Allowed

Uco Bank v. M/s Z S Business

DRT19 Oct 2023OA/226/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this recovery application, the Debt Recovery Tribunal addressed claims regarding maintainability and limitation. The court rejected defenses raised by borrowers and their guarantors, affirming the validity of loan documents and the bank's right to recover dues, issuing a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 1,87,58,763.41 with interest and costs against all respondents. Charges kept alive on mortgaged properties.

Uco Bank versus M/s Z S Business — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

¶3

oA 226l2o2zoRT-Guwahatr

¶4

IN THE OEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, GUWAHATI

¶5

(North Eastern Region)

¶6

(Tribunal of Assam, Nagaland Meghalaya, Manipur, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh & Tripura)

¶7

Before Shri Shiv Sharan Dubev. Presidino Officer

¶8

O.A. No.22612022

¶9

ln the matter of -

¶10

UCO BANK, Aizawl Branch Dawrpui, Aizawl, Mizoram, P.O.- Aizawl, District- Aizawl, PtN-7S6001.

¶11

..Applicant

¶12

Vs.

¶13

'1. M/sZS Business, (Proprietor Lalbiakzuali)

¶14

House No. YD-21, Chaltlang Dawrkawn, Aizawl796012, Mizo'am.

¶15

2. Lalbiakzuali

¶16

(Proprietor of Z S Business)

¶17

Daughter of Zailawma^(L) House No. YD-2 1, Chaltlang Dawrkawn, Aizawl-796012, Mizoram.

¶18

Also at-

¶19

House No. C-63/A, Section lll, Chite Road, Armed Veng South, Aizawl-796007, Mizoram.

¶20

3. Sh. C. Lalnunfela,

¶21

S/o C. Vanlalnghaka (L) (Fatheo and Lalkhumi(L) (Mother) who is the legal heir of the Guarantor i.e. Lalkhumi^(since deceased) of the Lalkhumi (since deceased), Electric Veng, Chite Road, Aizawl-796007.

¶22

Defe n da nts

¶23

Presence of the Counsel:

¶24

For the Applicant : Sri Sandip Bhattacharjee, Sri J. Bhattacharjee, Advocates For the Defendants No 1 & 2 : Sri Subham Das, Sri Kangkan Deka Advocates For the Defendant No 3 : None^(Ex-parte). Dated r19/10/2023

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

This is an application under section 19 of ths Rscovery of Debts Due to Eanks

¶27

and Financial lnstitutions Act, 1993 filed by the, UCO BANK, Aizawl Branch, Dawrpui,

¶28

tf.; u -< La-^a'', I^J"t tq.\t^23t Presk ing Otllcer ORT, Gutrlahsti

¶29

O A 226l2022loRT-Guwahalr

¶30

Aizawl, Mizoram, P.O.- Aizawl, District- Aizawl, PIN-796001 with a prayer to issue Recovery Certificate for the sum of Rs.1,87,58,763.4'l (Rupees One Crore Eighty Seven Lakhs Fifty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Three and^paise Forty One) as on 3'1.05.2022 against the defendants jointly and severally with pendentelite and future interest at the existing MCLR at that time for the said accounts with monthly rests till realization along with cost and other relief.

¶31

A few facts giving rise to the present application are as under.

¶32

The defendant no. 2 as proprietor of defendant no.1 applied for Cash Credit Limit for her business of Home Appliances such as TV, refrigerator, etc. and thereafter after considering all aspects applicant Bank sanctioned a cash credit limit of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- (One Crore Fifty Lakhs) to the defendant no.^.l on 12.04.20'19 for its home appliances business and thereafter on the request of the defendant no. 2 as proprietor of defendant no.^'l the said cash credit limit was again restructured on 31.03.2021.

