Debts Recovery Tribunal ordered payment of loan dues of Rs. 22,91,337/- by three defendants to Uco Bank in absentia, recognizing the bank's documentary evidence and allowing issuance of recovery certificate.
Defendants jointly and severally directed to pay Rs. 22,91,337/- along with interest at 8.45% p.a. and costs; recovery certificate to be issued.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
_.
OA 292 of 2022 IJ]
DRT,PATNA
Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna,
Karpuri Thakur Sadan, Aashiana Digha Road at PATNA-800025
Presiding Officer : Shri Kaushalendra Yadav
OA Case no. : 292 of 2022
Uco Bank, Gosai Branch, Pumea
....... Applicant
Vs.
...Defendants
Present:
For the Applicant : Shri Manoj Kumar, Advocate For the Defendants : None
Dated:17 .02.2023
JUDGMENT
1- The Applicant bank has made this application u/s 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (here-in-after referred to as Act) on 4.5.2022 against the defendants to recover its debts from defendants of Rs.22,91 ,3371- upto 31.3.2022 alongwith pendente-lite and future interest at the contractual rate from 1.4.2022 with costs till realization.
3- The brief facts of the case of the applicant bank as stated in the application are as under-
The applicant bank is a body corporate having its head office at 10 BTM, Sarani, Braboume Road, Kolkata-70000LIt has branches throughout India and one of such branch is situated at Gosai Branch, Pumea.
The defendants approached the bank seeking term loan of Rs. 20 lakh for construction of house under Uco Home Loan Scheme vide loan application dated 14.5.2018. Upon consideration of the loan proposal for construction of house under Uco Home Loan Scheme of rS.20 lakh was
2
OA 2920(2022 [J]
DRT,PATNA
sanctioned by the bank on 6.6.2018. The defendants executed the various loan documents i.e. loan agreement, DP note, Demand note, PDR and guarantee agreement. The defendants being secured free hold land measuring 2 katha 1 dhur vide loan agreement dated 6.6.2018 details given at page 27 in schedule-B ofOA.
A first charge by way of hypothecation of the entire goods, movable and other assets present and future including document of title to the goods and other assets such as book debts receivables by way of cash assistance and cash incentives under the cash incentive scheme or any other scheme, claims including claims by way of refund of customs duties under the duty draw back credit scheme or any other schemes, bills invoices documents, contract, insurance policies, guaranties, engagement, securities, investments, and rights uncalled capital and all machinery present and future of such form satisfactory applicant bank.
The defendants thereafter enjoyed the benefit of said loan facility but after some time did not adhere to the terms and conditions of the said facility and despite repeated request did not clear dues within specified time as per the agreements of the facility and later on due to non- deposit of the installments by defendants their account become irregular despite regular follow up by telephone and recall notice. As a result the account of defendants had classified as NPA on 31.3.2021 as per guidelines of RBI.
The total outstanding dues amount comes to Rs.22,91,337/- upto 31.3.2022 and the defendants are liable to pay further interest on the said amount w.e.f. 1.4.2022.
The interest /compound interest has been charged at such rates, and capitalized at such periodical rests as are permitted by and do not run counter to the directives of Reserve Bank of India.
Since, the defendants have failed and neglected in spite of several reminders to make payment of the dues recoverable to bank, hence this application has been filed by the bank.
4- V/s 19 (4) of the Act & Rule of the DRT [Procedure] Rules, 1993, copies of application & paper book were sent by this Tribunal to the defendants by registered/speed post on 1.6.2022, and summons/notices issued requiring the defendants to show-cause within 30 days of the service of summons/notices as to why relief prayed for, should not be granted.
