Allowed

Canara Bank v. Sri Pranjal Boruah

DRT19 Sept 2023OA/64/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an unopposed application, the Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's claim for recovery of a loan default, validated the limitation period based on a Supreme Court order exclusion, and directed issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 23,87,818.28 with pendentelite and future interest at 11.15% p.a., keeping the charge on the hypothecated VOLTAS Refrigeration System.

Canara Bank versus Sri Pranjal Boruah — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

oA 6!'eoz2lDRr Guwah.ri

¶2

rN THE DEBTS REcovr

¶3

:RY TRIBUNAL, GUWAHATI

¶4

(T,bunatof Assam ,"rn-6. ,$ffi!lstern Regron) ".,","t,,^{;il ;;:".JHLI;,J#TH:::eSh& rapura)}

¶5

O.A. No. 6412022

¶6

ln the matter of _

¶7

Canara Bank llT Guwahati Branch [..f,'#:HffgBG^{NorthG uwara ti,}

¶8

'. Applicant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

,. Sri^pranjal Boruah Son ofAmal Boruah Village- Niz Gomotha Gaon r,.o._ Nagaon, p.S._ Naoaon utsrflct Nagaon, nssamlpln_zg2Oog

¶11

Presence of the Counsel :

¶12

......... Defendants

¶13

For the Applicant : Mr. M K. Bora, Advocate For the Defendant : None (Ex-parte)

¶14

Dated:r9/09/2023

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

This is an application under section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial lnstitutions Act, 1993 filed by the canara Bank, [T cuwahati Branch, llT Guwahati Campus, North Guwahati, Kamrup, Assam_7g1039, with a prayer to issue Recovery Certificate for the sum of Rs. 23,87,g1g.2g (Rupees Twonty Three Lakh Eighty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Eighteen and paiso Tyyenty Eightl only as on 31'.12_2021 against the defendant with pendentelite and fulure interest thereon at the contractual rale till realization along with cost and other retief.

¶17

A few facts giving rise to the present application are as under.

¶18

The defendant had approached the applicant bank and applied for financial assistance for purchase of VOLTAS REFRIcERATION SYSTEM by Sl;,'t ila<etA-Ly+ p"ia,,"gotf,l e1l ij (l ORT, Guweh!ri

¶19

¶20

g.A. 6azozzDRr€w.hati

¶21

loan application dated 14.06.2018 and after considering the said application, the applicant bank by Sanction Memorandum dated 15.06.2019 had sanctioned a credit facility of Rs.20,00,000.00 only to the defendant with interest charged 11.'l5o/o per annum. The credit facility was to be repaid in 84 monthly installments of Rs.44,630.00 each. The credit facility has been covered by the CGTMSE scheme.

¶22

ln conneclion with the sanction of the term loan of Rs.20,00,000.00 sanctioned by the applicant bank and availed by the defendant, Agreement Cum Deed of Hypothecation dated 15.06.2018 has been signed and executed by the defendant in favour of the applicant bank as security for repayment of the loan facility thereby agreeing to all the terms and^{conditions laid downin thesaidDeed} of hypothecation and hypothecated the^{machinerypurchased out of the Bank} financed more specifically described in schedule- A of the original applicationⁱⁿ favour of the applicant bank.

¶23

The defendant by executing^particulars ol Machinery^{Hypothecated dated} 'l,7 .07.2018 had accepted that the machinery which was financed by the applicant bank was received^{in good condition from the ShowRoom.}

¶24

The defendant had availed the said^{loan facilityfrom the applicant bank but has} not paid the outstanding loan amount as^{per terms and condilionsas agreedupon} with the applicant bank, in spite of repeated^{demandsand request by theapplicant} bank. As the defendant^{failedto repaythe outstandingamount in the loan account,the} said account became NPA on^{0'1.03.2021. Moreoveras per orderdaled 10.01.2022} passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Misc. Application No. 2'l ol 2022 in SMW(C) No. 3 ol 2O2O, the^{instant suit is filed within period of limitation.The} Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said order directed^that the^{period from15.03.2020 till} 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the^purpose of limitation as may be^prescribed under any^general or special^laws in^respect of all^judicial or^{quasi-judicial} proceedings. After the account became NPA the applicant bank issued notices for

¶25

4lrv

¶26

¶27

oa 6ru2o22loRT.cuwah.li

¶28

repayment of the due amount, but the defendant has neither chosen for repayment of the remaining installments in the loan account nor approached to the applicant bank for settling the loan account.

¶29

The applicant bank thus became constrained to file the present Original Application for the recovery of Rs. 23,g7,818.28 (Rupees Twenty-Throe Lakh EightySeven Thousand Eight Hundred Eighteen and paise Twenty-Eight) only as on 31-12-2021 along with interest and cost ofthe application.