¶33

The applicant bank, Aizawl Branch, after considering Defendant's application and all other aspects sanctioned on i2.04.2019 the Cash Credit Limil of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- (One Crore Fifty Lakhs) to the defendant no.^,t as working capitat for the said business of home appliances under the name and style of^,,M/S Z S Business" and the defendant no. 2 as proprietor of defendant no. 1 duly accepted the terms and conditions mentioned in the sanction letter dated 12.04.2019 and thereafter the defendant no.1 availed of the said cash credit limit of 1,5O,OO,OOO/_ (One Crore Fifty Lakhs) from the appticant bank and executed the following documents in favour of Bank:-

¶34

('l) Loan application dated 05.02.2019i

¶35

(2) Sanction Advice of Cash credit timit of Rs.1,S0,OO,OOO/- (One Crore Fifty Lakhs) dated 12.04.2019;

¶36

(3) Demand promissory note A-1 dated 12.04.2019 for Rs. i,SO,OO,OOO/_ (One Crore Fifty Lakhs):

¶37

(4) Letter of waiver A-47 dated 12.04.2019:

¶38

(5) Letter of continuity A-3 dated 12.04.2019:

¶39

tl,i ',Jfara, \1 lr {,,[, )1 ,lt PresirirE Offics. DRT, Guw8h8li

¶40

O.A. 226I2022IDRI€u*ahati

¶41

(6) Hypothecation of Goods to demand a cash credit limit A-9 dated 12.O4.2019.

¶42

Thereafter, the applicant Bank restructured the existing cash credit limit of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- (One Crore Fifty Lakhs) favouring M/s Z S Business on the applications of the defendant no. 2 as proprietor of defendant no. 1 and the defendant no. 2 as proprietor of defendant no. 1 duly accepted the terms and conditions mentioned in the said sanctioned letter dated 3.1.03.2021 and in the said sanclion letter a working capital term toan (WCTL) of Rs. 8,28,745.48/- was sanctioned which is payabte in 120 equated monthly instatment of @Rs. 9924/and the primary security of existing cash credit limit will continue and equitable mortgage of land and building have to be extended on WCTL Account and ths defendant no. 2 as proprietor of defendant no.^.l further executed following documents:-

¶43

(1) Application for restructuring of Loan Account dated 22.03.2021;

¶44

(2) Sanction Letter dated 91.03.202j;

¶45

(3) Demand promissory note A_.t dated 31,03.2021;

¶46

(4) Letter of waiver A-47 dated 31.09.202,1:

¶47

(5) Agreement retating to Term Loan (A_109) dated 31.0g.2021

¶48

Again, F|TL Covid Regutatory Loan of Rs. 12,62,0561_ (Rupees Twelve Lakhs sixty-Two Thousand and Fifly-six) arso disbursed in favour of the defendant no. 1.

¶49

The defendant no.3 stood as guarantor of the said roan and detendant no.3 also executed^,,Letter of Guarantee,' (A-2j) on 12.04.2019 and therein the defendant no.3 agreed to repay the said loan with interest accrued thereon and making herself ioinfly and severafly riabre for the repayment of the said roan with interest accrued thereon.

¶50

lncidentally the guarantor Lalkhumi died, and her husband atso died and she left her son Sh. C.Lalnunfela as her legal heir who is the defendant no. 3 as legal heir of Lalkhumi(since deceased) liable for the outstanding dues in the instant odginal application, who also instituted a civil case against the UCO Bank and Smt.

¶51

ll^e,, t LnM^, A"l e \q to )2 /J Presiding Oftcsr DRT' GurEhati

¶52

O.A 22612022lo8T-Gwahati

¶53

Lalbiakzuali (defendant no. 1) and Abul Rahim being Civil case no.96/2021 in respect of land of LSC no. AZL-131 of 1976 praying for temporary iniunction and directing the Bank not to take^possession of LSC no.AZl-131 of 1976 and not to sell by way of auction or any other means so as to recover the loan of the defendanvopposite parties (Bank) and further prayed for directing opposite parties (Bank) not to dispose, alienate and alter the LSC no. 131 of 1976 and the case is still pending.

¶54

Lalkhumi (since deceased) who signed the deed of guarantee A-21 on 12.04.2019 and deposited the following documents with the applicant bank for creation of mortgage in respect of LSC no.AZL-131 of 1976 in favour of the applicant bank wherein it is stated that her liability under this presence is a continuing one for all sums whatsoever which may at any time be or become payable by the customers to the Bank on any account whatsoever with interest and all costs and charges and expenses.

