Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Pardeep Kumar Gupta

DRT21 Nov 2023OA/864/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed Union Bank of India's original application for recovery of Rs. 20,77,083 against four respondents for default on a housing loan. The court issued a Recovery Certificate and adjudicated future interest at 7% p.a. instead of the claimed rate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs. 20,77,083/- with 7% p.a. simple interest from date of filing till realization.

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Pardeep Kumar Gupta — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.864/2022

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 26.04.2022

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 21^st DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

Union Bank of India , a body corporate, constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & 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, through Sh. Dev Prakesh, Branch Manager, Sector 21, Chandigarh, being Power of Attorney holder of the Applicant Bank

¶6

…..Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Pardeep Kumar Gupta s/o Sh. Chaman Lal Gupta r/o House No. 24, Adarsh Nagar, Derabassi, District Mohali, Punjab-140507

¶9

Sh. Narender Arora s/o Sh. K. K. Arora r/o House No. 2326-A, Sector 31-C, Air Force Quarter, Chandigarh -160030

¶10

II^nd Address: Sh. Narender Arora s/o Sh. K. K. Arora r/o House No. C-75, Gandhi Nagar, Izzat Nagar, Bareilly, District Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh-234001

¶11

Smt. Chinky Gupta w/o Sh. Pardeep Kumar Gupta r/o House No. 24, Adarsh Nagar, Derabassi, District Mohali, Punjab-140507

¶12

M/s Sushma Buildtech Limited, S.C.O No. 172-173, First Floor, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh-160009, through its Director/Authorised Officer/Manager

¶13

II^nd Address: M/s Sushma Buildtech Limited, Plot No. 381,

¶14

OA/864/2022 UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs PARDEEP KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS 2

¶15

Phase 1, Industrial Area, Chandigarh-160002, through its Director/Authorised Officer/Manager

¶16

…..Defendants

¶17

Argued by: Sh. Saurabh Bhardwaj counsel for the applicant bank (through VC) Defendants ex parte vide order dated 14.09.2023

¶18

FINAL ORDER

¶19

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity), against the defendants for recovery of Rs.20,77,083/- (Rupees Twenty Lac Seventy Seven Thousand and Eighty Three 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).

¶20

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

¶21

The applicant bank sanctioned aforesaid facility to the defendants vide sanction letter dated 28.11.2013, Annexure-A3 (copy), as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶22

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facility, the defendants executed various loans and security documents, i.e.

¶23

OA/864/2022 UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs PARDEEP KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS 3

¶24

demand promissory note dated 11.12.2013, Annexure-A4 (copy), housing loan agreement dated 11.12.2013, Annexure-A5 (copy), agreement dated 11.12.2013 on rate of interest, Annexure-A6 (copy) and letters of guarantee dated 11.12.2013, Annexures-A7 and A8 (copy).

¶25

The aforesaid loan was further secured by creation of mortgage by defendant No. 1 in respect of residential flat No. F-904, 9^th Floor, Sushma Elite Cross Society, Gazipur, M.C. Zirakpur, District S.A.S Nagar, Mohali, Punjab, measuring 1685 Square Feet, fully detailed in para No. 5(vii) of the Original Application.

¶26

The documents relating to the mortgage are as under:

¶27

i. Allotment letter dated 22.10.2013, apartment buyer’s agreement dated 26.10.2013 and affidavit dated 11.12.2013, Annexure-A9 (colly) (copy).

¶28

ii. NOC letter dated 28.11.2013 by defendant No. 4 to the bank along with tripartite agreement dated 28.11.2013, AnnexureA10 (colly) (copy).

¶29

iii. Letter dated 02.11.2019 regarding bank lien confirmation, Annexure-A11 (copy)

¶30

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 29.10.2021. The defendants executed balance confirmation letters dated 07.11.2014, 22.09.2015, 01.11.2016 and 01.11.2020, Annexure-A12 (colly) (copy). The applicant bank recalled entire outstanding amount vide notice dated 14.10.2021 along with its

¶31

OA/864/2022 UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs PARDEEP KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS 4

¶32

postal receipts, Annexure-A13 (colly) (copy) and legal notice dated 15.03.2022 along with its original postal receipts, AnnexureA13A (colly) , but to no avail.

¶33

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account, a sum of Rs.20,77,083/- (Rupees Twenty Lac Seventy Seven Thousand and Eighty Three Only) , is recoverable against the defendants as per statement of account, certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891, Annexure-A14 (colly) (copy).

¶34

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

¶35

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 14.09.2023 .

¶36

In support of contents of the OA, affidavit of evidence of Sh. Dev Prakesh, Branch Manager of the applicant bank was filed.

¶37

This Tribunal has heard ex-parte arguments advanced by the learned counsel and gone through the record carefully.

¶38

It was argued by the learned counsel that in view of unrebutted documentary evidence 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 A14 , it is clear that the defendants had approached the applicant bank for availing

¶39

OA/864/2022 UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs PARDEEP KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS 5

¶40

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 28.11.2013, 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.20,77,083/- (Rupees Twenty Lac Seventy Seven Thousand and Eighty Three Only) from the defendants. 11. 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 28.11.2013, Annexure-A3 (copy), rate of interest has been mentioned @12.25% per annum.

¶41

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

¶42

OA/864/2022 UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs PARDEEP KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS 6

¶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.20,77,083/- (Rupees Twenty Lac Seventy

¶44

Seven Thousand and Eighty Three Only) with current and future simple interest @7% per annum w.e.f. 26.04.2022 , 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.

¶45

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶46

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 01.01.2024 .

¶47

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.

¶48

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

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Pardeep Kumar Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Pardeep Kumar Gupta

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

State Bank of India versus Marx Alexander

Sulaiman K T versus The Manjeri Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Dhairjya Ram Deka

Mrs G K Rani versus State Bank of India

Ms Habib Oil and Grains Processing versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus M/S Mahavir Jain Enterprises