Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Raman Kumar

DRT13 Oct 2023OA/793/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT allowed an application by Union Bank of India for recovery of Rs.30.65 lakhs due from respondents who availed a housing loan as borrowers/guarantors and failed to repay. The Tribunal issued a Recovery Certificate and directed enforcement. Future interest was fixed at 7% p.a.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.30,65,967 with future simple interest @7% p.a. w.e.f. 02.05.2022 till realisation; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Raman Kumar — Company and Corporate | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.793/2022

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 02.05.2022

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 13^th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

Union Bank of India , a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, having its Head Office at 239, Vidhan Sabha Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, whereas one of its Branches amongst other places at Sector 21, Chandigarh (U.T.), Chandigarh through Dev Prakesh, Branch Manager, Sector 21, Chandigarh (U.T.), being Power of Attorney holder of the applicant bank

¶6

…..Applicant Bank

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Raman Kumar Gupta s/o Sh. Chaman Lal Gupta r/o House No. 24, Adarsh Nagar, Derabassi, District Mohali, Punjab140507

¶9

Second Address: -

¶10

Sh. Raman Kumar Gupta s/o Sh. Chaman Lal Gupta r/o Flat No. F-1001, (10^th Floor), Sushma Elite Cross Society, Gazipur, M.C. Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, Mohali (Punjab)

¶11

Sh. Anupam Gupta s/o Sh. Madan Gopal Gupta r/o House No. 163, H.I.G. PUDA Colony, Sector 48-C, Mohali, District Mohali (Punjab)

¶12

Ms Sonam Gupta w/o Sh. Raman Kumar Gupta r/o House No. 24, Adarsh Nagar, Derabassi, District Mohali (Punjab)

¶13

M/s Sushma Buildtech Limited, SCO No. 172-173 (First Floor),

¶14

OA/793 OF 2022 UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs RAMAN KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS 2

¶15

Sector 9-C, Chandigarh (U.T.) through its Director/Authorised Officer/Manager

¶16

Second Address:

¶17

M/s Sushma Buildtech Limited, Plot No. 381, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Chandigarh (U.T.) through its Director/Authorised Officer/Manager

¶18

…..Defendants

¶19

Argued by: Sh. Satish Kumar, Senior Manager for the applicant bank Defendants ex parte vide order dated 22.05.2023

¶20

FINAL ORDER

¶21

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant

¶22

bank under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity), against the defendants for recovery of Rs.30,65,967/- (Rupees Thirty Lac Sixty Five Thousand Nine

¶23

Hundred and Sixty Seven Only) . It has been filed through Sh. Dev Prakesh, Branch Manager of the applicant bank stated to be competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 16.02.2009, Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶24

The brief facts of the case of the applicant as per Original application are that the defendant No. 1 had approached the applicant bank for grant of Term Loan facility of Rs. 48 lac vide individual housing loan application form dated 14.11.2013, Annexure-A2 (copy). Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 stood as guarantor for repayment of the loan.

¶25

The applicant bank sanctioned aforesaid facility to the defendants vide sanction letter dated 12.12.2013, Annexure-A3

¶26

OA/793 OF 2022 UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs RAMAN KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS 3

¶27

(copy), as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶28

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facility, the defendants executed demand promissory note dated 16.12.2013, Annexure-A4 (copy), housing loan agreement dated 16.12.2013, Annexure-A5 (copy), interest rate agreement dated 16.12.2013, annexure-A6 (copy), letters of guarantee dated 16.12.2013, Annexures-A7 and A8 (copy) and allotment letter dated 22.10.2013, buyer agreement dated 26.10.2013, payment receipt dated 30.10.2013 along with affidavit dated 16.12.2013,

¶29

Annexure-A9 (colly) (copy).

¶30

The aforesaid limit was further secured by creation of equitable mortgage by defendants in respect of residential Flat No. F- 1001, (10^th Floor), Sushma Elite Cross Society, Gazipur, M.C. Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab, fully detailed in para No. 5(vii) of the OA.

¶31

The documents related to mortgage are as under:

¶32

i. Letter dated 16.12.2013 regarding permission to mortgage along with tripartite agreement and letter dated 26.11.2013 regarding NOC for creation of mortgage, Annexure-A10 (colly) (copy).

¶33

ii. Lien confirmation letter dated 02.11.2019, Annexure-A11 (copy).

¶34

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. The

¶35

OA/793 OF 2022 UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs RAMAN KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS 4

¶36

defendants executed balance confirmation letters dated 18.11.2014, 26.10.2015 and 01.11.2016, Annexure-A12 (colly) (copy). The applicant bank recalled entire outstanding amount vide notice dated 14.10.2021 and legal notice dated 15.03.2022 along with postal receipts, Annexures-A13 and A14 (colly) (copy), but to no avail. 7. It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account, a sum of Rs.30,65,967/- (Rupees Thirty Lac Sixty Five Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty Seven Only), is recoverable against the defendants as per statement of account, certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891, Annexure-A15 (copy).

¶37

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

¶38

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 22.05.2023 .

¶39

In support of contents of the OA, affidavit of evidence of Sh. Amit Kumar, Branch Manager of the applicant bank was filed. 10. This Tribunal has heard ex-parte arguments advanced by Sh. Satish Kumar, Senior Manager for the applicant bank and gone through the record carefully.

¶40

It was argued by Sh. Satish Kumar, Senior Manager for the applicant bank that in view of unrebutted documentary evidence brought on record, the applicant bank had proved its case against

¶41

OA/793 OF 2022 UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs RAMAN KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS 5

¶42

the defendants for recovery of the amount sought. From perusal of Annexures-A1 to A15 , 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. It is also clear tripartite agreement dated 16.12.2013, Annexure-A10 (colly) (copy) was executed between the parties. 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.30,65,967/- (Rupees Thirty Lac Sixty Five Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty Seven Only) from the defendants.

¶43

In so far as pendent lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has claimed rate of interest @9% per annum. In sanction letter dated 12.12.2013, Annexure-A3 (copy), rate of interest has been mentioned @12.25% per annum.

¶44

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 mortgage property, purpose of loan, i.e. housing, quantum of loan and prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yesteryears and defendant No. 3 being a female, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @7% per annum from the date of filing

¶45

OA/793 OF 2022 UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs RAMAN KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS 6

¶46

of the OA till realisation of the amount ordered vide this order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶47

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.30,65,967/- (Rupees Thirty Lac Sixty Five Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty Seven Only) with current and future simple interest @7% per annum w.e.f. 02.05.2022 , 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.

¶48

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶49

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 07.11.2023 .

¶50

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.

¶51

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

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Raman Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Raman Kumar

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 India versus M/S Maa Enterprise

Punjab National Bank versus Ms Garage

Canara Bank versus Soumik Chatterjee

State Bank of India versus Sh Prashant Gupta

Hdfc Bank versus Ali Mohammad Ganaiee

Axis Bank versus Mrs. Bhagat Pal Kaur