Despite the registered summon/notice which is evident from the tracking report and sufficient time has been given to the defendant to defend their case, but the defendant has not appeared before this Tribunal to contest the case, he failed to appear and to file WS, hence, the Tribunal has passed an order to proceed ex-parte against the defendant on 12.8.2022
3
OA 292 of 2022 [J]
DRT,PATNA
5- To prove its case, the applicant Bank has referred various photocopies of documents before this Tribunal. The applicant bank has also given evidence on affidavit by way of affidavit of Shri Sumit Kumar, Branch Manager of the applicant bank. The details of documents are as follows. :-
| SI.No | Description of photocopies Documents |
Date of Execution |
Amount | Signature of executant |
Ex.! Ann. No. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Loan application | 14.5.2018 | ... | defendant no. 1 & 2 |
1 |
| 2 | sanction letter | 6.6.2018 | Rs.20 lakh | bank | 2 |
| 3 | loan agreement . |
6.6.2018 | Rs.20 lakh | defendant no. 1 & 2 |
3 |
| 4 | DP note | 6.6.2018 | Rs.20 lakh | defendant no. 1 & 2 |
4 |
| 5 | Demand note | 6.6.2018 | Rs.20 lakh | defendant no. 1 & 2 |
5 |
| 6 | PDR | 6.6.2018 | Rs.20 lakh | defendants | 6 |
| 7 | Guarantee agreement |
6.6.2018 | Rs.20 lakh | defendant no. 3 |
7 |
| 8 | Mortgage deed no. 7021 and NEe |
7.6.2018 | ... | ... | 8 |
| 9 | Revival letter | 5.1.2021 | ... | bank and defendant n. 1 &2 |
9 |
| 10 | SARFAESI Notice |
9.9.2022 | ... | bank | 10 |
| 11 | Legal notice | 23.3.2022 | ... | bank adv. | 11 |
| 12 | Statement of account |
As on 31.3.2022 |
Rs.22,91,337/- | Bank | 12 |
6- Opportunity of hearing has been fully given to both the parties, but despite several opportunities given to defendants, the defendants have not appeared to contest the case, hence, the ex-parte arguments of learned counsel for applicant bank were heard and perused the case record.
Ld. counsel of applicant bank submitted that the defendants have taken the loan and utilized the same and also executed the various loan documents to secure the loan. Further, submitted that the claim of the bank has been proved by documentary evidence.
It is further submitted by ld. Counsel of applicant bank that there is no any stay granted by any Higher Court, in respect of the proceedings of the present OA and requested to issue recovery certificate, as claimed for, inOA.
7- It has been established that defendants are living and carrying on their business in the state of Bihar. Cause of action also arose in the State of Bihar. The said claim on the date of filing of application exceeded
(.;r v
4
DRT,PATNA
OA 292 of 2022 [J)
Rs.20 lacs. The applicant bank is functioning within jurisdiction of this tribunal. Therefore, this Tribunal has territorial as well as pecumary jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present application.
8- On the issue of Limitation, to prove it, the applicant bank has submitted that the applicant bank has declared the account as NPA on 31.3.2021, whereas the present application has been filed on 4.5.2022. Even, it is counted for the purpose of Limitation, then it is established that the applicant bank has filed the case within the limitation period from the date of acknowledgment of debts. As such, it is established that present application has been filed well within the period of limitation.
9- In the affidavit of Shri Sumit Kumar, Branch Manager of the applicant bank, has stated that he is well acquainted with the facts of the case and has on verification of record, sworn in the affidavit in support of contents of application and the documents as evidence and established on oath the pleadings and documents of the applicant bank as stated above.
The documents as stated above reveal that the defendants have applied for loan and the bank had sanctioned the loan and to secure the loan and for repayment of loan amount with interests etc., the defendants have executed various loan documents, which strength the case of the applicant bank.
The applicant bank has also furnished statement of account as above, which is not only admissible but shall be taken as correct statement of account, more so since the entries in the statement of account has not been challenged.
10Since, the case was proceeded ex-parte against defendants, all contentions raised and documents produced by plaintiff remained unrebutted and thetribunal may act upon the affidavit of the applicant as per law. Defendants have neither denied the utilization of funds advanced by applicant bank nor have pointed out any specific error and discrepancy in the Statement of Account, which is kept in due course of business, evidence on affidavit, which has supported the claim of the applicant bank, established to have fully correct and believable. Provisions contained in Rule 9(2) of Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 provide that the documents referred in the application shall be duly stated by senior officer of the bank, or Financial institution as the case may be and numbered accordingly. The rule 12 (10) provides that the provisions contained in section 4 of the Banker's Books evidence that Act, 1891 (18 of 1891) shall applied to certified copy of an entry in a Banker's Books furnished alongwith application filed under sub section 1 of section 19 by the applicant.