¶55

The Lalkhumi (since deceased) also signed a letter confirming her mortgage of her land measuring 204.20 sq.mt and building G+2 exist thereon under LSC of with the applicant bank for already existed cash 1976, grade 4 situated at House no.B-3g/A, Electric Veng, Chite Road, P.O.- Aizawl, Mizoram stating therein that she is writing this to confirm that she deposited with the Bank on'12.04.20,19 at Bank's premises the original title deeds described in Schedule ll relating to her property situated at Armed Veng South, Alzawl fully described in Schedule I of this letter with intention to creating an equitable mortgage on the said property by way of security for the loan of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- lent, advance and agreed to be advanced by UCO Bank and amounts due or become due together with inleresl, costs, charges and all other expenses and she also put her signature in the recital of equltable mortgage register evidence in creation of such mortgage and Bank also inform the Oirector Land Revenue and Settlement, Govt. of Mizoram to note the equitable mortgage created on property of LSC no. 131 of 1976

¶56

The defendant no.2 Lalbiakzuali also created mortgage of her land measuring^'160.58 sq.mt and building (B+G) exists thereon, under LSC no. 482 of

¶57

t,Li,t rk',a^ fislu, e,""roing offiJ?^{l' 2<1;}

¶58

DRT. Guwahati

¶59

O A 226l2022loRT-Gw.hali

¶60

'1987, Grade-V, in the name of Lalblakzuali, situated at H.no. C-63 A, Armed Veng South, P.O.- Alzawi Mauja Aizawl DiskictAizawl, Mizoram, by depositing Title Documents. The defendant No.2 also executed Letter of Confirmation dated 12.04.2019. She also executed covering letter increase in limit dated 31.03.2021.

¶61

The defendants had availed of the said loan facilities from the Applicant Bank, but have not paid the loan amount in the loan account as per the terms and conditions as agreed upon with the Applicant Bank, inspite of repeated demands and requests by the Applicant Bank. As the defendants failed to repay the outstanding amount in the loan accounts, the said accounts became NPA on 31.03.2021. After the accounts became NPA the applicant bank issued notices for repaymenl of the due amount, but the defendants failed to repay the loan amount or renew lhe loan accounts.

¶62

The applicant bank thus became constrained to file the present Original Applicatjon for the recovery of Rs. '1,87,58,763.41 (Rupees One Crore Eighty-Soven Lakhs Fifty-Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty-Threo and Paise Forty-One) as on 3'1.05.2022 along with interest and cost ofthe application.

¶63

After filing of the OA the Tribunal issued notices upon the defendants through registered post and the applicant bank filed service report on 24.08.2022 and brought on record the poslal receipts along with track consignment report which shows that the notices have been served upon the defendants. The learned counsel for defendant No. I & 2 has appeared by filing vakalalnama on 03.01.2023 and filed their written statement and evidence on afJidavit on 31.01.2023 to which the learned counsel for the applicant bank has filed rejoinder on 21.04.2023. But none appeared for the defendants No 3 inspite of proper seryice of notice. Hence the defendant No 3 was set ex-parte on 03-01-2023 and his right to file written statement cum evidence on affidavit was closed and the matter was posted for hearing.

¶64

Supporting the claim of the applicant bank Sri Santosh Kumar, Chief Manager of the Applicant Bank has tiled evidence on affidavit coupled with the security documents marked as Exhibit A-1 to A-36 supporting the claim of the applicant bank details of which are:

¶65

:t'r;tl^n '6'n'L'1 19 \t,_t., ,t Presiding Officer DRT, Guwahati

¶66

O A 226/[email protected]

