Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sh. Sudhir Kumar

DRT20 Jun 2023OA/1901/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT-2, Chandigarh allowed the applicant bank’s claim for recovery of Rs.30,68,697/- from the defendant on an agricultural loan secured by mortgage. The court granted recovery interest @8% per annum, exercising discretion considering economic conditions.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.30,68,697/- with simple interest at 8% per annum from 12.10.2022; liberty to execute against mortgaged property and personal assets.

State Bank of India versus Sh. Sudhir Kumar — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1901/2022

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 12.10.2022

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 20^th DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶5

State Bank of India , a body corporate constituted under the provisions of the State Bank of India, 1955 (23 of 1955) and the successor to State Bank of Patiala under the Acquisition of State Bank of Patiala, Order No. G.S.R.159 (E) dated 22.02.2017, passed by the Central Government under Section 35 of the State Bank of India, Act, 1955 (23 of 1955), having its Corporate Office at Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai, one of its Local Head Offices at Sector-17-A, Chandigarh, Branches all over India, including one at Chhachhrauli, District Yamunanagar, Haryana, through its Branch Manager, Sh. Ravi Prabh

¶6

…..Applicant Bank

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Sudhir Kumar S/o Sh. Sharab Singh R/o Village Begumpur, PO Deodhar, Tehsil Chhachhrauli, District Yamunanagar, Haryana

¶9

…..Defendant

¶10

Argued by: Sh. Divjot Singh Rekhi, Nodal Officer for the applicant bank Defendant ex parte vide order dated 03.06.2023

¶11

FINAL ORDER

¶12

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 defendant for recovery of

¶13

OA/1901/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs SUDHIR KUMAR

¶14

¶15

Rs.30,68,697/- (Rupees Thirty lacs Sixty Eight Thousand Six

¶16

Hundred and Ninety Seven Only) . It has been filed through Sh. Ravi Prabh, Branch Manager of the applicant bank stated to be competent to institute the Original Application.

¶17

The brief facts of the case of the applicant as per Original Application are that the defendant had approached the applicant bank for grant of KCC facility of Rs.30 lacs vide loan application form dated 28.01.2016, Annexure-A1 (colly) (copy). 3. The applicant bank sanctioned KCC facility of Rs.20 lacs to the defendant vide letter of sanction letter dated 17.03.2016, Annexure-A1 (colly) (copy) as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendant. 4. In order to secure the aforementioned credit facility, the defendant executed various loans and security documents, i.e. arrangement letter dated 17.03.2016, Annexure-A2 (copy), hypothecation agreement dated 17.03.2016, Annexure-A3 (copy) and consent letter regarding disclosure of information to CIBIL, Annexure-A4 (copy).

¶18

The aforesaid loan was further secured by creation of registered mortgage by the defendant in respect of agricultural land measuring 36 Kanals situated in the revenue estate of Begumpur, Tehsil Chhachhrauli, District Yamunanagar, Haryana, fully detailed in para No. 5(vii) of the Original Application.

¶19

The documents relating to the mortgage are as under:

¶20

i. Registered mortgage deed dated 14.03.2016, AnnexureA5 (copy).

¶21

OA/1901/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs SUDHIR KUMAR

¶22

¶23

ii. Request letter dated 14.03.2016 to the Tehsildar, Chhachhrauli, for entry/mutation of mortgaged property, Annexure-A6 (copy).

¶24

iii. Non-Encumbrance Certificate dated 08.03.2016 prepared by Advocate, Annexure-A7 (copy).

¶25

It is further the case of the applicant bank that the loan facility was duly availed of by the defendant but he failed to maintain the financial discipline of the applicant bank and resultantly, the loan account became irregular and it was declared as NPA on 31.03.2021. The defendant executed revival letters dated 11.02.2019 and 03.03.2021, Annexures-A9 (colly) (copy). The applicant bank recalled the entire outstanding amount vide notice dated 03.04.2018, Annexure-A8 (copy) and legal notice dated 24.09.2020 along with postal receipt, Annexure-A10 (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.30,68,697/- (Rupees Thirty lacs Sixty Eight Thousand Six

¶27

Hundred and Ninety Seven Only) is recoverable against the defendant as per statement of account dated 07.10.2022, Annexure-A11 (copy) duly certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act.

¶28

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

¶29

Notice of the Original Application was duly served upon the defendant, but since none appeared on behalf of the defendant,

¶30

OA/1901/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs SUDHIR KUMAR

¶31

¶32

thus, the defendant was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 03.06.2023 .

¶33

In support of the contents of the OA, affidavit of evidence of Sh. Ravi Prabh, Branch Manager of the applicant bank was filed.

¶34

This Tribunal has heard ex-parte arguments advanced by Sh. Divjot Singh Rekhi, Nodal Officer of the applicant bank and gone through the record carefully.

¶35

It was argued by Sh. Divjot Singh Rekhi, Nodal Officer that in view of unrebutted documentary evidence brought on record, the applicant bank had proved its case against the defendant for recovery of the amount sought. From perusal of Annexures-A1 to A11 , it is clear that the defendant had approached the applicant bank for availing of the loan facility which was granted to him. It is further clear that the defendant had executed all the relevant documents as stated above in favour of the applicant bank. Unfortunately, the defendant 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.30,68,697/- (Rupees Thirty lacs Sixty Eight Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety Seven Only) from the defendant.

¶36

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has claimed rate of interest @10.75% per annum with half yearly rests. In hypothecation agreement dated 17.03.2016, Annexure-A3 (copy), the rate of interest has been mentioned @11.15% per annum.

¶37

OA/1901/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs SUDHIR KUMAR

¶38

¶39

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, nature of the mortgaged property, purpose of loan, i.e. agricultural, present conditions of economy based on agriculture, 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 @8% per annum from the date of filing of the OA till realisation of the amount ordered vide this order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶40

In the result, the Original Application is allowed with costs declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum of Rs.30,68,697/- (Rupees Thirty lacs Sixty Eight Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety Seven Only) with current and future simple interest @8% per annum w.e.f. 12.10.2022 , till the date of realisation of the amount. Accordingly, the applicant bank shall be at liberty to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of mortgaged/hypothecated property of the defendant 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 defendant. The applicant bank is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶41

OA/1901/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs SUDHIR KUMAR

¶42

¶43

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶44

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 21.08.2023.

¶45

Copy of this order be sent to the applicant bank and the defendant through registered/speed post. This order be also uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal.

¶46

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

State Bank of India v. Sh. Sudhir Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sh. Sudhir Kumar

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

Deva Matha Rock Products versus Hero Fincorp Ltd.

Canara Bank versus Messers Poddar General Stores

Punjab National Bank versus Gunjeet Kumar

Manik Madhukar versus Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank

State Bank of India versus Dubbaka Sridhar

Nitin Nagorao Taral versus Uco Bank