Canara Bank v. M/S Yogender Aggarwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S Yogender Aggarwal

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

Mr Vijaykumar Sarvaiya versus Sbfc Finance Private Limited

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Adarsh Chaudhary

Punjab National Bank versus Ramesh Chand Rawat

Hdfc Bank versus Kanchan Singh

Hdfc Bank versus Tirumalsetty Lakshmi Kiran

Icici Bank Limited versus Mohammed Hamed Ali