Allowed

Union Bank of India, (Erstwhile Corporation Bank), v. Sh. Jasdev Singh and Another

DRT27 Dec 2023OA/555/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte application for recovery of Rs. 21,89,912.24, the Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's claim against the borrower and guarantor, declaring them liable to pay the principal amount with simple interest and authorizing recovery through sale of mortgaged assets.

What did the court decide?

Declarations of liability, payment of principal amount with simple interest at 9.65% p.a., and permission to recover via sale of mortgaged or attachment of personal assets.

Union Bank of India, (Erstwhile Corporation Bank), versus Sh… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.555/2022 PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 09.03.2022

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 27.12.2023

¶5

Union Bank of India, (Erstwhile Corporation Bank), a body corporate, constituted under Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 having its Head Office at 239, Vidhan Bhawan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai -400021 and one of its Branch Office at Ishwar Nagar, Near Nanaksar Gurudwara, Devigarh Road, Post Office Saphera, Tehsil and District Patiala, Punjab through its Authorized Officer, Sh. Shivam Srivastava, Branch Manager.

¶6

……..Applicant Versus 1. Sh. Jasdev Singh S/o Sh. Jarnail Singh R/o Village Zarikpur (Jarikpur), Post Office Chappar, Sub Tehsil Ghanour, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala-147021 ….Borrower 2. Sh. Kamalpreet Singh @ Kamalprit Singh S/o Sh. Nachhattar Singh R/o Village Zarikpur (Jarikpur), Post Office Chappar, Sub Tehsil Ghanour, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala-147021. …Guarantor Defendants Advocates: Argued by Ms. Sonal Chabra, Advocate Proxy for Sh. Ajay Singla Advocate for the applicant Defendants are ex-parte FINAL ORDER 1. Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.21,89,912.24p (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Eighty Nine Thousand

¶7

¶8

Nine Hundred Twelve and Paisa Twenty Four only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Shivam Srivastava, Branch Manager o f the applicant bank, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Authority Letter dated 25.02.2022, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶9

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant no. 1 had approached the applicant bank for the grant of Cash Credit Limit of Rs.15.00 Lacs vide Loan Application dated 28.05.2014.

¶10

The applicant Bank sanctioned the Cash Credit Limit of Rs.15.00 Lacs vide Credit Sanction intimation dated 09.06.2014 which is Annexure A2 to this OA in which the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶11

Defendant no.1 had mortgaged his immovable property i.e. land measuring 10 Bigha 0 Biswa situated at Village Zarikpur (Jarikpur), Post Office Chappar, Sub Tehsil Ghanour, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala- v ide Mortgage Deed bearing vasika No.374 dated 03.06.2014 along with its translation, which is Annexure A9 to this OA and Jamabandi of year 2009-10 along with its translation, which is Annexure A10 to this OA.

¶12

Documents executed:- Common Deed of Hypothecation of Crops/Stocks, D.P. Note, Take Delivery letter to DPN, Guarantee Agreement, Letter of Undertaking, Request for Overdraft facilities/Cash Credit Limit all are dated 09.06.2014, which are Annexures A3 to A8 to this OA; Acknowledgment of Debt dated 31.05.2017, which is Annexure A11 to this OA; Acknowledgment of Debt dated 30.03.2020, which is Annexure A12 to this OA; Notice dated 19.02.2022 which is Annexure A13 to this OA and Account Statement along with certificate under Banker’s Book evidence Act, which is Annexure A14 to this OA.

¶13

The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan account there was a debit of Rs.21,89,912.24p, which is recoverable and the defendants

¶14

¶15

were served recall notices but they did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant bank requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶16

The defendants were served notices to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte on 13.11.2023. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Shivam Srivastava, Branch Manager, Union Bank of India has been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record. 9. It was argued by learned proxy counsel that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant bank had proved its case. From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A14 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant bank for availing of the loan facility which was granted to them and for that they had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. The defendants failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, account of the defendants was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.21,89,912.24p (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Eighty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Twelve and Paisa Twenty Four only) along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the account. 10. In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has claimed interest @9.65%p.a. plus penal interest @2%p.a. with half yearly rests from 01.02.2022 till the realization. The Tribunal is of the considered opinion that sometimes in appropriate cases the prerogative of mercy is the brightest jewel in the crown of the Judge. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case including nature of the mortgaged property, undertaking

¶17

¶18

of the defendants, quantum of loan and prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yester years, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @9.65%p.a. in the loan account from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly. 11. In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.21,89,912.24p (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Eighty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Twelve and Paisa Twenty Four only), jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @9.65%p.a. in the loan account from the date of filing of OA till the date of realization of the amount. Accordingly, the applicant bank shall be entitled to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of hypothecated/mortgaged properties of the defendants in execution proceedings if not sold earlier under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. If the dues of the bank still remain unsatisfied, it shall be entitled to recover the same by attachment and sale of personal assets of the defendants. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law. 12. Any other application pending stands disposed of. 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 06.01.2024. 15. Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant bank and be sent to defendants through registered/speed post and this order be also uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal and record be consigned. Pronounced by me in the Open Tribunal. Dated: 27.12.2023 (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Union Bank of India, (Erstwhile Corporation Bank), v. Sh. Jasdev Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India, (Erstwhile Corporation Bank), v. Sh. Jasdev Singh and Another

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

The Federal Bank Ltd., versus Sh. Amrit Rajdeep Singh and Another

Union Bank of India versus Messrs Krishan Gopal and Sons and Others

Punjab National Bank (Erstwhile known as Oriental Bank of Commerce), versus Sh. Amritpal Singh

Punjab National Bank, versus Messrs Maha Luxmi Timber Merchants and Others

Union Bank of India, versus Messrs Rajnish Collection and Others

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Sh. Jagjeet Singh and Others