Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/s Tayal Builders

DRT22 Sept 2023OA/199/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by Canara Bank for the recovery of Rs.35.16 lakhs from respondents, including a proprietorship concern and its proprietor, after examining documentary evidence which remained unrebutted due to ex-parte proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued; Defendants ordered to jointly and severally pay Rs.35,16,267.00 plus simple interest at 10.00% p.a. from filing date until realization.

Canara Bank versus M/s Tayal Builders — Cheque Dishonour | DRT (2023)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.199/2023

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 14.02.2023

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 22.09.2023

¶6

Canara Bank, a body corporate, constituted under Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 and the successor to Syndicate Bank vide notification dated 04.03.2020 issued under Section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 approved a scheme called amalgamation of Syndicate Bank with Canara Bank Scheme, 2019 and w.e.f. 01.04.2020 Syndicate Bank since amalgamated with Canara Bank having its Head Office at 112, J.C. Road, Bangalore, and inter alia having one of its branches at Water Works Road, Mansa, Punjab through its authorized attorney Sh. Narender Kumar, Manager

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s Tayal Builders, Ward No.9, Surinder Milk Vendor Street, Near Dhal School, Mansa, Punjab, a proprietorship concern through its sole proprieto,r Sh. Rajeshan Aggarwal S/o Sh. Amrit Pal

¶10

Sh. Rajeshan Aggarwal S/o Sh. Amrit Pal, R/o Ward No.9, Surinder Milk Vendor Street, Near Dhal School, Mansa, Punjab

¶11

Smt. Vinod Bala W/o Sh. Amrit Pal, R/o Ward No.9, Surinder Milk Vendor Street, Near Dhal School, Mansa, Punjab

¶12

………Defendants

¶13

Advocates:

¶14

Argued by Sh. Kanwar Ashok Kumar Devasar, counsel for the applicant Defendants are ex-parte

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.35,16,267.00 (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs Sixteen Thousand Two

¶17

¶18

Hundred and Sixty Seven only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Narender Kumar, Manager of the applicant bank, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Authority Letter dated 17.10.2022, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶19

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant No.2 being the proprietor of defendant No.1 had approached the applicant bank for the grant of SOD Limit of Rs.15.00 Lacs vide Loan Application for advance dated 12.06.2014, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. 3. The applicant Bank sanctioned the SOD Limit of Rs.15.00 Lacs vide Sanction Letter dated 16.06.2014, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. 4. Defendant No.3 had mortgaged her immovable property i.e. House Measuring 154 Sq. Yards situated at Ward No.9, Surinder Milk Vendor Street, Near Dhal School, Tehsil and District Mansa, Punjab vide Registered Sale Deed bearing Vasika No.3846 dated 01.09.2010 along with its translation , which is Annexure A6 to this OA. Documents executed:- Composite hypothecation agreement and Agreement of guarantee both dated 19.06.2014, which are Annexures A4 and A5 to this OA; Letter handing over title deed of property dated 18.06.2014, which is Annexure A7 to this OA; Confirmation of deposit of title deed dated 19.06.2014, which is Annexure A8 to this OA; Affidavit by defendant No.3 dated 10.06.2014, which is Annexure A9 to this OA; Letters of acknowledgment of debt and security dated 08.05.2017 and 04.03.2020, which are Annexures A10 and A13 to this OA; SARFAESI notice with postal receipts dated 22.01.2018, which is Annexure A11 to this OA; Possession notice dated 09.08.2018, which is Annexure A12 to this OA and Statement of account along with the certificate under Banker’s Books Evidence Act, 1891, which is Annexure A14 to this OA.

¶20

The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan account there was a

¶21

¶22

debit of Rs.35,16,267.00, which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notices but they did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant bank requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶23

The defendants were served notices to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte on 02.09.2023.

¶24

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Narender Kumar, Manager, Canara Bank has been filed.

¶25

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶26

It was argued by learned counsel that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant bank had proved its case. From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A14 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant bank for availing of the loan facility which was granted to them and for that they had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. The defendants failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, account of the defendants was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.35,16,267.00 (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs Sixteen Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Seven only) along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the account.

¶27

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has claimed interest @14.00%p.a with monthly rests from 08.02.2023 till the realization. The Tribunal is of the considered opinion that sometimes in appropriate cases the prerogative of mercy is the brightest jewel in the crown of the Judge. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case including nature of the mortgaged property, undertaking of the defendants, quantum of loan and prevalent market rates of

¶28

¶29

interest which have gone drastically downhill in yester years, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @10.00%p.a. in the loan account from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶30

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.35,16,267.00 (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs Sixteen Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Seven only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @10.00%p.a. in the loan account from the date of filing of OA till the date of realization of the amount. Accordingly, the applicant bank shall be entitled to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of hypothecated/mortgaged properties of the defendants in execution proceedings if not sold earlier under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. If the dues of the bank still remain unsatisfied, it shall be entitled to recover the same by attachment and sale of personal assets of the defendants. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law. 12. Any other application pending stands disposed of. 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶31

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 30.09.2023. 15. Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant bank and be sent to defendants through registered/speed post and this order be also uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal and record be consigned.

¶32

Pronounced by me in the Open Tribunal. Dated: 22.09.2023

¶33

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Canara Bank v. M/s Tayal Builders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/s Tayal Builders

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 and Sind Bank, versus M/S Sandeep Enterprises and Another

Union Bank of India, versus Sh. Dinesh Kumar Saini and Another

Punjab National Bank, versus Sh. Ranjit Singh and Another

Punjab National Bank versus M/s Grewal Sweets and Dairy Products

Union Bank of India versus Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur

Indian Bank, versus Sh. Avtar Singh