Allowed

Canara Bank v. Sh. Rohit Raj

DRT30 Oct 2023OA/713/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by Canara Bank against four respondents for recovery of a housing loan of Rs. 64,08,302.92. The Tribunal issued a recovery certificate, granting uniform simple interest at 8% per annum and authorizing recovery from mortgaged or personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Original application allowed; Recovery Certificate issued for Rs. 64,08,302.92 plus simple interest at 8% per annum w.e.f. 19.04.2023.

Canara Bank versus Sh. Rohit Raj — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.713/2023

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 19.04.2023

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 30^th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

Canara Bank , having its Head Office at 112, J.C. Road, Bangalore, having Branches all over India and one of its Branches amongst other places at S.C.O No. 11, Sector 16, Faridabad, through its Authorised Person/ GPA holder, Sh. Varun Jindal

¶6

…..Applicant Bank

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Rohit Raj s/o Sh. Ram Prakash

¶9

Sh. Rahul s/o Sh. Ram Prakash

¶10

Sh. Dev s/o Sh. Ram Prakash

¶11

Sh. Manmohan Kumar Sah s/o Sh. Ram Prakash

¶12

All r/o house No. DC2478, 27 Feet Road, Dabua Colony, Faridabad, Haryana

¶13

…..Defendants

¶14

Argued by: Sh. Loveneet, Law Manager for the applicant bank Defendants ex parte vide order dated 30.10.2023

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant

¶17

bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity), against the defendants for recovery of Rs.64,08,302.92/(Rupees Sixty Four Lac Eight Thousand Three Hundred Two

¶18

OA/713/2023 CANARA BANK Vs ROHIT RAJ AND OTHERS 2

¶19

and Ninety Two Paisa Only) . It has been filed through Sh. Varun Jindal, Authorised Person of the applicant bank stated to be competent to institute the Original Application vide General Power of Attorney dated 04.12.2014, Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶20

The brief facts of the case of the applicant as per Original Application are that the defendants had approached the applicant bank for grant of housing loan facility of Rs. 55.50 lac vide loan application, Annexure-A2 (copy).

¶21

The applicant bank sanctioned aforesaid facility to the defendants as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶22

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facility, the defendants executed housing loan agreement dated 12.09.2018, Annexure-A3 (copy).

¶23

The aforesaid loan was further secured by creation of mortgage by the defendants in respect of residential plot bearing MCF NO. D-1594A situated in Dabua Colony, NIT Faridabad, Haryana, fully detailed in para No. 6 of the Original Application.

¶24

The documents relating to the mortgage are as under:

¶25

i. Registered sale deed dated 15.10.2018, Annexure-A4 (copy).

¶26

ii. Letter dated 23.10.2018 by mortgagors to the bank evidencing deposit of title deed, Annexure-A5 (copy).

¶27

It is further the case of the applicant bank that the loan facility was duly availed of by the defendants but they failed to maintain the financial discipline of the applicant bank leading to the loan account becoming irregular and it being classified as NPA on

¶28

OA/713/2023 CANARA BANK Vs ROHIT RAJ AND OTHERS 3

¶29

08.08.2022. The applicant bank recalled entire outstanding amount vide notice dated 31.10.2022 under section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, Annexure-A6 (copy), but to no avail.

¶30

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account, a sum of Rs.64,08,302.92/- (Rupees Sixty Four Lac Eight Thousand

¶31

Three Hundred Two and Ninety Two Paisa Only) , is recoverable against the defendants as per statement of account, certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891, Annexure-A7 (copy).

¶32

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

¶33

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 30.10.2023 .

¶34

In support of contents of the OA, affidavit of evidence of Sh. Varun Jindal, Authorised Signatory/ Attorney Holder of the applicant bank was filed.

¶35

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

¶36

It was argued by Sh. Loveneet, Law Manager of the applicant bank that in view of unrebutted documentary evidence

¶37

OA/713/2023 CANARA BANK Vs ROHIT RAJ AND OTHERS 4

¶38

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 A7 , 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.64,08,302.92/- (Rupees Sixty Four Lac Eight Thousand Three Hundred Two and Ninety Two Paisa Only) from the defendants.

¶39

In so far as pendent lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank has claimed rate of interest @8.85% per annum plus penal interest @2% per annum. In housing loan agreement dated 12.09.2018, Annexure-A3 (copy), rate of interest has been mentioned @MCLR+0.20% per annum.

¶40

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 the mortgaged property, purpose of loan, i.e. housing, quantum of loan, 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%

¶41

OA/713/2023 CANARA BANK Vs ROHIT RAJ AND OTHERS 5

¶42

per annum from the date of filing of the OA till realisation of the amount ordered vide this order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶43

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.64,08,302.92/- (Rupees Sixty Four Lac Eight Thousand Three Hundred Two and Ninety Two Paisa Only) with current and future simple interest @8% per annum w.e.f. 19.04.2023 , 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 assets of the defendants. However, the applicant bank is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶44

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶45

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 08.12.2023 .

¶46

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.

¶47

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

Canara Bank v. Sh. Rohit Raj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Sh. Rohit Raj

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

Lucy Sebastian versus PNB Housing Finance Ltd.

Ms Maa fly Ash Bricks Industries versus Punjab National Bank

Shail Bala Chaudhary and Shailwala Chaudhari versus Canara Bank

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Sachleen Singh

Indian Overseas Bank versus Balvir Singh

Ms Gyankund Trust to Educate and to Serve Kurukshetra versus Ms Religare Finvest Ltd.