Allowed

Canara Bank, v. Sh. Gurmit Singh

DRT13 Oct 2023OA/390/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application under Section 19 of the RDBFI Act, 1993, declaring the defendant liable to pay Rs.33,79,736 with interest at 10% p.a. from the date of filing, recoverable via hypothecated properties or personal asset attachment.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate to be issued; Defendant to pay Rs.33,79,736 with 10% p.a. interest; recovery via sale of mortgaged property or attachment of personal assets.

Canara Bank, versus Sh. Gurmit Singh — Specific Performance | DRT (2023)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.390/2022

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 02.02.2022

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 13.10.2023

¶6

Canara Bank, a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, having its Head Office at 112, Jaya Chamarajendra Road, Bangalore560002 and having its branches all over India and one of its branch office amongst other places at Jagraon, District Ludhiana, Punjab through its Principal Officer, Sh. Ravi Goyal, Officer

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Gurmit Singh S/o Sh. Jeet Singh, R/o Village Gidderwindi, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana, Punjab

¶10

………Defendant

¶11

Advocates:

¶12

Argued by Sh. Hemant Nanda, counsel for the applicant Defendant is ex-parte

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, against the defendant for recovery of Rs.33,79,736.00 (Rupees Thirty Three Lacs Seventy Nine Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty Six only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Ravi Goyal, Authorized representative of the applicant bank, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide General Power of Attorney dated 20.03.2018, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶15

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant had approached the applicant bank for the grant of KCC Limit of Rs.20.00 Lacs vide Loan Application dated 19.06.2017, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶16

¶17

The applicant Bank sanctioned the KCC Limit of Rs.20.00 Lacs vide Sanction Letter dated 19.06.2017, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant. 4. Defendant had mortgaged his immovable properties i.e. total agricultural land measuring 26 Kanals 06 Marlas situated at Village Gidderwindi, Hadbast No.32, Sub Tehsil Sidhwan Bet, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana, Punjab vide Declaration u/s 4(1) dated 05.06.2017, which is Annexure A5 to this OA. Documents executed: - Hypothecation Agreement dated 19.06.2017, which is Annexure A4 to this OA; Acknowledgment of Debt and security dated 08.05.2020, which is Annexure A6 to this OA; Recall Notice dated 26.06.2021, which is Annexure A7 to this OA and Statement of account along with Certificate of Evidence of Banker Book Act, which is Annexure A8 to this OA. 5. The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan account there was debit of Rs.33,79,736.00, which is recoverable and the defendant was served recall notice but he did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant bank requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 6. The defendant was served notice to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendant and he was proceeded exparte on 08.09.2023. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Ravi Goyal, Authorized representative, Canara Bank has been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record. 9. It was argued by learned counsel that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant bank had proved its case. From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A8 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant approached applicant bank for availing of the loan facility which was

¶18

¶19

granted to him and for that he had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. The defendant failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, account of the defendant was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.33,79,736.00 (Rupees Thirty Three Lacs Seventy Nine Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty Six only) along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the account.

¶20

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has claimed interest @18.00%p.a. with half yearly rests from 01.10.2021 till the realization.

¶21

The Tribunal is of the considered opinion that sometimes in appropriate cases the prerogative of mercy is the brightest jewel in the crown of the Judge. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case including nature of the mortgaged property, undertaking of the defendant, quantum of loan and prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yester years, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @10.00%p.a. in the loan account from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly. 11. In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.33,79,736.00 (Rupees Thirty Three Lacs Seventy Nine Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty Six only) with costs, current and future simple interest @10.00%p.a. in the loan account from the date of filing of OA till the date of realization of the amount. Accordingly, the applicant bank shall be entitled to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of hypothecated/mortgaged properties of the defendant in

¶22

¶23

execution proceedings, if not sold earlier under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. If the dues of the bank still remain unsatisfied, it shall be entitled to recover the same by attachment and sale of personal assets of the defendant. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law. 12. Any other application pending stands disposed of. 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 20.10.2023. 15. Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant bank and be sent to defendant through registered/speed post and this order be also uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal and record be consigned. Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal. Dated: 13.10.2023

¶24

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Canara Bank, v. Sh. Gurmit Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank, v. Sh. Gurmit Singh

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

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Jagjeet Singh and Others

Indian Overseas Bank, versus Sh. Jagdev Singh and Another

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Sh. Ram Partap and Another

Hdfc Bank Ltd, versus Sh. Gurdeep Singh and Others

Canara Bank, versus Smt. Jasvir Kaur

Punjab National Bank, versus Smt. Jaspreet Kaur