¶67

¶68

SI,NO 1	, Name of the documents LoanApplicationdated 05.022019	ExhibitNo. A-'1
2	SanctionAdviceofCashCreditLimitofRs. 1,50,00,000/-dated12.04.2019	A-2
3	Demand Promissory Nole A-1dated'12.04.20'19tot Rs.1,50,00,000/-	A-3
4	LetterofWaiverA-47 daled12.04.2019	A4
5	LetterofContinuity A-3dated12.04.2019	A-5
6	HypothecationofGoodstodemandacashcredit limitA-9 dated12.04.2019	A-6
7	Applicationforrestructuringofloan accountdated 22.03.2021	A-7
8	Sanction Letter dated 31.03.2021	A-8
	Demand Promissory Note A-1 dated 31.03.2021	A-9
10	LetterofWaiverA-47dated3'1.03.202'l	A-10
1'l	Agreement relatingtoTerm Loan(A-109)dated 31.03.2021	A-11
12	LetterofGuaranteeA-21executedbyLalkhumi dated12.04.2019	A-12
13	CertificateofLand Settlement No. LSCNo.ML-131 of1976	A-13
'14	NoObjection Certificate dated 06.02.2019	A-14
15	Non Encumbrance Certificate dated06.02.20'19	A-15
16	Site PlanofHouse	A-16
	Letterconfirming mortgagebytheguarantor Lalkhumi(sincedeceased)on12.04.2019inthe Bank^premisesbVdepositino oriqinal title deed.	A-17
'18	Recitalofequitable mortgage registerevidencing creation of mortqaqe.	A-18
	CertificateofLand Settlement No. LSCNo.ML-482 of1987	A-19
20	NoObjection Certificate dated27.'10.2015	A-20
21	Certificate of Land Valuation dated 27.10.2015	A-21
22	Non Encumbrance Certificate dated 27.10.2015	A-22
23	Site Plan of House daled 27.'10.2015	A-23
24	LSCclearancecertificate dated 20.11.2020	A-24
	Tax clearancecertilicatedaled23.11.2020	A-25
26	ConfirminqLetterbVthe[.4ortoaqor	A-26
27	Recitaldulysignedbythemortgagordated 12.04.2019	A-27
28	Letterfrommortgagorcovering increaseinlimit dated31.03.2021.	A-28
	Cerlifiedcopyofthestatemenlofaccountofthe cash creditA,/cNo. 086105'10000908	A-29
30	Certifiedcopyofthestatementofaccountofthe FITLTermLoanA,/cNo. 08610610009406	A-30
31	Certifiedcopyofthestatementofaccountofthe WCTLTermLoanAJcNo. 08610610010396	A-31
32	Statementofuncharged interestofalltheaccounts with4nos. of certificates.	A-32
33	3nos.ofDemandNoticedated31.10.2020, 10.12.2020,05.01.2021.	A-33
34	Recall notice dated 06.01.2021	A-34
35	Advocatenoticedaled18.02.2021	A-35
Jb	Recall notice under section13(2)oftheSARFAESI Actdated^'10.05.2021	A-36

¶69

The leamed munsel for the defendants No. 1 & 2 has appeared and conbsbd

¶70

"lirrlata-ft'Jq l1 tr ) )

¶71

Preaiding Oficer DRT, Gu\raheli

¶72

¶73

o.A 2262o2zoRT-cuwahati

¶74

the claim of the applicant bank by filing written statemenl cum evidence on affidavit stating interalia that the original application is not at all maintainable in its^present form. The original application is also baned by limitation. There is no cause of aclion for filling the said Original Application by the applicanl. lt is further stated by lhe answering defendants that lhe valuation of the mortgaged^property was not done and as per law and it is required to be done from a registered Valuer. lt is further stated that the Defendants have signed some blank^papeB as^per the direction^given by the Applicant Bank without knowing the exact intention of the Applicant Bank. lt is further stated that due to illegal action of the Applicant, the Defendants had sufiered and will suffer continuously without their fault. The present Application is filed in violation ofthe Banking Policy ofthe Reserve Bank of lndia. The Defendants also on so many occasions tried their best to contact with the Bank Officials for knowing the exact^position of their loan accounts but no suitiable reply was given by the Bank Officials. The present Defendant No.2 has no knowledge about the loan and she only came to know when she re@ived a Demand Notice from dated 25th of August, 2021 lot rcpaying the loan amounting to Rs.^{'1,63,45,358.43.} He has further stated that Lalbiakzuali has a sister named Lalbiaksangi. Lalbiaksangi used to work at Abdul Rahim's other business named "M/s BS Business". Previously, they and their family members had a close relationship with Abdul Rahim. Now, said Abdul Rahim along with Lalnunfela persuaded her to create a business named M/S Z S Business for the purpose of applying for a loan. Abdul Rahim had persuaded both of themLalbiakzuali and Lalnunfela. ln this respect one Civil Suit was filed before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Aizawl at Mizoram against the Applicant Bank and other two persons namely Abdul Rahim and the present Defendants. Said suit is pending for disposal. Similar cases werc also filed against Abdul Rahim who used to chit and deceive the people by luring the offer. The Applicant Bank had never informed or intimated the answering defendants with any letter, correspondence, noti@s whatsoever about the claim of the applicant Bank that the loan had turned irregular and or classified as Nonperforming assets. No Legal Notices were sent to the Defendants to pay the dues of the applicant Bank. Applicant Bank with mala fide intention declare the said loan account of lhe defendants as NPA without giving sufficient time/opportunities. The Applicant Bank

¶75

.\t io^tl,oa,A.J"t lq lt. ) 2t I Pr6iding Oficer DRT, Guurdhati

¶76

OA 226l2022lDRT-GuwahatL

¶77

has also initiated SARFAESI Proceeding for taking over the mortgaged property of the Defendants and subsequently the Bank had issued Demand Notice under sec{ion 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act against the Defendants. The answering defendants never stood as a defaulter as pointed out by the Applicant Bank. The applicant Bank charged higher rate of interest which was not agreed upon by the parties. The statement of accounts are not properly certified which is required as per Banke/s Book Evidence Act.

