Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur

DRT22 Sept 2023OA/580/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Union Bank of India for recovery of Rs. 20,68,195 from borrowers and a guarantor who defaulted on a cash credit facility. The court awarded uniform simple interest and directed the issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; defendants declared liable to pay Rs. 20,68,195 with interest at 9.65% p.a.; Recovery Certificate issued.

Union Bank of India versus Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.580/2022

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 09.03.2022

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 22.09.2023 Union Bank of India (erstwhile Corporation Bank), a body constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (Act No.5 of 1970) carrying on banking business and having its Central 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. Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur W/o Sh. Labh Singh, R/o Village Mehmoodpur Ariyan, Tehsil and District Patiala, Punjab-147002 2. Sh. Jaskaranjot Sigh S/o Sh. Labh Singh, R/o Village Mehmoodpur Ariyan, Tehsil and District Patiala, Punjab-147002 (Borrowers) 3. Sh. Dharam Singh S/o Sh. Tek Singh, R/o Village Bathoi Khurd, Tehsil and District Patiala, Punjab-147101 (Guarantor) ………Defendants

¶7

Advocates: Argued by Sh. Ajay Singla, counsel for the applicant Defendants are ex-parte FINAL ORDER 1. Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of

¶8

¶9

Rs.20,68,195.00 (Rupees Twenty Lacs Sixty Eight Thousand One Hundred and Ninety Five 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.

¶10

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendants No.1 and 2 had approached the applicant bank for the grant of Cash credit Limit of Rs.15.00 Lacs under CCCKL scheme vide Loan Application dated 28.06.2014.

¶11

The applicant Bank sanctioned the Cash credit Limit of Rs.15.00 Lacs under CCCKL scheme vide Loan Application dated 28.06.2014 and Credit Sanction Intimation dated 16.07.2014, which is Annexure A2 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. 4. Defendant No.1 had mortgaged her immovable properties i.e. total land measuring 10K-11M (1.31 Acre) situated in the revenue estate of Village Daulatpur, Tehsil and District Patiala, Punjab vide Registered Mortgage Deed bearing Vasika No.3282 dated 09.07.2014 and Jamabandi for the year 2009-10 along with their translations, which are Annexures A9 and A10 to this OA. Documents executed:- Common deed of hypothecation of crops/stocks, D.P. note, Take delivery note to DPN, Guarantee agreement, Letter of undertaking and Request for overdraft facilities/Cash credit limit all dated 16.07.2014, which are Annexures A3 to A8 to this OA; Letters of acknowledgment of debt dated 23.03.2017 and 18.02.2020, which are Annexures A11 and A12 to this OA; Notice dated 19.02.2022, which is Annexure A13 to this OA and Account statement for the period 2017-2022 along with the certificate, which is Annexure A14 to this OA. 5. 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.20,68,195.00, which is recoverable and the defendants

¶12

¶13

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.

¶14

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 04.09.2023.

¶15

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 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.20,68,195.00 (Rupees Twenty Lacs Sixty Eight Thousand One Hundred and Ninety Five 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.

¶16

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. along with @2%p.a. penal interest with half yearly rests from 01.02.2022 till the realization.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

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.20,68,195.00 (Rupees Twenty Lacs Sixty Eight Thousand One Hundred and Ninety Five 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.

¶20

Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶21

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶22

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 30.09.2023.

¶23

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.

¶24

Pronounced by me in the Open Tribunal. Dated: 22.09.2023

¶25

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Union Bank of India v. Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur

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 and Sind Bank, versus M/S Sandeep Enterprises and Another

Union Bank of India, versus Sh. Dinesh Kumar Saini and Another

Punjab National Bank, versus Sh. Ranjit Singh and Another

Punjab National Bank versus M/s Grewal Sweets and Dairy Products

Canara Bank versus M/s Tayal Builders

Indian Bank, versus Sh. Avtar Singh