11On consideration of the arguments and on perusal of the application, documents and affidavit, it is proved that the applicant bank
;('./
..
•
5
OA 292 of 2022 [J]
DRT,PATNA
has granted the loan facility, documents were executed by the defendants and facility was availed by the defendants as stated in the application.
12The applicant bank has sought for recovery of a sum of Rs.22,91,337/-with cost and further interest @8.45% p.a. simple from 1.4.2022 till realization.
13Learned Advocate appearing for applicant bank submits that the applicant bank has charged interest in terms of the agreements and that interest has been charged at such rates, and capitalized at such periodical rests as are permitted by and do not run counter to the directives of Reserve Bank of India.
14On consideration of the arguments and on perusal of the pleadings, documents and affidavit, it is proved that the applicant has charged interest against defendants in terms of documents and as per directives of RBI.
15None of the defendants appeared before the tribunal to contest the claim made by the applicant, therefore, it necessarily goes to establish that the claim made by the applicant bank is genuine and true. It is manifest that the defendants have not disputed the claim, therefore, the claim referred to the tribunal is recoverable till full and final realization of the claim.
16In Indian Bank Vs. Blue Jaggers Estates Limited and others [2010] 8 SCC 129,the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed as under-
"The Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the bank is a trustee of public fund. It cannot compromise the public interest for benefiting private individuals. Those who take loan and avail financial facilities from the bank are duty bound to repay the amount strictly in accordance with the terms of the contract. Any lapse in such matters has to be viewed seriously and the bank is not only entitled but duty bound to recover the amount by adopting all legally permissible methods. Parliament enacted the act because it was found that legal mechanism available till then was wholly insufficient for recovery of the outstanding dues of the banks and Financial Institutions."
17In my view, Facts of the case stand proved by evidence of the applicant bank ex-parte. Accordingly, The applicant bank is entitled to recover from defendants jointly and severally of Rs.22,91,337/-alongwith pendente-lite and future interest @8.45% p.a. with compounded monthly rests from 4.5.2022 (The date of filing of this O.A.) till realization. So the final order may be passed accordingly, to meet the ends of justice.
ORDER
In the result, the application of the applicant bank is, allowed exparte and debt is determined with costs against the defendants. The ~-/
• a
6
..
OA 292 of 2022 [J]
DRT,PATNA
defendants is hereby jointly and severally, ordered to pay the applicant bank it's debts amounting to Rs.22,91,337/-alongwith pendente-lite and future interest @8.45% p.a. with compounded monthly rests from 4.5.2022 (The date of filing of this O.A.) till realization of the entire sum due and recoverable with costs.
It is made clear that any amount deposited by the defendants, be deducted in the claim amount, if not deducted.
Defendants are debarred from transferring, alienating encumbering or otherwise dealing with or disposing of the mortgaged or hypothecated or any other properties and assets without paying the aforesaid adjudicated dues to the applicant bank to secure the ends of justice.
Let a certificate of recovery be drawn up forthwith and put up for signatures in terms of provisions contained in Section 19(22) of the Act to be issued, on the basis of the order of the Tribunal to the Recovery Officer. The Recovery Officer shall realize the amount as per the certificate in the manner and mode prescribed under the Act from the defendants, by sale of mortgaged! hypothecated assets as well as other personal movable/immovable assets of the defendants.
Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT, Patna on 30.3.2023. The order be communicated accordingly.
Judgment signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open curt on this 17th Day of February, 2023. ?~~ _/~ Dictated & corrected by me. ...I-YI ,( ,/ [Kaush~a Yadav] Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the application for recovery of dues under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 is maintainable and within limitation.
Whether the debt claimed by the bank against non-appearing defendants is supported by sufficient documentary and affidavit evidence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Indian Bank Vs. Blue Jaggers Estates Limited and othersExplained¶66
Indian Bank Vs. Blue Jaggers Estates Limited and others [2010] 8 SCC 129 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Uco Bank, Gosai Branch, Pumea
Vijay Kumar Singh
Mrs. Vina Devi
Abhinav Kumar
Kaushalendra Yadav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
