Allowed

Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank v. Sh. Baldev Kumar

DRT13 Dec 2023OA/1987/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an ex-parte application by Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank for recovery of Rs. 29.64 lakh. The court awarded simple interest at 8% per annum, authorized issuance of a Recovery Certificate, and permitted recovery through sale of mortgaged or personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued; total amount of Rs.29,64,778/- with interest @8% p.a. from 28.10.2022 till realisation; liberty to recover via sale of mortgaged/hypothecated personal assets.

Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank versus Sh. Baldev Kumar — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 1987/2022

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 28.10.2022

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 13^th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, a body corporate and perpetual succession, constituted under the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976, carrying on Banking business having its Head Office at Plot No. 1, Sector 3, Rohtak-124001 (Haryana), earlier known as Gurgaon Gramin Bank, one of its Branches amongst other places is known as Kurukshetra at Mohan Nagar, Pipli Road, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, Haryana, through Sh. Prateek K. Goyal, Manager, its Principal Officer and General Attorney

¶6

…..Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Baldev Kumar s/o Sh. Nihal Singh r/o Ward No. 10, Village Mukimpura, Post Office Bhor-Saiban, District Kurukshetra, Haryana

¶9

....Defendant

¶10

Argued by: Sh. Himanshu Bansal proxy counsel for Sh. Sachin Gupta, Advocate for applicant bank Defendant ex parte vide order dated 20.10.2023

¶11

FINAL ORDER

¶12

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity), against the defendant for recovery of Rs.29,64,778/-

¶13

(Rupees Twenty Nine Lac Sixty Four Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy Eight Only) . It has been filed through Sh.

¶14

OA/1987/2022 SARVA HARYANA GRAMIN BANK VS BALDEV KUMAR 2

¶15

Prateek K. Goyal, Principal Officer and General Attorney of the applicant bank stated to be competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 18.08.2018, Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶16

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 limit of Rs. 15,26,000/- and Rs. 4,50,000/- under KCC Combo Scheme vide loan application Form for agriculture credit dated 06.10.2015, Annexure-A3 (colly) (copy).

¶17

The applicant bank sanctioned aforesaid facilities to the defendant vide memorandum of sanction dated 30.09.2015, Annexure-A3 (colly) (copy), as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendant.

¶18

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facilities, the defendant executed agreement of hypothecation dated 06.10.2015, Annexure-A3 (colly) (copy) and letter of introduction dated 06.10.2015 along with letter of intimation dated 29.08.2018, Annexure-A2 (colly) (copy).

¶19

The aforesaid limits were further secured by creation of equitable mortgage by defendant in respect of agricultural land measuring 42 Kanal 10 Marla situated in the revenue estate of Mukimpura, HB No.155, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra, Haryana, fully detailed in Para No.5.15 of the OA.

¶20

The documents related to mortgage are as under:

¶21

OA/1987/2022 SARVA HARYANA GRAMIN BANK VS BALDEV KUMAR 3

¶22

i. Registered mortgage deed dated 05.10.2015 along with declaration dated 06.10.2015 regarding agricultural land, Annexure-A4 (colly) (copy).

¶23

ii. Letter dated 06.10.2015 regarding availment of agricultural production credit, Annexure-A9 (copy).

¶24

iii. Letter dated 05.10.2015 to the Tehsildar/Naib Tehsildar, Pehowa, for entry and confirmation of mutation, AnnexureA10 (copy).

¶25

iv. Letter dated 25.08.2021 for verification of property along with copy of ‘ Jamabandi’ for the years 2016-2017, Annexure-A8 (colly) (copy).

¶26

It is further the case of the applicant bank that the loan facilities were duly availed of by the defendant but he failed to maintain the financial discipline of the applicant bank leading to the loan accounts becoming irregular and those being classified as NPA. The defendant executed balance and security confirmation letters dated 29.08.2017 and 01.06.2020, Annexures-A5 and A6 (colly) (copy). The applicant bank recalled entire outstanding amount vide legal notices dated 08.09.2020 and 02.09.2021 along with postal receipts, Annexures-A7 and A8 (colly) (copy), but to no avail.

¶27

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan accounts, a sum of Rs.29,64,778/(Rupees Twenty Nine Lac Sixty Four Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy Eight Only), is recoverable against the defendant as per statements of accounts

¶28

OA/1987/2022 SARVA HARYANA GRAMIN BANK VS BALDEV KUMAR 4

¶29

duly certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891,

¶30

Annexures-A11 (colly) (copy).

¶31

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

¶32

Notice of the Original Application was duly served upon the defendant, but since none appeared on behalf of the defendant, thus, the defendant was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 20.10.2023 .

¶33

In support of contents of the OA, affidavit of evidence of Sh. Prateek K. Goyal, Manager of the applicant bank was filed.

¶34

This Tribunal has heard ex-parte arguments advanced by the learned proxy counsel of the applicant bank and gone through the record carefully.

¶35

It was argued by the learned proxy counsel for the applicant bank 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

¶36

to A11 , it is clear that the defendant had approached the applicant bank for availing of the loan facilities which were 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

¶37

OA/1987/2022 SARVA HARYANA GRAMIN BANK VS BALDEV KUMAR 5

¶38

Rs.29,64,778/(Rupees Twenty Nine Lac Sixty Four Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy Eight Only) from the defendant.

¶39

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank has not claimed any particular rate of interest. In agreement of hypothecation dated 06.10.2015, Annexure-A3 (colly) (copy), the rate of interest has been mentioned @13% per annum.

¶40

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. agricultural, present condition of economy based on agriculture, quantum of loan, 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.

¶41

In the result, the Original Application is allowed with costs holding that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum of Rs.29,64,778/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lac Sixty Four Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy Eight Only) with current and future simple interest @8% per annum w.e.f. 28.10.2022 , till the date of realisation of the amount. Accordingly, the applicant bank shall be at liberty to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of

¶42

OA/1987/2022 SARVA HARYANA GRAMIN BANK VS BALDEV KUMAR 6

¶43

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. However, 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 05.02.2024.

¶46

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

¶47

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

Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank v. Sh. Baldev Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank v. Sh. Baldev 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

State Bank of India versus Tagmaxx

Sanjay Jain versus Punjab National Bank

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Kumar Tiles and Sanitary Wares

Hdfc Bank versus Shri Rajiv Kumar Singla

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Pankaj Kumar Singh

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Surander Tanwar