Allowed

State Bank of India v. Dibya Jyoti Hazarika

DRT12 Sept 2023OA/429/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an application under Section 19 of the RDBFI Act filed by the State Bank of India for issuance of a Recovery Certificate against the sole defendant. The defendant, who defaulted on term loans sanctioned in 2017 and 2020, was absent from the hearing. The court held the defendant liable for the outstanding principal and interest.

What did the court decide?

Directed the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 51,27,284.50 along with interest and costs, and issued a Recovery Certificate accordingly.

State Bank of India versus Dibya Jyoti Hazarika — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

O A 429l2022loRr-cuwahari

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, GUWAHATI

¶3

(North Eastern Region)

¶4

(Tibunal of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Mizoram, Arunachal pradesh & Tripura)

¶5

Befors Sh Shiv Sharan Dubev.^presidino Officer

¶6

O.A. No. 429t2022

¶7

ln the matter of -

¶8

State Bank of lndia Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, R.B.O. Building, M.G.Road, Na-Ali, Jorhat-785001, Assam.

¶9

..Appticant Vs.

¶10

l. Dibya Jyoti Hazarika, Son of Kanak Hazarika, Village No. 1 Sonapur, Nowboicha, North Lakhimpur, District Lakhimpur, Assam- 787023.

¶11

Defendant

¶12

Presence of ihs Counsel :

¶13

For the Applicant : Mr. K K Nandi, Ms Rochoita Das, Advocates For the Defendant : None (Ex-parte) Oaled :'l2ligl2023

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

This is an application under section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Oue to Banks and Financial lnstitutions Act, 1993 filed by the State Bank of lndia, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, R.B.O. Building, M.G.Road, Na_Ati, Jorhat-78sool, Assam, with a prayer to issue Recovery Certificate for the sum of Rs, 51,27,284.50 (Rupaeg Fifty One Lakh3 Twenty Seven Thousands Two Hundred Eighor Four and paisa Fifty) only as on 07.09.2022 against the defendant with pendentetite and future interest at the rate of 7.80o/o per annum at monthly rest till realization, along with cost and other relief.

¶16

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

¶17

The sole defendant is an individual who does works relating to Govt. contract

¶18

and also supply construction material such as sand, stone chips etc. That the

¶19

Sl,,r,J 9A4A^ fi-L I Lti9

¶20

Presding fficed I l?) t DRT, Guwahati

¶21

O A. 429202ZORT.Gu*:h.ti

¶22

defendant availed of credit facilities from the applicant bank. The defendant approached and applied to the applicant bank for financial assistance to^purchase transport vehicle by submitting an application. The applicant bank on consideration of the said application sanctioned Term loan facility of Rs.42,80,000.00^(Rupees Forty Two lakhs Eighty Thousand) to the defendant vide Letter of Arrangement dated 26.12.2017 . The terms and conditions of the letter of arrangement dated 26.12.2017 was duly accepted by the defendant and as a token of acceptance of the same the defendant have signed in letter of arrangement dated 26.122017 ol haying accepted the terms and conditions. lt was also the terms and conditions of the letter of arrangement that the effective rate of inlerest of the^{term loan will} be 3.50% above MCLR rising or falling therewith, calculated on daily^products at monthly rests. That the defendant agreed to repay the term loan in 56 monthly instalments of Rs 1,00,617.00 each commencing from the month of January 2018. The applicant bank is entitled to charge at its discretion enhanced interest rate on accounts either on the entire outstanding or on any^portion thereof for any irregularity including nonobseryance or non- compliance of terms and condilions of advance for such^period as the bank deems il necessary.

¶23

The defendant availed of the term loan from the applicant bank and the defendanl has executed Agreement of Loan-cum-Hypothecation dated 26.'12.201.7. The defendant executed revival leltet on 24.12.2020 in respect of the documents executed by him 26j22017^pertaining to the term loan availed by the defendant from the applicant bank.