¶78

The leamed counsel for the applicant bank has filed rejoinder against the written slatement cum evidence on affidavit filed by the defendant No.1 & 2 in which it has been stated that the insiant original application is within limitation as the documents were executed on 31.03.2021. The valuation of the property has been done by Bank's empaneled valuer as per guidelines. The applicant Bank exhibited the documents in its evidence on affidavit. The defendant no.1 and 2 are not the guarantor of lhe loan. However, the defendant no. 3 is the guarantor of the loan but the written statement has been filed by the defendant no. 1 and 2 only and, as such, question of signing "Guarantee Deed" by the defendant no. 1 and 2 do not arise at all. The applicant bank on several occasions also sent demand notices to the defendant no. 2 which is duly received by the defendant no. 2 on 25.08.2021. As per the account maintained by the applicant bank the defendants are defaulters and the applicant bank on several ocrasions sent demand notices and recall notices to the answering defendants. Sri Santosh Kumar as chief manager cum branch incumbent of the applicant Bank, Aizawl Eranch being aware ofthe facts and circumstances of the case and also has been authorized by the Zonal Office, duly filed the instant original application as per Rules of the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The defendants are liable for total outstanding as stated in the instant original application.

¶79

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant bank who prayed for issuance of Recovery Certiricate against the defendants as per pleadings made in the Application, supported by evidence on affidavit of their witness who affirmed on oath the execution of the security and other documents by the defendants and also execution of their own documents relied upon, which have been marked exhibits. .ei..i rr I - I l,,a;

¶80

.ei..i rr I - I l,,a; a.,,Ay' r PrBiding Oficei 11 1r.>2,1- ' DRT, GuEhati

¶81

¶82

o.A. 226l2o2zDRT€Bahati

¶83

Heard the learned counsel for the defendant No. 1 & 2 who prayed for dismissal of the original application.

¶84

I have carefully perused the documents on record including original application, evidence on affidavit and exhibited documents as well as written statement cum evidence on affidavit filed by the defendant No. 1 & 2.

¶85

It is observed that the defendant No. 1 & 2 has not denied the availment of loan, execution of documents and signatures on the same.

¶86

The answering defendants have contended that the Defendants have signed some blank papers as per the direction given by the Applicant Bank without knowing the exact intention of the Applicant Bank.

¶87

The above contention of the defendants is not only untrust_worthy but also does nor raise any triabre issue. under section 20 of the Negotiabre rnstruments Act, 1981, it is provided that when a person signs and delivers to another a paper stamped in accordance with the law relating to negotiable instruments either wholly blank or having written lhereon an incomplete instrument he gives prima facie authority to the holder of such an instrument to complete upon it a negotiable instrument for any amount which may be covered by the stamp affixed on it. The person so signing is made liable upon such an instrument in the capacity in which he signed it to any holder in due cou6e. The defendants did not raise their lit e finger to point out if their signatures were obtained on any blank documents by the then Manager of the applicant bank or under duress. lf the signatures had been obtained in blank documents under duress by the Manager of the Bank, the defendanls courd have fired FIR or Complaint before the Competent Authority. But no FIR has been todged by the defendants. The documents were executed in the month ofApril 2019 & March 2021 and thereafter till January 2023 (dale of filing written statement) the defendants choose to keep silent about their signatures having been obtained on blank documents or under duress. The only irresistible conclusion, therefore, is that the plea now sought to be raised by the defendants to the effect that their signatures were obtained on blank documents is merely a sham plea, devoid of any force and as such cannot be deemed to raise any triable issue. This has also been held by the Hoa,b/e

¶88

, l,,fi I Wz. Q,-,,.^t 1"1 ti.>) n Presiding Otrcer ' " " ORT, cuwEhati

¶89

¶90

O.A. 22612022IDRT4uxiahiti

¶91

Delhi High Coud in the case of Punjab & Sindh Bank Vs. Ram Prakash 1990(1) BC 386.

