Allowed

Indian Overseas Bank, v. Sh. Jagdev Singh and Another

DRT9 Oct 2023OA/1990/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT-III Chandigarh allowed the bank's application for recovery of dues from two defendants who defaulted on an agricultural loan. The Tribunal declared the debt recoverable, granted uniform simple interest, and issued a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued; Defendants ordered to pay principal, costs, and simple interest at 10% p.a. via sale of mortgaged or personal assets.

Indian Overseas Bank, versus Sh. Jagdev Singh and Another — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1990/2022

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 25.11.2022

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 09.10.2023

¶6

Indian Overseas Bank, a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, having its Central Office at 762, Anna Salai, Chennai-600002 and amongst other places a branch at Raikot, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, through its duly constituted attorney, Sh. Gaurav Biwal, Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Raikot branch, Ludhiana

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Jagdev Singh S/o S. Roop Singh;

¶10

Sh. Gurjit Singh S/o S. Ram Singh;

¶11

Both resident of Chhiniwal Kalan, District Barnala

¶12

………Defendants

¶13

Advocates:

¶14

Argued by Sh. Sumit Chawla, counsel proxy for Sh. Surinder K. Chawla, 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.29,49,668.39p (Rupees Twenty Nine Lacs Forty Nine Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Eight and Paisa Thirty Nine only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Gaurav Biwal, Branch Manager of the applicant bank, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 16.04.2013, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶17

¶18

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant no.1 had approached the applicant bank for the grant of Agricultural Cash Credit Limit of Rs.11.00 Lacs under KCC scheme for purchase of fertilizers, oil and seeds etc. vide Loan Application dated 10.01.2015, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶19

The applicant Bank sanctioned the Agricultural Cash Credit Limit of Rs.11.00 Lacs under KCC scheme vide Credit Sanction Advice dated 14.02.2015, which is Annexure A10 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶20

Defendant No.1 had mortgaged his immovable properties i.e. total land measuring 17K-10M-06S situated at Village Chhiniwal KalanA, Tehsil and District Barnala, Punjab vide Declaration u/s 4(1) and Jamabandi for the year 2014-15 along with their translations, which are Annexures A5 and A6 to this OA. Documents executed: - Guarantor’s Statement and Guarantee for cash credit both dated 14.02.2015, which are Annexures A3 and A4 to this OA; Letter of Hypothecation, Demand promissory note and Demand promissory note delivery letter all dated 14.02.2015, which are Annexures A7 to A9 to this OA; Legal notice sent by bank through its counsel to the defendants, which is Annexure A11 to this OA; Statement of account, which is Annexure A12 to this OA, Certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, which is Annexure A13 to this OA; Revival Letters dated 15.01.2018 & 22.12.2020, which are Annexures A14 and A15 to this OA; Copy of Judgement passed by the Hon’ble Court of Sh. Varundeep Chopra, CJJD, Barnala dated 20.03.2018, which is Annexure A16 to this OA, Copy of Objections filed by the bank, which is Annexure A17 to this OA and Copy of CR filed before Punjab & Haryana High Court, which is Annexure A18 to this OA. 5. The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan account there was a debit of Rs.29,49,668.39p, which is recoverable and the defendants

¶21

¶22

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 15.09.2023.

¶24

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Gaurav Biwal, Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank has been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record. 9. It was argued by learned proxy 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 A18 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.29,49,668.39p (Rupees Twenty Nine Lacs Forty Nine Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Eight and Paisa Thirty Nine 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.

¶25

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has claimed interest @11.10%p.a. plus @2%p.a. penal interest with half yearly rests from 01.09.2022 till the realization.

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

of the defendants, quantum of loan and prevalent market rates of 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. 11. In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.29,49,668.39p (Rupees Twenty Nine Lacs Forty Nine Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Eight and Paisa Thirty Nine 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.

¶29

Any other application pending stands disposed of. 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 17.10.2023. 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. Pronounced by me in the Open Tribunal. Dated: 09.10.2023

¶30

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

Indian Overseas Bank, v. Sh. Jagdev Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Overseas Bank, v. Sh. Jagdev Singh and Another

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

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Sh. Ram Partap and Another

Union Bank Of India versus Smt. Geeta

Canara Bank versus M/S Akaal Videos and Others

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Jagjeet Singh and Others

Hdfc Bank Ltd, versus Sh. Gurdeep Singh and Others

Canara Bank, versus Sh. Gurmit Singh