¶24

The defendant approached the applicant bank for^grant of GECL facility. The applicant bank upon consideration of the^prayer so^made sanctioned working capital term loan^(GECL) of Rs^10,00,000.00 vide arrangement^{letter dated} 30.06.2020. ln the arrangement letter dated 30.06.2020 the term^{loanof Rs 41.00} lakhs and term loan of Rs 42.80 Lakhs which the defendant availed^fromthe applicant bank is mentioned. The terms and conditions of the arrangement^letter dated 30.06.2020 was duly accepted by the defendant and the defendant has signed in the arrangement letter of having accepted the terms^{and conditions.lt}

¶25

':""Ytr"W'l DRT, Guwahati

¶26

O A 4292022/DRT-Gryahati

¶27

was the terms and conditions of the arrangement letter that the effective rate of interest in the term loan account will be 0.75o/o above MCLR the effective rate being 7.05 % rising or falling therewith, calculated on daily products at monthly rests subject to changes from time to time as per bank/RBl guidelines, besides other terms and mnditions recited therein. The defendant agreed to repay the term loan in 36 monthly instalment of Rs 27778.00 each. The applicant bank is entifled to charge at its discretion enhanced interest rate on accounts either on the entire outstanding or on any portion thereof for any irregularity including non-observance or non-compliance of terms and conditions of advance for such period as the bank deems it necessary. The rate of interest is subject to changes as per banURBl guidelines and besides other terms and conditions reciled therein.

¶28

The defendant no 1 availed of the WCTL (GECL) of Rs 10,00,000.00 from the applicant bank and have executed duly filled up document being Supplemental Agreement of Loan cum Hypothecation dated 30.06.2020 and by the said document the defendant have agreed lo the terms and conditions recited therein amongst which it was agreed that the agreement is supp,emental to the Agreement of Loan cum Hypothecation daled 26.'12.2017. The defendant further agreed that the assets hypothecated and charged in favour of the applicant bank shall stand charged in favour of the applicant bank as continuing security by way of first charge. lt was agreed upon that all the terms and conditions and that all the covenants, terms and conditions to be observed and performed by the defendant and all the rights remedies conferred on the Bank by/ under the agreement shall apply and extend to the additional limit in the existing facilities granted by the bank upto the enhanced aggregate limit of Rs.93,80,000^

¶29

The defendant no 1 approached the applicant bank for restructure of the credit facilities by submitting an application dated 03.11.2020. The applicant bank upon consideration of the said application dated 03.11.2020 restructured the credit facilities as GECL facility of Rs 10.00 Lacs, Term loan of Rs 41 .00 Lacs, Term loan of Rs 42.80 Lacs, Funded lnterest Term loan of Rs 3.83 lacs, Funded lnterest Term loan of Rs 5.20 lacs, thus totaling Rs 102.83 Lacs vide arrangement letter dated

¶30

gUnd,ontq,&'l 12) 61 l2\ I l Presiding Oficbr I^I | -^/ DRI. Guwahati

¶31

¶32

6.A. a29l2o22tD Rr+mh.li

¶33

24j2.2020. The terms and conditions of lhe arrangement. tetter dated 24.12.2020 was duly accepted by the defendant and as a token of acceptance of the same the defendant have) signed in the arrangement retter of having accepted the terms and conditions lr was arso the terms and conditions of lhe arrangement retter that the rate of lnterest in the term roan account being o.3oo/o above MCLR the effective rate being 6.65 % per annum calculated on daily balance of the loan amount at monthly rests. The defendant no t have agreed to repay the FITL in 24 months in monthly instalments of Rs 18417.00 and Rs 2SO12.OO as mentioned in the arrangement letter. The rate of interesl is subject to revision from time to lime in accordance with the guidelines of the applicant bank and/or Reserve Bank of lndia.

¶34

The defendant availed of the restructured credit facilities from the applicant bank and the defendant have executed Supplemental Agreement of Loan cum Hypothecation dated 24j22020 and by the said documenr the defendanr have agreed to the terms and conditions recited therein amongst which it was agreed that the agreement is supplemental to the Agreement of Loan cum Hypothecation dated 26.12.20'17.

¶35

The applicant further stated that term loan of Rs 41.00 as availed by the defendant from the applicant stood ljquidated and hence the documents pertaining to the said term loan of Rs 41.00 Lakhs have not been referred to and annexed in the original apptication.

¶36

The defendant had availed the credit facilities from the applicant bank but have not paid the outstanding amount as per terms and condition made with the applicant bank in spite ot repeated demands and request by the applicant bank. As the loan accounts of defendant were running extremely irregular and due to non_payment of principal amount and interest, the said accounts were classified as a NpA on 26.04.2022. After the accounts became NpA the applicant bank issued notices for repayment ofthe due amount, but the defendant has neither chosen for repayment of the loan accounts nor setfled the loan account availed by him.

