Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Nikki Dangi

DRT21 Jul 2023OA/355/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by Union Bank of India for recovery of Rs. 24,18,674.61 outstanding dues along with interest, with directions to attach properties and issue a Recovery Certificate against the defaulting borrowers and guarantors.

What did the court decide?

Order for payment of Rs. 24,18,674.61 with interest; attachment of mortgaged and personal properties; issuance of Recovery Certificate under Section 19(2)(b).

Union Bank of India versus Nikki Dangi — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2023)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL : JABALPUR

¶2

(for the States of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh)

¶3

(Presiding Officer - Hon'ble Shri Ram Niwas Patet)

¶4

Originol Application No. - 355122

¶5

Union Bank of lndia, Barwah, Distt.^-Khargone(M. P. )

¶6

..... Appticant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Nikki Dangi,

¶9

S/o Shri Kattu Dangi

¶10

Katlu Dangi,

¶11

S/o Shri Chhote Lat Dangi

¶12

(Both R/o Vittage & Post-Mukhtyara,

¶13

Tehsit-Barurah, Distt.-Khargone, M.P.^45'111 5) Defendants

¶14

Counsel for the Appticant : Shri Adamya Bajpai, Advocate Defendants : Ex-parte

¶15

JUDGMENT (Dated ,t" luryjoz3)

¶16

The Appticant-Bank has fited the^present Originat Application u/s 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act on^{15l02lZZagainst the} Defendants for recovery of Rs. 24,18,674.61^(Rupees Twenty^{Four Lac,} Eighteen Thousand, Six Hundred Seventy Four and Paisa Sixty One^onty) along with interest and other retiefs as stated.

¶17

The brief facts of the case are that on the^{request of} Defendant No.-1, the Appticant Bank sanctioned KCC Limit of Rs. 9'90^Lac and Term Loan of Rs. 15 Lac aggregating Rs. 24.90 Lac. ln consideration^of the sanction of credit facitities the Defendant No.'1 as borrower and Defendant No.-2 as guarantor in addition to execution of loan and guarantee documents on 22106/18 have atso created mortgage over the immovable property, i.e., Agricu[ture Land Survey No.-3l1 , 812, 813, total area 2.797 hectare, P.H. No.-22, Vitlage-Mukhtyara, Post-Bhikupura, Tehsit-Barwah, District-Khargone (M.P.); betonging to Defendant No.-1. The Defendant No.-1 avaited the credit facitities and atso executed debit confirmation and acknowtedgment. The accounts became irregutar and the Defendants faited to liquidate the outstanding dues despite issuance of Recalt Notice on 10107 121 by the Appticant Bank. The Appticant-Bank has relied upon the

¶18

¶19

oA3ss/22

¶20

documents at Ex. A-1 to A-23 which were proved by shri rndartat punasiya, Branch Manager.

¶21

Despite service of notice, the Defendants neither appeared nor filed written statement. They were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 15102123. There is therefore, no reason to disbetieve the contentions of the Bank. considering the facts of the case, I opine that the Defendants are jointty and severatty tiabte to pay the claim amount together with interest and costs. The Appticant-Bank in its apptication has ctaimed interest @12.15% p.a. with monthty rests. However, r feet it fair and reasonabte to grant interest @12/o p.a. simpte pendentetite and future tilt reatization of the dues. The mortgaged property is tiabte to be sotd for recovery of amount due atong with the personal properties and assets of the Defendants,

¶22

The Original Application is atlowed and it is ordered as under-

¶23

i) The Defendants do pay jointty and severatty Rs. 24,1g,674.61 (Rupees lwenty Four Lac, Eighteen Thousand, Six Hundred Seventy Four and Paisa sixty one onty) together with pendentetite and future interest @12% per annum simpte from the date of fiting of the OA, i.e., 15/02/22, with costs ti[[ its realization.

¶24

ii) The Appticant Bank is entitted to sett the mortgaged as wetl as personal properties and assets of the Defendants for reatization of its dues. The Defendants are hereby restrained by means of injunction from depteting, transferring, encumbering, alienating or in any way deating with their properties/assets without first paying the ctaim of the Appticant Bank.

¶25

iii) A Recovery Certificate be issued uts 19(22) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act. The appticant bank may file a memo of cost within 7 days for preparing Recovery Certificate.

¶26

Judgment pronounced in the open court on this Day of 21st Juty, 2023.

¶27

(RanfNiwas Patet) Presidine Officer

Union Bank of India v. Nikki Dangi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Nikki Dangi

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

State Bank of India versus Karan Apparels

P D and Sons versus Canara Bank

Mrs Harpreet Kaur Chhabra versus Bank of India

Sudhveer Shiksha Prasar Samiti versus Bank of Baroda

Shri Hemant Kumar Tanwar versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

Ram Khilawan Chandrakar versus Central Bank of India