Allowed

State Bank of India v. Shri Satish Kumar Jain

DRT25 Jul 2023OA/921/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of Rs. 34,07,739.86 p with interest from respondents. The bank proved its case regarding term loans and credit card limits secured by mortgages and hypothecation, noting it proceeded ex parte against defaulting respondents.

What did the court decide?

Rs. 34,07,739.86 p with interest from 09.05.2022 allowed with costs; Recovery Certificate issued; