Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Ranbir Singh

DRT21 Aug 2023OA/499/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an ex-parte application by Union Bank of India against two defendants for recovery of a defaulted KCC loan of approximately Rs. 21.82 lakrs. The Tribunal fixed future interest at 8% per annum and granted liberty for execution against mortgaged or personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 21,81,984.72 plus future simple interest @8% p.a. from filing date. Liberty to recover from sale of mortgaged property or attachment of personal assets.

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Ranbir Singh — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.499/2023

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 14.03.2023

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 21^st DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶5

Union Bank of India (erstwhile known as Andhra Bank) , a body corporate constituted under the Banking Company (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act No. V of 1970, having its Head Office at 239, Vidhan Sabha Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai and its Branches all over India amongst other places at S.C.O. 12, HUDA, Sector 12, Panipat, Haryana-132103, through Sh. Atul Raj, its Constituted Attorney and Principal Officer

¶6

…..Applicant Bank

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Ranbir Singh s/o Sh. Maha Singh R/o Village Kurana, District Panipat, Haryana-132107

¶9

Sh. Suresh Kumar s/o Sh. Mewa Singh R/o Village Kalkha, Madlauda, District Panipat, Haryana-132113

¶10

…..Defendants

¶11

Argued by: Sh. Satish Kumar, Senior Manager with Authority Letter for the applicant bank Defendants ex parte vide order dated 12.06.2023

¶12

FINAL ORDER

¶13

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant

¶14

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

¶15

OA/499/2023 UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs RANBIR SINGH AND ANOTHER 2

¶16

Rs.21,81,984.72/- (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Eighty One Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Four and Seventy Two Paisa

¶17

Only) . It has been filed through Sh. Atul Raj, Constituted Attorney of the applicant bank stated to be competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 19.03.2020, Annexure-A2 (copy).

¶18

The brief facts of the case of the applicant as per Original Application are that defendant No. 1 had approached the applicant bank for grant of KCC facility of Rs. 13.30 lacs vide loan application dated 27.12.2017, Annexure-A3 (copy). Defendant No. 2 stood as a guarantor for repayment of the loan.

¶19

The applicant bank sanctioned aforesaid facility to the defendants vide sanction letter dated 27.12.2017, Annexure-A4 (copy), as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶20

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facility, the defendants executed composite agreement dated 27.12.2017, Annexure-A5 (copy) and demand promissory note dated 27.12.2017, Annexure-A6 (copy).

¶21

The aforesaid loan was further secured by creation of mortgage by defendant No. 1 in respect of agricultural land measuring 38 Kanals 5 Marlas situated in the revenue estate of Kurana, Tehsil Israna, District Panipat, Haryana, fully detailed in para No. 5.9 of the Original Application.

¶22

The documents relating to the mortgage are as under:

¶23

i. Declaration dated 19.12.2017 under section 4(1) of the Haryana Agriculture Credit Operations and Miscellaneous

¶24

OA/499/2023 UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs RANBIR SINGH AND ANOTHER 3

¶25

Provisions (Banks) Act, 1973, request letter dated 18.12.2017 to the Tehsildar, Israna, for entry/mutation of mortgaged property and affidavit dated 13.12.2017 regarding mortgaged

¶26

property, Annexure-A7 (colly) (copy).

¶27

ii. Valuation report dated 26.12.2017, Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶28

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 31.03.2020. The defendants executed acknowledgement of debt letter dated 30.06.2020, Annexures-A10 (copy). The applicant bank recalled the entire outstanding amount vide legal notice dated 20.02.2023, Annexure-A8 (copy), but to no avail.

¶29

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account, a sum of Rs.21,81,984.72/- (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Eighty One Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Four and Seventy Two Paisa Only) is recoverable against the defendants as per statement of account duly certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, Annexure-A9 (copy).

¶30

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

¶31

Notices of the Original Application were duly served upon the defendants, but since none appeared on behalf of the defendants, thus, defendants were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 12.06.2023 .

¶32

OA/499/2023 UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs RANBIR SINGH AND ANOTHER 4

¶33

In support of the contents of the OA, affidavit of evidence of

¶34

Sh. Atul Raj, Branch Manager of the applicant bank was filed.

¶35

This Tribunal has heard ex-parte arguments advanced by Sh. Satish Kumar, Senior Manager for the applicant bank of the applicant bank and gone through the record carefully.

¶36

It was argued by Sh. Satish Kumar, Senior Manager of the applicant bank 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 A10 , 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.21,81,984.72/- (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Eighty One Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Four and Seventy Two Paisa Only) from the defendants.

¶37

In so far as pendent lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has claimed rate of interest @9.30% per annum plus penal interest @2% per annum with monthly rests. In sanction letter dated 27.12.2017, Annexure-A4 (copy), rate of interest has been mentioned @10.35% per annum.

¶38

This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that sometimes in appropriate cases the prerogatives of mercy and magnanimity are

¶39

OA/499/2023 UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs RANBIR SINGH AND ANOTHER 5

¶40

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 mortgaged property, purpose of loan, i.e. agriculture, present conditions of economy based on agriculture, quantum of loan, prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yesteryears, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @8% per annum from the date of filing of the OA till realisation of the amount ordered vide this order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶41

In the result, the Original Application is allowed with costs declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum of Rs.21,81,984.72/- (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Eighty One Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Four and Seventy Two Paisa Only) with current and future simple interest @8% per annum w.e.f. 14.03.2023 , till the date of realisation of the amount. 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.

¶42

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶43

OA/499/2023 UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs RANBIR SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶44

¶45

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on

¶46

06.10.2023 .

¶47

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.

¶48

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

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Ranbir Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Ranbir 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

Bank of Baroda versus Sri Amit Kumar And Others

Uco Bank versus M/s Interface Industrial Systems

State Bank of India versus Sri Dipak Kumar

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Shri Balaji Plastic

Alok Kumar versus Central Bank of India

State Bank of India versus S.R. Lab and Others