Allowed

Punjab National Bank v. Nazira Begum Choudhury

DRT27 Jul 2023OA/338/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal addressed an application for a Recovery Certificate filed by a bank against two borrowers. In the absence of the borrowers, the Tribunal found the claim supported by documents, satisfied itself regarding limitation, and granted the certificate with interest.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of a Recovery Certificate for Rs. 79,83,698.26 with future interest at 10.95% p.a.

Punjab National Bank versus Nazira Begum Choudhury — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

O A 3382022/DRT-cryahat,

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, GUWAHATI

¶3

(North Eastern Region)

¶4

(Tribunal of Assam, Nagaland, Meghataya, Manipur, I\Iizoram, Arunachat pradesh & Tripura)

¶5

O.A. No. 338/2022

¶6

ln the matter of - :l.,IEI$!g11Bank^{(Ersrwhite unired Bankof tndia)} Urrchar tsranch. Central Road, Municipal Market Complex, Cachar-788001, District Cachar. Assam.

¶7

...... ... .Applicant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

L Nazira Begum Choudhurv Wife of Md. Ati Choudhurv Rt/o-Netaji Pally, Ranqirkhari N.S. Avenue, Sitchar,-pin-788005, Silchar.

¶10

Rabia Begum Choudhurv W/o- Rashid Ahmed Choudhurv ri/o- Netaji Pally, Ranoirkharr N.S. Avenue, Silchar,^-pin-7ggOO5.

¶11

Presonce of the Counsel :

¶12

......... Defendants

¶13

For the Applicant

¶14

: Sri Ridip Kumar Outta Sri Prasenjit Sengupta, Advocates

¶15

For the Defendants : None (Ex-parte)

¶16

Dated :2ttitt2L23

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

This is an application under seclion 19 of the Recovery of Oebts Due to Banks and Financial tnstitutions Act, 1993 filed by punjab National Bank (Erstwhile United Bank of lndia), Silchar Branch. Central Road, Municipal Market Comptex, Cacahr_ 788001 Dist: cacharAssam, with a prayer to issue Recovery certiticate for the sum of Rs. 79,83,698.26 (Rupees seventy Nine Lacs Eighty Throe Thousand six Hundred Ninety Eight and paise Twenty Six) only as on 31.O7.2[22against the defendants with pendenterite and further interest ar contractuar rates of tirr rearization along with cost and other relief.

¶19

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

¶20

-skvsLaat^h'Lu+ ,.",0"n#flIID^(/ ORT, Guweheii

¶21

¶22

o l' 3342022/DRTcuf,ahati

¶23

The defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 as applicant and co-applicant respectively had approached the applicant bank and applied for financial assistance/overdraft loan facility under United Mortgage Loan Scheme for Working capirar, by submitting a Loan Apprication before the appricant bank dated 02,02.2017 and after considering the said application, lhe appropriate authority of the applicant bank vide its Sanction Advice dated 04.03.2017 had sanctioned a Over Draff Loan facility of Rs 60 oo Lacs to the appricant and co-appricant, with interest charged 10.95% per annum with monthly rests. The Over Draff Loan facility is repayable within One^year from the date of sancUon subject to fudher renewal. The applicant and co_ applicant had agreed upon the lerms and conditions of the Sanction letter dated 04.03.2012. The defendant , * 2 signed and executed the necessary loan documents on 04.03.20,17.:l" as Demand Promissory Note' Agreeme under Mongage Loan s"r,"r", gyp,' Agreemenl and Letter of continuity all dated u.o3.2o17.The defendant no"nu*t'on 1 & 2 had created equitable mortgage of total plot of land measuring s.s tattras ttrer' in favour of the applicant bank by executing letter of deposit of tifle o""os oy oepl sale Deed being No' 505 dted 24.02.2011, more fu,ry described ,n a"n"o.o""'nn'n" of the oA in favour of the applicant bank with regard to the loan facitity avaaea : from the applicant bank. The defendants had avail ed the said Loan Facility from the applicant bank but have not paid the outstanding t as per terms and condition made wth the appricant bank in spit" or r"p""tu,' J demands and request by the applicant bank, hence the said account became NpA appricant bank issued notices,orn "^{ot'o"After lhe account became} NPA the tuo"ymed of the due amount' but the derendants faired to repay the ro"n ,rour, o,' , ewthe loan account.