¶92

ln the case of Grasim lndustries Limited and Another Vs. Agawal Steel repofted in (2010) 1 Supreme Couft Cases 83, Hon'ble Justica Markandey Katju and Hon'ble Justice A.K. Ganguly had held that "when a person signs a document, there is a presumption, unless there is a proof of force or fraud, that he has read the documenl propedy and understood it and only then he has affixed his signaturcs thercon, othetwise no signature on a document can ever be accepted. ln padicular, businessmen, being careful people (since their money is involved) would have ordinaily read and understood a document before signing it. Hence, the presumption would be even stronger in their case."

¶93

ln view of the above, the plea sought to be raised by the is devoid of any force. Hence the contention of the defendant is negated.

¶94

Further contention of the answering defendants is that the applicant Bank charged higher rate of interest which was not agreed upon by the parties.

¶95

It is observed that the statement of account has been filed by the applicant bank, which as maintained in the Bank in the Books of the Bank in the usual and ordinary course of business and is admissible as per Seciion 4 of the Banke/s Books of Evidence Act. lt is also observed that the defendants have failed to showpin-point about any parlicular entry which is wrong or which should not have been there or which should have been there. In the absence of the same, the conlention of the defendants has no force and is negated.

¶96

It is observed that as per Exhibit A-2, sanction advice dated 12_04_2019 and Exhibit A-8, sanction letter dated 3'l-03-202,t the applicant bank had sanctioned a credit facility to the defendants. The defendants had accepted and signed on the said sanction advice and sanction letter thereby agreeing to the terms and condition laid down therein. The defendants agreed to repay the loan with interest at the contractual rate.

¶97

Moreover, as per Section 21-A of the Banking Regutation Act, 1949 a lransaction between a banking company and its debtor cannot be reopened by any Court on the ground that the rate of interest charged by the banking company in respect of such transaction is excessive. Section 21-A of the Act read as under ;_

¶98

-tfun^{r t^ara.A*.q} lt,^.lA ).'aI Pre.idinS Omclr ' -" DRT. Gwahati

¶99

O A 226l2022lDRT,Guwahatr

¶100

¶101

"Rates of intercst charged by banking companies not to be subject to scrutiny by Coutts.-Notwithstanding anything contained in the usuious Loans Act, 1918 ( 10 of 1918) or any other law relating to indebtedness in force in any State, a transaction between a banking company and its debtor shal not be reopened by any Coutt on the grcund that the rate of interest charged by the banking company in respect of such transaction is excesslyo. "

¶102

ln the case of State Bank of Hyderabad and etc. Vs. Advath Sakru and another etc. reported in AIR 1994 (full bench), the Hon,ble Andhra pradesh High Court has held in para 91 that "a transaction betwaen a banking company and its debtor cannot be reopened on the ground that the rale of interest claimed is usuious notwithstanding the provisions of Act 10 of 1g1E or the other provisions of Debt Laws prevailing in the State."

¶103

ln view of the above, there is no force in the mntention of the defendants and is negated.

¶104

It is evident from the statement of account filed by the applicant bank that the defendants have defaulted in repayment of the loan. lf there is default in repayment of the loan the appricanr bank has every right to proceed against the defendants for realization ofthe outstanding dues. Hence I have no hesitation to hold that this originat application is maintainable.

¶105

The appricant bank has produced on record the copies of the statement of account in respect of the defendant, dury certified under Bankers, Books Evidence Act. The applicant bank by the evidence-on_affidavit of Sri Santosh Kumar, Chief Manager of the Applicant Bank had deposed the correctness of the afiidavit and certiried copy of the account. Beyond that nothing more has to be deposed by an officer of the bank. rt is thus obvious lhat apart from the entries of the Books of account lhere are ample eviden@ on the record to corroborate the said entries

¶106

The documents executed by the principal borrower as well as guarantor from time to time are duly proved by the applicant bank and the witness of the applicant. lt is also found that the claim is within the period of limitation. The appticant has sufficient cause of action for filing the instant application due to disbursemenuavailment of loan to/by the defendants and on default in repayment of

¶107

.e.ki, - cLato.A,.,l"11 tt tt - J Presiding Offcer ' ORT, Guwahati

¶108

¶109

o.A z26no22JoRra*han

¶110

the loan by the defendants, inspite of demands made, as per exhibited documents filed by the applicant bank.

