Allowed

Canara Bank v. Abdul Awal

DRT28 Aug 2023OA/485/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed an application under Section 19 of the RDDBFI Act, 1993 by Canara Bank for a recovery certificate. The court held the application was within limitation and the defendant's liability was established by unchallenged documentary evidence, granting the prayer for recovery.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued for Rs. 44,76,218.10 with pendentelite and future interest; permission to proceed against secured and personal assets.

Canara Bank versus Abdul Awal — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

o.A. 485/2022lDRT-Guwahati

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, GUWAHATI

¶4

(North Eastern Region)

¶5

(Tribunal of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh & Tripura)

¶6

Before Shri Shiv Sharan Dubev. Presidinq Officer

¶7

O.A. No.485/2022

¶8

ln the matter of -

¶9

Canara Bank Kharupatia Branch, Chandra Complex, lFloor, M. B. Road, Kharupetiaghat, Kharupatia, Assam-7841¹ 5.

¶10

Applicant

¶11

Vs.

¶12

l. Mr Abdul Awal, S/o- Ahmed Ali, Village- Bologorah, P.O.-Kharupatia, District Darang, Assam,^{Pin- 784115}

¶13

Defendant

¶14

Presence of the Counsel^:

¶15

: Mr. Akhtar Parvez, For the Applicant Mr. Sanjit Singha, Mr. Dipanka Gogoi, Mr. Bidul Roy, Advocates

¶16

For the Defendant : None (Ex-parte)

¶17

Dated :28/08/2023

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

This is an application^{undersection 19 of the Recoveryof Debts Due to Banks} and Financial lnstitutions^{Act, 1993 filed by the canaraBank, KharupatiaBranch,} chandra complex,l^{Floor, M. B. Road, Kharupetiaghat, Kharupatia,Assam-784115,} with a prayer to^{issueRecovery certificate for the sumof Rs.44,76,218.10} (Rupees Forty Four Lacs Seventy^{six Thousand TwoHundredEighteen and} Paise Ten) only as on 17.11.2022^{againstthe defendant with pendentelite and future} interest at the contractual^{rate till realization along with cost and other relief.} A few facts^giving rise to the^{present applicationare as under.}

¶20

Vide loan application dated^{07-11-2019 the defendant had applied beforethe} applicant bank for^{financialassistance with intentionto expandhis business.} considering the application, the^{competent authority of the applicantbankhad}

¶21

Skzgrs^apW Presiding Officerl t DRT. Guwahati

¶22

¶23

g.A. 485/2022lDRT_cuwshati

¶24

sanctioned occ limit of Rs.6.5 Lacs only to the defendant vide Sanction Memorandum dated 07-11-2019. As per the sanction memorandum, the applicable rate of interest for the sanctioned loan was fixed at 9.55% p.a. with monthly rests. The sanctioned loan was covered under CGTMSE scheme. The defendant had accepted all the terms and conditions of sanction by putting his signature on the foot of the sanction memorandum dated 07-1 1-2019.

¶25

ln order to avail the sanctioned OCC limit of Rs.6.5 Lacs only, on 07- 11-2019 itself the defendant had executed Pronote for Rs.6.50 Lacs only and cash credit Agreement (NF 795) interalia agreeing to the terms and conditions mentioned therein. The defendant fu(her had executed Request for overdraft Facilities dated 07-1 1-2019.

¶26

Subsequently, vide loan application dated 07-08-2020 the defendant had applied before the applicant bank for enhancement of the existing limit. Considering the loan application, the competent authority of the applicant bank had enhanced the existing limit from Rs.6.50 Lacs only to Rs.12.00 Lacs only vide Sanction Memorandum dated 07-08-2020. As per the sanction Memorandum the applicable rate of interest for the enhanced limit was fixed at 1o.o5o/o p.a. with monthly rests. The enhanced limit was covered under CGTMSE Scheme.

¶27

After enhancement of the existing limit from Rs.6.50 Lacs only to Rs..12.00 Lacs only, on 07-08-2020 itself the defendant had executed Pronote for Rs.S.50 Lacs only, Supplemental Agreement (NF 718) and Letter of Renewal.

¶28

Again, vide loan application dated 04-09-2020 the defendant had applied for further enhancement of the existing limit. The competent authority of the applicant bank had considered the loan application and accordingly had enhanced the existing limit to Rs.32.00 Lacs only vide Sanction memorandum dated 04-09-2020. The enhanced limit was covered under CGTMSE scheme. The applicable rate of interest for the enhanced limit was fixed at RRLR+2.25% p.a. with monthly rests. The defendant had accepted all the terms and conditions of sanction by putting his signature on the foot of the sanction Memorandum dated 04- 09-2020.

¶29

After enhancement of the existing limit from Rs.12.00 Lacs to Rs.32.00 Lacs only, on 04-09-2020 itsell the defendant had executed Pronote for Rs.32.00 Lacs only,

¶30

sln e*w.o.".ArL'4 :9 | orl r: /f Presiding Offioar t V DRT, Guwahati

¶31

¶32

o.A. 485/2022lDRT-cuwahati

¶33

Link Letter in respect of Enhancement of Credit Facilities, Letter of Renewal and Supplemental Agreement (NF 718) interalia agreeing to the terms mentioned therein.