¶24

Moreover, vide retter dated oo ot ""' the defendant No. , and 2 requested the appricant bank to transfer ^.. oo lacs in the Account of one saidul Hoque Borbhuiya ( A,/c No. oo372iooaro, 'n lt has come to the knowledge of the appricant bank that defendants have prayed "^{t"'and submittedfabricated} documents to avairthe loan facirity. Accordingly, ,n e then Chief Manager of the applicant bank riled

¶25

,#l,#JE'*

¶26

O.A. 3382022/DRTCuwahati

¶27

F.l.R. dated 02.01.2018 against the defendant No. 1 and 2 and duly registered as P.S.Case No. 232018. And in relation to this P.S. Case No. 2312018, the concerned police seized the Loan Application da!,€,d 02.02.2017 as well as Sanction Letter dated 04.03.2017 and accordingly Seizure List has been issued dated 05.01.2018.

¶28

Applicant bank against sent notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAEST Act, 2002 dated 03.09.2018 to the defendants No. 1 & 2 but the defendants did not regularize their loan. On 08.'10.2018, the defendants filed a FIR against the applicant bank and informed about some unauthorized transaction/transfer by the Bank from the account of the defendanls, which was duly registered as P.S. Case No. 351912018. The concerned Police officials duly seized the Letter of the defendants dated 04.03.2017 in connection with the instant P.S. Case and submitted the seizure list dated 07.11.2019.

¶29

The applicant bank thus became constrained to ,ile the present Original Application for the recovery of Rs. 79,83,698.26 (Rupees Seventy Nins Laca Eighty Three Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Eight and Paise Twenty Six) only as on 31.07.2022 alo^gwilh interest and cost of the application.

¶30

After filing of the OA the Tribunal^{issued nolices upon the defendants through} registered^post and the applicant^{bank filed service reporton 28j02022and brought} on record the^postal receipts^{along with track consignment report which shows that} the notices have not been^{served upon the defendants No. 1& 2. Thereafter,the} Tribunal ordered^{paperpublication of notice upon the defendantNo. 1 & 2 and the} applicant bank issued^{notice to the defendantNo. I & 2 through PaperPublication} in two newspapers namely^{'Ihe Eastem Chronicle " &"Dainik Pmntoiyoti"daled} 08.11.2022. Even^{after issuanceof noticethrough paper publicationthere was no} representation^{on behalfof thedefendants either by thecounselor thepersonand} hence the defendants^{were set ex-parteon 16.02.2023 and the matterwas posted for} ex-parte hearing^{on behalfofthe applicantbank.}

¶31

Supporting the claim^{of the applicant bank Mrs Anjana Das, Chief Managerof the} Applicant Bank^{hastiled evidence on affidavitcoupled with the securitydocuments} marked as Exhibit^{A-1 to A-19(a) supporting the claimof the applicantbank'}

¶32

S[1",SI*na.-D^,tV ))l ollD U Presdins Offrcer I DRT, Guwahali

¶33

¶34

o.a. $8/2022lDRr4mrhati

¶35

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

¶36

considering the facts and circumstances of the case, r am of the considered view that the documents filed by the applicant bank are supporling the claim of the applicant bank and estabtishing the tiability of the defendants. lt is proved that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant bank the claim made in the Original Application. The loan was obtained and documents have been executed on u.03.2o17. The rast cash deposit of Rs. 3,oo,ooo/- was on 31.12.2o2o and another Rs. 40,000/- on 11.01.2021. Moreover afrer perusing the documents on record and taking into consideration of the facts and circumsian@s of the case, I find that the mortgage has been created by the defendant No.1 & 2 where the rimitation avairabre is for 12 years and as such taking into account of the creation of the modgage the application appears to have been filed wellwithin the period of limitation. The account became NpA on 31.08.2018 and the OA has been filed on 26.08.2O22. Hence, the OA is filed we within the period of limitation and this Tribunal having a jurisdiction to adjudicate the Original Apptication.