¶111

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the documents filed by the applicanl bank are supporting the claim of the applicant bank and establishing the tiability of the defendants. lt is proved that the defendants are rointly and severally liable to pay to the applicant bank the claim made in the Original Application. The loan was obtained and documents have been executed on 12.04.20'19, 31.03.202j. Moreover, after perusing the documents on record and taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances ofthe case, I find that the mortgage has been created by Lalkhumi (since deceased) and the defendant No. 2 where the limitation avairabre is for 12 years and as such taking into account of the creation of the mortgage the application appears to have been filed well within the period of limitation. The account became NpA on 31.03.202i and the OA has been filed on 22.06.2022. Hence, the OA is filed welt within the period of timitation and this Tribunal having a jurisdiction to adjudicate the Original Application.

¶112

Considering the version of Sri Santosh Kumar, applicant,s witness and all lhe documents marked as exhibits, including duly certified copy of the statement of account atong with interest calculation sheet maintained by the applicant Bank in it,s regular course of business, I hold that the applicant is entifled to get the Recovery Certificate as prayed for.

¶113

rn the resurt, the present originar Apprication No.226 0r 2022 is aflowed with cost as under: -

¶114

The defendants No. 1, 2 & 3 are joinfly and severalty liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum of Rs. 1,87,59,703.41 (Rupees One Crore EightySeven Lakhs Fifty-Eight Thousand Sevon Hundred Sixty-Threo and Paise Forty'one) onry with pendenterite and future interest @B.7oyo p.a. with monthly rests from 01.06.2022, tillthe date offull paymenurealization and atso cost of the application.

¶115

ii) The charge of the certificated amount be kept alive on mortgaged propeny, i.e. an Area of land measuring 204.20 sq. m. situated at Electric Veng, Aizawt,

¶116

g;,..rr1f.6arr,^[uJ* lq.lt ).'-J Presidlng Offcsr DRT. Gumheff

¶117

¶118

O A 226l2022loRT-Guwahalr

¶119

P.O. & P.S. - Aizawl, land revenue and settlement Office-Aizawl, DistrictAizawl under LSC No. 131 of 1976 and the said property is bounded by: - North: Sapchhawna; South: Dr. Lalruanga; East: Vandawla; West: Pro-Path; as described in Schedule-l of the OA till the amount is realized in full.

¶120

iii) The charge of the certilicated amount be kept alive on mortgaged property, i.e. an Area of land measuring 160.58 sq. m. situated at Armed South, Aizawl, P.O. & P.S. - Aizawl, land revenue and settlement office-Aizawl, DistrictAizawl under LSC No. 482 of 1987 and the said property is bounded by: - North: R.K.Rana; South: Lalengzauva; East: Zohmingliana; West: Jeepable Road, as described in Schedule{l of the OA till the amount is realized in full.

¶121

iv) The applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the secured items towards recovery of the dues.

¶122

v) The applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the personal assets and prope(ies of the defendants towards recovery of the dues.

¶123

vi) The applicant bank is entitled to the costs of the O.A. which includes the advocate fees of the applicant bank. Applicant is directed to file the cosl memo within 2 weeks from today.

¶124

vii) lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly for a sum Rs. 1,87,58,763.41 (Rupees One Crore Eighty-Seven Lakhs Fifty-Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty-Three and Paise Forty-One) in favour of the applicant bank against the defendants No.1,2, 3.

¶125

viii) Communicate copy of this order to the concerned parties. This order is dictated and corrected by the undersigned.

¶126

Judgment dated 19th October 2023, signed and pronounced in the Tribunal

¶127

today under my signature,

¶128

Copy of the JudgmenuFinat Order be uploaded in the Tribunal,s Website and tile be consigned lo Record Room.

¶129

r.'l1ri r l^a4r.'' {.,. 1'' 1 tn tf ) ), ,l (Shiv Sharan Dubey) ' Presiding Officer DRT, Guryahati

Uco Bank v. M/s Z S Business

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. M/s Z S Business

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bank of Baroda versus Vicky Gupta

State Bank of India versus Sunil Arora

State Bank of India versus Naresh Pal and Anr.

Canara Bank versus M/S Suswa Infoway Pvt. Ltd.

Indian Bank versus Srvc Enterprises

Indian Bank versus Renar Enterprises