Allowed

State Bank of India v. Smt. Balindro Devi

DRT22 Sept 2023OA/502/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal disposed of an ex-parte application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of a loan against Smt. Balindro Devi. The court allowed the application, ordering recovery of the principal along with interest at 7% per annum, and directed issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Issued Recovery Certificate for recovery of Rs. 27,99,745 with simple interest at 7% per annum from 14.03.2023 until realization.

State Bank of India versus Smt. Balindro Devi — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 502/2023

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 14.03.2023

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 22^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶5

State Bank of India, a body corporate constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955, having its corporate office at Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai and one of its local Head Offices at Sector 17-A, Chandigarh having Branches all over India and one of its Branches at Ranwar, Tehsil and District Karnal, through its Branch Manager and Principal Officer, Sh. Dhruva Chand Kumar

¶6

…..Applicant Bank

¶7

Versus

¶8

Smt. Balindro Devi w/o Sh. Anil r/o Village and Post Office Phoosgarh, Tehsil and District Karnal (Haryana)

¶9

....Defendant

¶10

Argued by: Sh. Divjot Singh Rekhi, Nodal Officer for the applicant bank Defendant ex parte vide order dated 12.06.2023

¶11

FINAL ORDER

¶12

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 defendant for recovery of Rs.27,99,745/(Rupees Twenty Seven Lac Ninety Nine Thousand and Seven Hundred Forty Five Only) . It has been filed through Sh. Dhruva Chand Kumar, Branch Manager of the applicant bank stated to be competent to institute the Original Application.

¶13

OA/502/2023 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS BALINDRO DEVI 2

¶14

The brief facts of the case of the applicant as per Original Application are that the defendant had approached the applicant bank for grant of Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 18,50,000/- vide loan application dated 21.01.2016, Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶15

The applicant bank sanctioned aforesaid facility to the defendant vide sanction letter dated 09.11.2015, Annexure-A2 (copy), as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendant.

¶16

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facility, the defendant executed hypothecation agreement dated 21.01.2016, Annexure-A3 (copy).

¶17

The aforesaid limit was further secured by creation of equitable mortgage by defendant in respect of agricultural land measuring 14 Kanals 13 Marlas situated in the revenue estate of Dhakwala, Tehsil and District Karnal, Haryana fully detailed in para No. 5.8 of the OA.

¶18

The documents related to mortgage are as under:

¶19

i. Registered mortgage deed dated 30.11.2015, Annexure-A4 (copy). ii. Letter dated 30.11.2015 to the Tehsildar, Karnal, for entry/mutation of the mortgage property, Annexure-A5 (copy).

¶20

It is further the case of the applicant bank that the loan facility was duly availed of by the defendant but she failed to maintain the financial discipline of the applicant bank leading to the loan account becoming irregular and it being classified as NPA on 06.08.2021. The defendant executed revival letters dated 31.03.2018 and 13.04.2020, Annexures-A6 and A7 (copy). The applicant bank recalled entire outstanding amount vide notice dated 09.07.2022 along with postal receipt, Annexure-A8 (colly) (copy), but to no avail.

¶21

OA/502/2023 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS BALINDRO DEVI 3

¶22

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account, a sum of Rs.27,99,745/(Rupees Twenty Seven Lac Ninety Nine Thousand and Seven Hundred Forty Five Only), is recoverable against the defendant as per statement of account duly certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891, Annexure-A9 (copy).

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

In support of contents of the OA, affidavit of evidence of Sh. Dhurva Chand Kumar, Branch Manager of the applicant bank was filed.

¶26

This Tribunal has heard ex-parte arguments advanced by Sh. Divjot Singh Rekhi, Nodal Officer of the applicant bank and gone through the record carefully.

¶27

It was argued by Sh. Divjot Singh Rekhi, Nodal Officer for the applicant bank that in view of unrebutted documentary evidence brought on record, the applicant bank had proved its case against the defendant for recovery of the amount sought. From perusal of Annexures-A1 to A9 , it is clear that the defendant had approached the applicant bank for availing of the loan facility which was granted to her. It is further clear that the defendant had executed all the relevant documents as stated above in favour of the applicant bank.

¶28

OA/502/2023 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS BALINDRO DEVI 4

¶29

Unfortunately, the defendant 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.27,99,745/(Rupees Twenty Seven Lac Ninety Nine Thousand and Seven Hundred Forty Five Only) from the defendant.

¶30

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank has claimed rate of interest @10.95% per annum. In sanction letter dated 09.11.2015, Annexure-A2 (copy), the rate of interest has been mentioned @11.15% per annum.

¶31

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 mortgaged property, purpose of loan, i.e. agricultural, present conditions of economy based on agriculture, quantum of loan, prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yesteryears and defendant being a female, 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.

¶32

In the result, the Original Application is allowed with costs holding that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum of Rs.27,99,745/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lac Ninety Nine Thousand and Seven Hundred Forty Five Only) with current and future simple interest @7% per annum w.e.f. 14.03.2023 , till the date of realisation of the amount. Accordingly, the applicant bank shall

¶33

OA/502/2023 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS BALINDRO DEVI 5

¶34

be at liberty to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of mortgaged/hypothecated property of the defendant 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 defendant. However, the applicant bank is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶35

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶36

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 30.10.2023.

¶37

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

¶38

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

State Bank of India v. Smt. Balindro Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Smt. Balindro Devi

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

Canara Bank versus Messers Hoque Supary Chips Unit

Ms Manglam Automobiles versus Uco Bank

State Bank of India versus Mr Shivavtar Pritvipal Kaythal

M/S Rajindera Auto Services versus Indusind Bank Limited

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Labh Singh

Yes Bank versus Hafijul Purkait and Anr.