¶37

The applicant bank thus became constrained to file the present Original Application for the recovery of Rs. S.1,27,284.50 (Rupeos Fifty Ons Lakhs Twenty

¶38

sLlus^Dara.,ft'9q ,.".".rorP,l€t4⁰ DRT, Guwahati

¶39

5 o.a. r2gDo22lDRTcrsaha(

¶40

Soven Thousands Two Hundrod Eighty Four and Paisa Fifty)only as on

¶41

07.05.2022 along with interest and cost of the application.

¶42

After liling of the OA the Tribunal issued notices upon the defendant through registered post and the applicant bank filed service report on 15-12-2022 and brought on record the postal receipt along with track consignment report which shows that notice has been properly served upon the defendant on 24.12.2022. Even after proper service of notice upon the defendant there was no representation on behalf of the defendant either by the counsel or the person and hence the defendant was set ex-parte on 02-02-2023 and his right to file written statement cum evidence on affidavit was closed and the matter was posted for hearing on behalf of the applicanl bank.

¶43

Supporting the claim of the applicant bank Sri Arup Kumar Das, Chief Manager of the Applicant Bank has filed evidence on affidavit coupled with the security documents marked as Exhibit A-'l to A-24, supporting the claim of the applicant bank.

¶44

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

¶45

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the documents filed by the applicant bank are supporting the claim ofthe 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 Originat Application. The loans were obtained and documents have been execuled on 26.12.20,11,30.06.2020, & 24.12.2020, Revival Letter is daled 24j22020. The accounts became NpA on 26.04.2022 and the OA has been filed on 27.10.2022. Hence, the OA is lited well within the period of limitation and this Tribunal having a jurisdiction to adiudicate the Original Application.

¶46

s^irdn^ra^fuL, ,"o,rJH'9t4 t/ DRT. Guah8li

¶47

¶48

o.a. 42gl2o22/LRl€rmh.ti

¶49

Considering the unchallenged/unrebutted version of Sri Arup Kumar Das, the applicant's witness and all the documenls marked as exhibits, including duly cerlified copy of the three statement of accounts arong with inrerest carcuration 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.

¶50

ln the resutt, the present Origjnat Apptication No.42g ot 2022 is allowed with cost as under i

¶51

i) The sole defendant is liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum of R3. 51,27,2a4,5O (Rupees Fifty Ono Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousands Two Hundred Eighty Four and paisa Fifty)only with pendentetite and future interest @7.80% p.a. with monthry rests from o1.og.2o22li, the date of ful paymenurealization and also cost of the application.

¶52

ii) The charge of the certificated amount be kept alive on hypothecated, as described in Schedule_A of the OA till the amount is realized in fufl

¶53

iiD The applicant bank is entifled to proceed against the secured items towards recovery of the debts.

¶54

iv) The applicant bank is also entifled to proceed against the personal assets and properties of the defendant towards recovery of the dues.

¶55

v) The appticant bank is entifled to the costs of the O.A. which inctudes the advocate fees of the appricant bank. Appricant is directed to fire the cost memo within 2 weeks from today.

¶56

vi) lssue Recovery Cedificate accordingly for a sum Rs. 51,27,284.50 (Rupoes

¶57

Fifty One Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousands Two Hundred Eighty Four and Paisa Fifty) onry in favour of the appricant bank against the sore defendant.

¶58

vii) Communicaie copy of this orderto the concerned parties. This order is dictated and corrected by the undersigned.

¶59

Judgment dated 12h September, 2023, signed and pronounced in the Tribunal today under my signature.

¶60

copy of the JudgmenuFinar order be uproaded in the Tribunals website and file be consigned to Record Room.

¶61

si.ir-E{^qry% (Shiv Sharan ciu[eJ) Presiding Officer DRT, cuwahati.^w

State Bank of India v. Dibya Jyoti Hazarika

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Dibya Jyoti Hazarika

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

Bank of Baroda versus M/s North East Tubes and Pipes

Ram Ekbal Sah versus Canara Bank

Yes Bank versus Bhanu Pratap Singh

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Aadinath Traders

Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank) versus M/S N. S. Prints

Punjab National Bank versus Deepak Mishra