¶30

After filing of the OA the Tribunat issued notice upon the defendant through registered post and the applicant bank filed service report on 12.05.2022 and broughf on record lhe postal receipt along with track consignment report which shows that notice has not been served upon the sole defendant. Thereafter the Tribunal ordered paper publication of notice upon the sole defendant and the applicant bank issued notice to the defendant on 2S.OS.2OZ2 through paper publication in two newspapers namely "Irnes of ldia, and^,Dainik Asom". Even after issuance of notice through paper publication also there was no representation on behalf of the sote defendant either by the counsel or the person and hence the defendant was set ex_parte on 19.08.2022 and his right to file written statement cum evidence on affidavit was closed and the matter was posted for hearing on behalf of the applicant bank.

¶31

Supporting the claim of the applicant bank Sri Ananya Kumar Bhuyan, Senior Manager of the Applicant Bank has filed evidence on afiidavit coupled with the security documents ma*ed as Exhibit AW-1/1 to AW-.1/8 supporting the ctaim of the applicant bank.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant bank who prayed for issuance of Recovery Certiticate against the defendant as per pleadings made in the Apptication, supported by evidence on affidavit of their witness who afrirmed on oath the execuiion of the security and other documents by the defendant and also execution of their own documents relied upon, which have been marked exhibits.

¶33

elirl cl,ana,"h"L'4 ,*"""noffi&l /2)0 DRT, Guwahati

¶34

¶35

o-A. 64/2o2zoRI€sahari

¶36

considering the facts and circumstances of the case, r am of the considered view that the document filed by the applicant bank are supporting the ctaam of the applicant bank and estabtishing the liabitity of the defendant. lt is proved that the defendant is liabte to pay to the applicant bank the claim made in the Original Application. The loan was obtained and documents have been executed on 15.06.2018. Moreover as per order daled ,lO.O,l.2O22 passed by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Misc. Application No.21 ot 2O22 in SMW(C) No. 3 of 2020, the instant suit is ,iled within period of limitation. The Hon,ble Supreme Court in the said order directed that the period from 15.03.2020 t 28.02.2022 shalt stand excluded for the purpose of limitation as may be prescribed under any generat or special laws in respect of all iudicial or quasi_judicial proceedings. The account became NPA on 01.03.2021 and the OA has been filed on 22.02.2022. Hence, the OA is liled well within the period of limitataon and this Tribunal having a.iurisdiction to adjudicate the Originat Application.

¶37

Considering the unchallenged/unrebutted version of Sri Ananya Kumar Bhuyan, the applicant's witness and all the documents marked as exhibits, including duly certified copy of the stalemenl of account along with interest calculation sheet maintained by the applicant Bank in it's regular course of business, I hold that the applicant is entitled to get the Recovery Ce(ificate as prayed for.

¶38

ln the result, the present Original Application No.64 ol 2022 is allowed with cost as under :-

¶39

i) The sole defendant is liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum of Rs. 23,87,818.28 (Rupees Twenty-Three Lakh Eighty-Soven Thousand Eight Hundred Eighteen and Paise Twenty-Eight) onty with pendentelite and future interest @11.15o/o p.a. with monthly resls from 01.01.2022 til the date offull paymenUrealization and also cost of the application.

¶40

ii) The charge of the certificated amount be kept alive on hypothecated property i.e. VOLTAS LIBR-H20 Absorption Refrigeration System Kept in Village- Niz

¶41

:Wr,,t,Y

¶42

¶43

O A 6a12022lDRT4upahat

¶44

Gomolha caon, p.O._ Nagaon, p.S._ Nagaon, District Nagaon, Assam, pin_ 782003 as descdbed in Schedute_A of the OA fill the amount is reatized in full.

¶45

iii) The appricant bank is entired to proceed against the secured items towards

¶46

recovery of the debts.

¶47

iv) The applicant bank is also entifled to proceed against the personalassels and properties of the defendant towards recovery of the dues.

¶48

v) The applicant bank is entifled to the costs of the O.A. which includes lhe advocate fees of the applicant bank. Applicant is directed to,ile the cost memo within 2 weeks from today.

¶49

v0 lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly for a sum Rs. 23,87,818.28 (Rupeos Twenty'Threo Lakh Eighty-seven Thousand Eight Hundred Eightaen and paiso Twenty-Eight) onty in favour of the applicant bank against the sole defendant.

¶50

viD Communicate copy of this order to the con@med parties.

¶51

This order is dictated and corrected by the undersigned.

¶52

Judgment dated 'r grh september 2023, signed and pronounced in the Tribunar today under my signature.

¶53

copy of the JudgmenuFinar order be uproaded in the Tribunals website and file be consigned to Record Room

¶54

s[,;, il"auo//Auk l fsrri, sr,"r"n oul&l Presiding ^.o"Lflfrlry Officer⁽ DRT, cuwahati.

Canara Bank v. Sri Pranjal Boruah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Sri Pranjal Boruah

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 M/S Raank Exports and Ors.

Yashwant Singh versus Uco Bank

Smt Ragni Kumari versus Canara Bank

State Bank of India versus Sh. Rajesh Lather

Canara Bank versus M/s Deo Constructions And Others

Canara Bank versus M/s Rehan Communication and Others