Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Rattan Singh

DRT19 Oct 2023OA/720/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Union Bank of India against Rattan Singh for recovery of Rs. 23,16,310.55. The Tribunal modified the claimed interest rate to 8% per annum and issued a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued for Rs. 23,16,310.55 with 8% p.a. simple interest; liberty to recover via sale of mortgaged/hypothecated or personal assets.

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Rattan Singh — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 720/2023

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 20.04.2023

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 19^th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

Union Bank of India , a body constituted under the Banking Company (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, having its Head Office at 239, Vidhan Sabha Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, having its Branches all over India amongst other places one at Gohana, Samata Chawk, Civil Road, Gohana, District Sonipat, Haryana-131301, through Sh. Satinder Dangi, its Constituted Attorney and Principal Officer

¶6

…..Applicant Bank

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Rattan Singh s/o Shri Chhotu Ram r/o House no. 386, Village Gaharwal, Sonepat, Haryana-131302

¶9

....Defendant

¶10

Argued by: Sh. Satish Kumar, Senior Manager for the applicant bank Defendant ex parte vide order dated 23.06.2023

¶11

FINAL ORDER

¶12

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 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity), against the defendant for recovery of Rs.23,16,310.55/- (Rupees Twenty Three lac Sixteen Thousand Three Hundred Ten and Fifty Five Paisa Only) . It has been filed through Sh. Satinder Dangi, Constituted Attorney and Principal Officer of the applicant bank stated to be competent to institute the Original

¶13

OA/720/2023 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS RATTAN SINGH 2

¶14

Application vide authority letter dated 22.03.2023, Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶15

The brief facts of the case of the applicant as per Original Application are that the defendant had approached the applicant bank for grant of KCC facility of Rs. 15 lac and again approached for term loan facility of Rs. 3 lac vide loan applications dated 01.12.2015 and 06.05.2016, Annexures-A2 and A7 (copy).

¶16

The applicant bank sanctioned aforesaid facilities to the defendant vide sanction letters dated 05.12.2015 and 06.05.2016, Annexures-A3 and A8 (copy), as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendant.

¶17

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facilities, the defendant executed hypothecation agreement dated 05.12.2015, Annexure-A4 (copy), request letter dated 05.12.2015 regarding issuance of ATM card, Annexure-A5 (copy) and agreement dated 06.05.2016 of term loan, Annexure-A9 (copy).

¶18

The aforesaid loans were further secured by creation of mortgage by the defendant in respect of agricultural land measuring 72 Kanal 10 Marla situated in the revenue estate of Gharwal, Tehsil Gohana, District Sonipat, Haryana, fully detailed in para No. 5.8 of the Original Application. Registered mortgage deed dated 30.11.2015 and request letter to the Tehsildar, Gohana, for entry/mutation of mortgaged property is Annexure-A6 (colly) (copy).

¶19

It is further the case of the applicant bank that the loan facilities were duly availed of by the defendant but he failed to maintain the financial discipline of the applicant bank leading to the loan accounts becoming irregular and those being classified as NPA on 31.03.2021. The applicant bank recalled entire outstanding amount

¶20

OA/720/2023 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS RATTAN SINGH 3

¶21

vide legal notice dated 20.03.2023, Annexure-A10 (copy), but to no avail.

¶22

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan accounts, a sum of Rs.23,16,310.55/- (Rupees Twenty Three lac Sixteen Thousand Three Hundred Ten and Fifty Five Paisa Only), is recoverable against the defendant as per statements of accounts, duly certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891, Annexure-A11 (colly) (copy).

¶23

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

¶24

Notice of the Original Application was duly served upon the defendant, but since none appeared on behalf of the defendant, thus, the defendant was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 23.06.2023 .

¶25

In support of contents of the OA, affidavit of evidence of Sh. Satinder Dangi, Constituted Attorney and Branch Manager of the applicant bank was filed.

¶26

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

¶27

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 defendant for recovery of the amount sought. From perusal of Annexures-A1 to A11 , it is clear that the defendant had approached

¶28

OA/720/2023 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS RATTAN SINGH 4

¶29

the applicant bank for availing of the loan facilities which were granted to him. It is further clear that the defendant had executed all the relevant documents as stated above in favour of the applicant bank. Unfortunately, the defendant 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.23,16,310.55/-

¶30

(Rupees Twenty Three lac Sixteen Thousand Three Hundred Ten

¶31

and Fifty Five Paisa Only) from the defendant.

¶32

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has claimed rate of interest @9.65% per annum in KCC and @8.95% per annum for term loan. In sanction letter dated 05.12.2015, Annexure-A3 (copy), the rate of interest has been mentioned the rate of interest has been mentioned @10.90% per annum in KCC facility.

¶33

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. agricultural, present conditions of economy based on agriculture, 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% per annum from the date of filing of the OA till realisation of the amount ordered vide this order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶34

OA/720/2023 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS RATTAN SINGH 5

¶35

In the result, the Original Application is allowed with costs holding that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum of Rs.23,16,310.55/(Rupees Twenty Three lac Sixteen Thousand Three Hundred Ten and Fifty Five Paisa Only) with current and future simple interest @8% per annum w.e.f. 20.04.2023 , till the date of realisation of the amount. Accordingly, the applicant bank shall be at liberty to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of mortgaged/hypothecated property of the defendant 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 defendant. However, the applicant bank is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶36

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶37

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 10.11.2023.

¶38

Copy of this order be sent to the applicant bank and the defendant through registered/speed post. This order be also uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal.

¶39

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

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Rattan Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Rattan Singh

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

Bank of Baroda versus Vicky Gupta

State Bank of India versus Sunil Arora

State Bank of India versus Naresh Pal and Anr.

Canara Bank versus M/S Suswa Infoway Pvt. Ltd.

Indian Bank versus Srvc Enterprises

Indian Bank versus Renar Enterprises