Allowed

Canara Bank v. Sri Dipankar Deka

DRT9 Aug 2023OA/275/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by Canara Bank for issuance of a Recovery Certificate against a defaulting borrower. The defendant failed to appear despite summons, and the bank substantiated its claim via affidavit evidence regarding a vehicle loan facility that turned non-performing.

What did the court decide?

Issue of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 22,72,225.41 with interest at 9.70% p.a. and keeping the charge alive on the hypothecated vehicle until full realization.

Canara Bank versus Sri Dipankar Deka — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

O.A. 2752022lDRT-Guwahati

¶2

IN THE DEBTS^{RECOVERYTRIBUNAL, GUWAHATI}

¶3

(North Eastern Region) (Tribunal of Assam, Nagaland,^{MLghalaya, Manipur, Mizoram,Arunachal Pradesh & Tripura)}

Shiv Sharan Du

O.A.No.27512O22

ln the matter of -

Canara Bank llT Guwahati Branch llT Guwahati Campus,^{North Guwahati,} Kamrup, Assam-781039.

¶8

.Applicant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

Sri Dipankar Deka Son of Ratul Deka House No.10, Near^SishuUdYan, Barmataria, Dwarka^{Nagar Guwahati,} District Kamrup^{Metro, P.S.-Dispur'} Assam, Pin-781022.

¶11

Defendants

¶12

Presence of the^Counsel:

¶13

For the Applicant : Mr. M K. Bora,^Advocate

¶14

For the Defendant : None^(Ex-Parte)

¶15

Dated :0910812023

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

This is an application^{undersection 19 of the Recoveryof Debts Due to Banks} and Financial lnstitutions^{Act, 1993 filed by the Canara Bank,llT GuwahatiBranch,} llT Guwahati Campus,^{North Guwahati, Kamrup, Assam-781039,with a prayer to} issue Recovery certificate^{for the sum ol Rs.22,72,225.41 (Rupees Twenty Two} Lakhs Seventy Two^{Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Five and Paise FortyOne)} only as on 20.04.2022^{against the defendantwith pendenteliteand future interest} thereon at the contractual^{rate till realizationalongwith cost and other relief.}

¶18

A few facts^giving rise to^{the present applicationare as under'}

¶19

The defendant had^{approachedthe applicantbank and applied} for financial assistance^{for purchaseof TataLPK161 IDumper vehicleby loan}

¶20

silns+'Mar^&'uL,l, e,sdi,nso*fiMlE /f DRT, Guwahali V

¶21

O.A. 275l2022lDRT-Guwahati

¶22

application dated 19.01.2018 and after considering the said application, the applicant bank by Sanction Memorandum dated 19.01.2018 had sanctioned a credit facility of Rs.19,00,000.00 only to the defendant with interest charged 9.70% per annum. The credit facility was to be repaid in 84 monthly installments of Rs.31,250.00 each. The credit facility has been covered by the CGTMSE scheme.

¶23

ln connection with the sanction of the term loan of Rs.19,00,000.00 sanctioned by the applicant bank and availed by the defendant, Agreement Cum Deed of Hypothecation dated 19.01.2018 has been signed and executed by the defendant in favour of the applicant bank as security for repayment of the loan facility thereby agreeing to all the terms and conditions laid down in the said Deed of hypothecation and hypothecated the machinery / vehicle purchased out of the Bank financed more specifically described in schedule- A of the original application in favour of the applicant bank.

¶24

The defendant by executing particulars of vehicles daled 23.02.20'18 had accepted that the machinery and vehicle which was financed by the applicant bank was received in good condition from the Show Room. The defendant also submitted Tax lnvoice.

¶25

The defendant had availed the said loan facility from the applicant bank but has not paid the outstanding loan amount as per terms and conditions as agreed upon with the applicant bank, in spite of repeated demands and request by the applicant bank. As the defendant failed to repay the outstanding amount in the loan account, the said account became NPA on 01.03.2021. The defendant deposited installments of Rs. 31,000/- in cash on 17.02.2020 and installments of Rs. 30,600/- in cash on 18.03.2020. Moreover as per order dated 10.01 .2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Misc. Application No. 21 of 2022 in SMW(C) No. 3 of 2020,lhe instant suit is filed within period of limitation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said order directed that the^period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the^purpose of limitation^{as may be prescribed under anv general ot} "o".lijl:X;n

¶26

Presiding o*.,**ffiW

¶27

O.A. 275l2022lDRT-Guwahati

¶28

respect of all^judicial or^{quasi judicialproceedings.} After the account became NPA the applicant bank issued notices for repayment^{of the due amount, but the defendant has} neither chosen for repayment of the^{remaining installmentsin the loan accountnor} approached to the applicant bank^{for settling the loan account.}

¶29

The applicant bank thus became^{constrainedto file the presentOriginal} Application for the recovery ot^{Rs.22,72,225.4'l(RupeesTwenty Two Lakhs Seventy} Two Thousand Two^{HundredTwenty Five and Paise Forty One) only as on} 20.04.2022 along^{withinterest and costof the application.}