¶34

Vide loan application dated 24-11-2021 the defendant had further applied before the applicant bank for sanction of another loan. considering the application, the competent authority of the applicant bank had sanctioned a sum of Rs.7.50 Lacs only to the defendant as GECL-1 (Extension) loan vide Sanction Memorandum dated 24-11-2021. As per the sanction memorandum the applicable rate of interest for the sanctioned loan was fixed at 7.50o/o p.a. with monthly rests. The sanctioned loan was covered under 100% NcGTc coverage. The defendant had accepted all the terms and condltions of sanction by putting his signatures on the foot of the sanction memorandum daled 24-1 1 -2021 .

¶35

ln order to avail the sanctioned GECL loan of Rs. 7.50 Lacs only, on 24-11-2021 itself the defendant had executed Pronote for Rs.7.50 Lacs only, Link Letter, APPENDIX-|, undertaking Letter and rerm Loan agreement interalia agreeing to the terms and conditions mentioned therein.

¶36

The defendants availed the credit facility from the applicant bank by opening and operating OCC Loan Account No.4159261000155 and GECL Account No. 170002337876 with the applicant bank. At the initial stage the loan accounts were running smoothly as the defendant was making regular repayments towards their loan accounts. subsequently they started commitling default in making repayments towards their loan accounts.Due to irregularlty committed by the defendant in repayment of the loan amounts, the loan Accounts have become Non Performing Assets on 3110312022. After declaring the loan accounts NPA, the applicant bank served Legal Notice dated 18.11.2022 upon the defendant and asking him to pay the entire debts within a period of 07 days from the date of the notice. However, the defendant has failed to pay any heed to the applicant bank's Notice.

¶37

The applicant bank thus became constrained to file the^present Original Application forthe recovery of Rs. 44,76,218.10^(Rupees Forty Four Lacs Seventy Six Thousand Two Hundred Eighteen and Paise Ten) only as on^{1 7.11 .2022 along with interest and} cost of the application. SIj,l d,a,,a-.4.1'q

¶38

SIj,l d,a,,a-.4.1'q ,.",o,iofrLo,t/B⁽ DRT. Guwahati

¶39

¶40

o.A.^{it8s/2o2zDRT€uweh.t}

¶41

After filing of the oA the Tribunar issued notices upon the defendant through registered post and the applicant bank filed seruice report on 2s.01.2023 and brought on record the postal receipts along with hack consignment report. lt is observed that the summons have not been served upon the defendant. Thereafter the Tribunal ordered paper publication of notice upon the defendant and the applicant bank issued notice to the defendant on 0s.02.2o23 through paper publication in two newspapers namely '77mes of lndia" and "Dainik Asom". Even after issuance of notices upon the defendant through paper publication also there was no representation on behalf of the defendant either by the counsel or the person and hence the defendant was made set ex-parte on 01.05.2023 and his right to file written statement cum evidence on affidavit was closed and the matter was posted for hearing on behalf of the applicant bank.

¶42

Supporting the claim of the applicant bank Sri Lhungdim Romeo Kuki, fficer of the Applicant Bank has filed evidence on affidavit coupled with the security documents marked as Exhibit AW-1 to AW-27 supporting the claim of the applicant bank.

¶43

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 afiirmed 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.

¶44

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 of the 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 Original Application. The loans were obtained and documents have been executed on 07.11.2019, 07.08.2020, 04.09.2020, 24.11.2021. The accounts became NPA on 3'1.03.2022 and the OA has been filed on06.12.2022. Hence, the OA is filed well within the period of limitation and this Tribunal having a jurisdiction to adjudicate the originatApptication. *rm&i

¶45

*rm&i

¶46

DRT, Guwahati

¶47

O.A 485/2022lDRT-Guwahati

¶48

Considering the unchallenged/unrebutted version of Sri Lhungdim Romeo Kuki, the applicant's witness and all the documents marked as exhibits, including duly certified copy of the statement of account along with interest calculation 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.

¶49

ln the result, the^present Original Application No. 485 of 2022 is allowed with cost as under :-

¶50

i) The sole defendant is liable to^pay to the applicant bank a sum of Rs. M,76,218.10 (Rupees Forty Four Lacs Seventy Six Thousand Two Hundred Eighteen and Paise Ten)only with^pendentelite and future interest @9.55%^{p.a. with monthlyrests from 18.11.2022till the date of full} paymenVrealization and also cost of the application.

¶51

ii) The applicant bank is entitled to^proceed against the secured items towards recovery of the debts.

¶52

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

¶53

iv) The applicant bank is entitled to the costs of the O.A. which includes the advocate fees of the applicant bank. Applicant is directed to file the cost memo within 2 weeks from today.

¶54

v) lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly for a sum Rs,^{/t4,75,2'18.10} (Rupees Forty Four Lacs Seventy Six Thousand Two Hundred Eighteen and Paise Ten) only in favour of the applicant bank against the sole defendanl.

¶55

vi) Communicate copy of this order to the concerned parties. This order is dictated and corrected by the undersigned.

¶56

Judgment dated 28th August 2023, signed and pronounced in the Tribunal today under my signature.

¶57

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

¶58

file be consigned to Record Room.

¶59

S.L.lu (Shiv Sharan Dui' Presiding Officer DRT, Guwahati.

Canara Bank v. Abdul Awal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Abdul Awal

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

Punjab National Bank versus Maa Fly- Ash Bricks Industries and Others

Canara Bank versus M/s Vishwa Faishon And General Store and Others

Shreejan Cold Storage Private Limited versus Uco Bank

Sh Samarth Singh Hooda versus State Bank of India

Punjab National Bank versus Manoj Kumar Singh and others

Hdfc Bank versus P Veera Brahmaiah