Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Bed Prakash

DRT11 Oct 2023OA/516/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Union Bank of India for recovery of Rs. 21,96,511.72 owed by defendants. The Tribunal modified the rate of interest to a uniform 8% per annum from the filing date and granted a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 21,96,511.72 plus simple interest at 8% per annum from 15.03.2023; Recovery Certificate issued.

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Bed Prakash — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.516/2023

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 15.03.2023

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 11^th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

Union Bank of India (erstwhile known as Andhra Bank), a body constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) 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 Sector 12, HUDA, Panipat, Haryana-132103, through Sh. Atul Raj, its constituted attorney and Principal Officer

¶6

…..Applicant Bank

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Bed Prakash s/o Sh. Maha Singh r/o House No. 596, Ward No. 2, 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 bank under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 read with Rule 8 of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity), a gainst the defendants for

¶14

OA/516/2023 UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs BED PRAKASH AND ANOTHER 2

¶15

recovery of Rs.21,96,511.72/- (Rupees Twenty One Lac Ninety Six Thousand Five Hundred Eleven and Seventy Two Paisa Only) . It has been filed through Sh. Atul Raj, its constituted attorney and Principal Officer of the applicant bank stated to be competent to institute the Original Application vide General Power of Attorney dated 19.03.2020, Annexure-A2 (copy).

¶16

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 limit of Rs. 13.30,000/- vide common loan application form dated 27.12.2017, Annexure-A3 (copy).

¶17

The applicant bank sanctioned aforesaid facility to defendant No. 1 vide sanction letter dated 27.12.2017, Annexure-A4 (copy), as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶18

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

¶19

The aforesaid limit was further secured by creation of equitable mortgage by defendant No.1 in respect of agricultural land measuring 38 Kanal 05 Marla situated in the revenue estate of Kurana, Tehsil Israna, District Panipat, Haryana, fully detailed in para No.5.9 of the OA.

¶20

The documents related to mortgage are as under:

¶21

i. Letter dated 19.12.2017 to the Tehsildar, Israna, for entry/mutation of the mortgaged property along with declaration dated 19.12.2017 under Section 4(1) of the

¶22

OA/516/2023 UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs BED PRAKASH AND ANOTHER 3

¶23

Haryana Agriculture Credit Operation and Miscellaneous Provisions (Banks) Act, 1973, Annexure-A7 (colly) (copy). ii. Land valuation report dated 26.12.2017, Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶24

It is further the case of the applicant bank that the loan facility was duly availed of by the defendant but he failed to maintain the financial discipline of the applicant bank leading to the loan account becoming irregular and it being classified as NPA on 31.03.2020. The defendants executed acknowledgement of debt letter dated 30.06.2020, Annexure-A10 (copy). The applicant bank recalled entire outstanding amount vide legal notice dated 20.02.2023, Annexure-A8 (copy), but to no avail.

¶25

7. It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account, a sum of Rs.21,96,511.72/- (Rupees Twenty One Lac Ninety Six Thousand Five Hundred Eleven and Seventy Two Paisa Only),

¶26

is recoverable against the defendants as per statement of account, certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891, Annexure-A9 (copy).

¶27

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

¶28

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 12.06.2023 .

¶29

OA/516/2023 UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs BED PRAKASH AND ANOTHER 4

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

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.21,96,511.72/- (Rupees Twenty One Lac Ninety Six Thousand Five Hundred Eleven and Seventy Two Paisa Only) from the defendants.

¶34

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.

¶35

OA/516/2023 UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs BED PRAKASH AND ANOTHER 5

¶36

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, purpose of loan, i.e. agricultural, present conditions of economy based on agriculture, quantum of loan and 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.

¶37

In the result, the Original Application is allowed with costs holding that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum of Rs.21,96,511.72/- (Rupees Twenty One Lac Ninety Six Thousand Five Hundred Eleven and Seventy Two Paisa Only) with current and future simple interest @8% per annum w.e.f. 15.03.2023 , 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

¶38

OA/516/2023 UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs BED PRAKASH AND ANOTHER 6

¶39

assets of the defendants. However, the applicant bank is at liberty to

¶40

enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶41

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶42

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 06.11.2023 .

¶43

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.

¶44

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

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Bed Prakash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Bed Prakash

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

Uco Bank versus Messers B K J Enterprise

Punjab National Bank versus M/S M S Hardware

Icici Bank Limited versus Ajay Devanand Gadpayle

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Bhawani International

State Bank of India versus Sh. Karam Singh

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Joshi International