¶37

Considering the unchallenged/unrebutted version of Mrs Anjana Das, the applicant's witness and all the documents marked as exhibits, including duly certiried copy of the statement of account along with interest calculation sheet mainlained by the applicant Bank in il's regular course of business, I hold that the applicant is entifled to get the Recovery Certificate as prayed for.

¶38

rn the resurt, the present originar Apprication No. 338 0f 2022 is aflowed with cosl as under :-

¶39

i) The defendants No. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum of Rs. 79,83,698.26 (Rupees Seventy Nine Lacs Eighty Three Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Eight and paise Twenty Six) only with pendentelite and future interest @ j0.95% p.a. with monthly rests

¶40

st- s|a'\g-o"i'" **'-*3)io'l'f^,J DRT, Gurvahati

¶41

o.A 338/2022lDRT-G!*ahal

¶42

from 01.08.2022^{till the date of futl paymenurealizationand also costof the} application

¶43

ii) The charge^{ofthecertificated amount be kept aliveon mortgage properties' ie'} 1) A^plot of land^{measuring12 Chattaks8 Gondas under Dag No 8748'R S} Patta No.^{1218, including building and all appurtenancesthereon Bounded by} North: PWD^{Road,South: Land of PlotNo 2' East: Landof Mahmud Hassan} Choudhury^{and Ors,West: By-Lane' 2) A plotof land measuring4 Kathas 12} Chaftaks^{15 Gondas under Dag No 8749' RS'Patta No 1218'including} building^{and appurtenances thereon:at Mouza-SilcharTown' Pargana-} Barakpar,^{Silchar'District-Cachar'Assam Boundedby-North: Land of Plot} No. 1 and^{Mahmud Hassan Choudhury' South: Land of Mahmud Hassan} Choudhury,^{East: Land of Abdur RahmanChoudhury' West: By-Lane Thus a} total land^{of 5 5 KathaswithinMadhurbondhGram Panchayat' Silchar' as} described^{in Schedule-Aof the OA till the amount is realizedin full'}

¶44

iii)^{The applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the secured ilems towards} recovery^{of the debts'}

¶45

iv)^{Theapplicantbankis also entitledto proceedagainst the personal assets and} properties of^{the defendantsiowards recoveryof the dues-}

¶46

The^{applicant bank is entitledto the costs of the OAwhichincludes the}

¶47

v) advocatefeesoftheapplicantbank'Applicantisdirectedtofilethecost memo^{within 2 weeks from today'}

¶48

lssue^{Recovery Certiflcate accordinglyfor a sumRs' 79'83'698'26(Rupees}

¶49

vi) Seventy^{Nine LacaEightyThree Thousand Six Hundrsd Ninety Eight and} paise Twenty^{Six)onlyin favourof the applicant bank against the defendants} No. 1&2

¶50

vii)^{Communicate copy of this order to the concernedparties'} This order^{is dictated and conectedby the undersigned'}

¶51

\il^{gl.o",^,"4-"e1} " 1:15]15^u Pre3ldins^offc€f l'l - DRT,^Guw8heii

¶52

¶53

o.A. 33&2O2ZDRT-cuv..hari

¶54

Judgment dated 27s July 2OZg, signed and pronounced in the Tribunal today

¶55

under my signature.

¶56

Copy of the JudgmenuFinal Order be uploaded in the Tribunal's Website and

¶57

file be consigned to Record Room.

¶58

Sl^#fr\Atl "Ur U (Shiv Sharan Dubey) ' Presiding Officer DRT, Guwahati.

Punjab National Bank v. Nazira Begum Choudhury

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. Nazira Begum Choudhury

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

Idbi Bank versus M/s Smartway Group

Union Bank of India versus Umesh

Idbi Bank versus Sushanta Kumar

State Bank of India versus Buta Singh

Ms Govindraj Traders through Its Prop Shri Vijay So Vinayak Keshattiwar versus State Bank of India

Ms Dhanshri Lal Hira Hari Patanjali Jila Vitarak Kendra and Ors. versus State Bank of India