Allowed

Canara Bank v. Yogesh Gupta and Anr.

DRT13 Jan 2023OA/482/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Although the appellate bank claimed unilateral interest and rate, the DRT allowed the application ex parte. The tribunal ordered recovery of the outstanding principal of Rs.25,25,099.82 plus 7% simple interest from the filing date. Recovery includes the sale of mortgaged property or attachment of personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.25,25,099.82 plus 7% simple interest from the filing date, enforceable against mortgaged property or personal assets.

Canara Bank versus Yogesh Gupta and Anr. — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2023)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, CHANDIGARH, PRESIDED OVER BY M.M. DHONCHAK

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.482/2022

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION:10.03.2022

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 13^th DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

Canara Bank, a body corporate and Nationalized Bank constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, with its Head Office at #112, J.C. Road, Bangalore, and amongst others a Branch at Retail Assets Branch, Sector-34, Chandigarh, through Sh. Harvinder Singh presently Officer-cum-General Power of Attorney holder ....Applicant Bank

¶6

Versus

¶7

Sh. Yogesh Gupta S/o Sh. Suresh Gupta

¶8

Smt. Pinky Gupta W/o Yogesh Gupta

¶9

Both residents of House No. 2612/1, Sector-44 C, Chandigarh

¶10

2^nd address: House No. 2069/1, Sector-44C, Chandigarh

¶11

.....Defendants

¶12

Argued by: Ms Hemlata Issar counsel for the applicant bank Defendants ex parte vide order dated 14.10.2022

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank under Section 19 (1) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity) against the defendants for recovery of Rs.25,25,099.82p (Rupees Twenty Five lacs Twenty Five Thousand Ninety Nine and Eighty Two Paisa Only) . It has been filed through Sh. Harvinder Singh, Officer of the applicant bank stated to be competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 18.04.2017, Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶15

OA/482/2017 CANARA BANK Vs YOGESH GUPTA AND ANR

¶16

¶17

The brief facts as per the Original Application are that the defendants had approached the applicant bank for grant of term loan facility of Rs. 25 lacs vide loan application dated 24.09.2015, Annexure-A2 (copy). 3. The applicant bank sanctioned aforesaid facility to the defendants vide sanction letter dated 03.10.2015, Annexure-A3 (copy) as per the terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶18

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facility, the defendants executed housing loan agreement dated 13.10.2015, Annexure-A4 (copy).

¶19

The aforesaid loan was further secured by creation of equitable mortgage of residential property in respect of the defendants bearing Flat No. 783-C, Second Floor situated in Mona Aero View, Swastik Vihar, Patiala Road, Bhabat, MC Zirakpur, Tehsil Derabassi, District S.A.S Nagar Mohali fully detailed in para No. 5 (iv) of the Original Application.

¶20

It is further the case of the applicant bank that the loan facility was duly availed of by the defendants but they failed to maintain the financial discipline of the applicant bank and resultantly, the loan account became irregular and it was declared NPA on 30.03.2021. The defendants executed acknowledgement of debt letters dated 04.08.2018 and 14.07.2021, Annexures-A6 and A7 (copy). The applicant bank recalled entire outstanding amount vide notice under section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, Annexure-A5 (copy), but to no avail.

¶21

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account, a sum of Rs.25,25,099.82p (Rupees Twenty Five lacs Twenty Five Thousand Ninety Nine and Eighty Two Paisa Only) is recoverable against the defendants as per

¶22

OA/482/2017 CANARA BANK Vs YOGESH GUPTA AND ANR

¶23

¶24

statement of account dated 14.02.2022 along with certificate under Banker’s Books Evidence Act, 2000, Annexure-A8 (colly) (copy).

¶25

Since the defendants did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant bank preferred the present Original Application for issuance of Recovery Certificate.

¶26

Notices of the Original Application were duly served upon the defendants, but since none appeared on behalf of the defendants, thus, the defendants were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 14.10.2022.

¶27

In support of the contents of the OA, affidavit of evidence of Sh. Harvinder Singh, Officer of the applicant bank was filed.

¶28

This Tribunal has heard ex parte arguments advanced by the learned proxy counsel and gone through the record carefully. 10. It was argued by the learned counsel that in view of unrebutted documentary evidence brought on record, the applicant bank had proved its case against the defendants for recovery of the amount sought. From perusal of Annexures-A1 to A8 , it is clear that the defendants had approached the applicant bank for availing of the loan facility which was granted to them. It is further clear that the defendants had executed all the relevant documents as stated above in favour of the applicant bank. Unfortunately, the defendants failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement executed between the parties. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.25,25,099.82p (Rupees Twenty Five lacs Twenty Five Thousand Ninety Nine and Eighty Two Paisa Only) from the defendants.

¶29

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank, in relief clause, has not claimed specific rate of interest. In

¶30

OA/482/2017 CANARA BANK Vs YOGESH GUPTA AND ANR

¶31

¶32

sanction letter, Annexures-A3 (copy), rate of interest has been mentioned @9.90% per annum with monthly rests.

¶33

This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that sometimes in appropriate cases the prerogatives of mercy and magnanimity are the brightest jewels in the crown of the Judge. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case including the Pandemic Covid-19 affecting businesses, nature of the mortgage property, purpose of loan, i.e. Housing, quantum of loan, prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yesteryears, defendant No.2 being a lady, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @7% per annum from the date of filing of the OA till realisation of the amount ordered vide this order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶34

In the result, the Original Application is allowed with costs declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum Rs.25,25,099.82p (Rupees Twenty Five lacs Twenty Five Thousand Ninety Nine and Eighty Two Paisa Only) with current and future simple interest @7% per annum w.e.f. 10.03.2022 , till the date of realisation of the amount. The liability of the defendants shall be joint as well as several. Accordingly, the applicant bank shall be at liberty to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of mortgaged/hypothecated property of the defendants in execution proceedings, if not sold earlier under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 or otherwise. If the dues of the bank still remain unsatisfied, the applicant bank shall be at liberty to recover the same by attachment and sale of personal assets of the defendants. The applicant bank is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶35

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶36

OA/482/2017 CANARA BANK Vs YOGESH GUPTA AND ANR

¶37

¶38

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 21.02.2023.

¶39

Copy of this order be sent to the applicant bank and the defendants through registered/speed post. This order be also uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal.

¶40

Announced in the open Tribunal (M.M. Dhonchak) Presiding Officer DRT-2,Chandigarh

Canara Bank v. Yogesh Gupta and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Yogesh Gupta and Anr.

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

Chintakuntla Sreenu versus State Bank of India

Ms Goenka Jewellers versus Uco Bank

Ravi Ganpatrao Pokley versus Ncml Finance Private Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Farooq Ahmed

State Bank of India versus Sri Vatte Krishnaiah

Mr Virendra So Rajeshwarprasad versus Union Bank of India