¶30

After filing of the oA^{the Tribunal issuednotice upon the defendantthrough} registered^post and^{the applicant bank filed service reporton 15.09-2022and brought} on record the^{postal receipt along with track consignment reportwhich shows that} notice has not been^{served upon the sole defendant.Thereafter the Tribunal ordered} paper publication of notice^{upon the sole defendantand the applicantbank issued} notice to the defendant^{on 13.10.2022through Paper Publication in two newspapers} namely.TTmes^{of lndia- and"Dainik Asom".Even after issuanceof noticethrough} paper publication also there^{was no representationon behalf of the soledefendant} either by the counsel^{or the person and hencethe defendantwasset ex-parteon} 05.01.2023 and^{his right to file written statement cum evidence on affidavitwas closed} and the matter^{was postedfor hearing on behalfof the applicant bank'}

¶31

Supporting the^{claim of the applicant bank Sri RajeshDey, Manager of the} Applicant Bank^{has filed evidence onafiidavit coupled with the security} documentsmarked^{as ExhibitAW-1/1to AW-1/9supporting the claim of the applicant} bank.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel^{for the applicant bank who prayed for issuance of} Recovery Certificate^{againstthe defendantaS per pleadings made in the Application,} supportedbyevidenceonaffidavitoftheirwitnesswhoaffirmedonoaththe executionofthesecurityandotherdocumentsbythedefendantandalsoexecution of their own^{documents relied upon, which have been marked} i,. '|'.'|^eu^exhibits' s[,.l J"qgl1i]1,1[",

¶33

s[,.l J"qgl1i]1,1[", Presidins^officerI l" " l'-t I I ORT' Guwahati^'

¶34

O.A. 275i2022lDRT'Guwahati

¶35

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the document filed by the applicant bank are supporting the claim of the applicant bank and establishing the liability of the defendant. lt is proved that the defendant is liable to^pay to the applicant bank the claim made in the Original Application. The loan was obtained and documents have been executed on 19.01.2018 & 23.02.2018. The defendant deposited installments of Rs. 31,000/- in cash on 17.02.2020 and installments of Rs. 30,600/- in cash on 18.03.2020. Moreover as per order dated 10.01.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Misc. Application No. 21 ot 2022 in SMW(C) No. 3 of 2020, the instant suit is filed within period of limitation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said order directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purpose of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi judicial proceedings. The account became NPA on 01.03.2021 and the OA has been filed on 19.07.2022. Hence, the OA is filed well within the period of limitation and this Tribunal having a jurisdiction to adjudicate the Original Application.

¶36

Considering the unchallenged/unrebutted version of Sri Rajesh Dey, the applicant's witness and all the documents marked as exhibits, including duly certified copy of the statement of account along with interest calculation sheet maintained by the applicant Bank in it's regular course of business, I hold that the applicant is entitled to get the Recovery Certificate as prayed for.

¶37

fn the result, the present Original Application No. 275 ot 2022 is allowed with cost as under :-

¶38

The sole defendant is liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum of Rs. 22,72,225.41 (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Seventy Two Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Five and Paise Forty One) only with pendentelite and future interest @9.70% p.a. with monthly rests from 21.04.2022 till the date of full paymenUrealization and also cost of the application.

¶39

sh, ecla Presiding Offi{r ORT, Guwahati

¶40

O.A. 275l2022lDRT-Guwahati

¶41

ii)	Thechargeof the^{certificated amountbekept aliveonhypothecated vehicle}
	i.e. BrandNameofthe^{vehicle:TATA LPK 1618DUMPER, MakersName-} TATA, Chassis No.^{MAT449058JA802346, Engine No.81A84447373,Ovtner} Name-SRIDIPANKAR^DEKA,^{as described in Schedule-AoftheOAtillthe} amount is realizedinfull.
iii)	The applicant bankis entitled^{toproceed againstthesecureditems towards} recovery ofthedebts.
iv)	The applicant bankis also^{entitledtoproceed againstthepersonal assets and} propertiesofthedefendanttowardsrecoveryof^thedues.
v)	Theapplicantbankisentitled^{to thecostsof theO.A. whichincludesthe} advocatefeesoftheapplicant^{bank. Applicantisdirectedto file thecost} memowithin2weeksfrom^todaY.
vi)	lssueRecovery Certificate^{accordinglyfor a sumRs.22'72,225.4'l(Rupees} TwentyTwoLakhs Seventy^{Two ThousandTwoHundred TwentyFive} andPaiseFofiOne) only^{in favourof theapplicant bank againstthesole} defendant.
vii)	Communicate copy of this order^{to the concerned partles.} This order is dictated and corrected^{bytheundersigned.}
	Judgmentdated^{gthAugust 2023, signed andpronouncedinthe Tribunaltoday}
under	my signature.

¶42

Copy of the JudgmenUFinal Order^{be uploaded in the Tribunal's Websiteand} file be consigned to Record Room.

¶43

S0*,f e-l,a,^o-&"I-,.4 (ShivsharanB?+i,ft?} I0 Presiding OfficAr DRT, Guwahati.

Canara Bank v. Sri Dipankar Deka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Sri Dipankar Deka

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

Mr. Shrikant S/o Dattatraya Deshpande and others versus Indian Overseas Bank

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Anil Kumar

Bank of India versus G. K. Enterprises

Sh Saravdeep Singh versus Hdfc Bank

Himanshu Kumar versus State Bank of India

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S Mudithareddy Papers Pvt. Ltd.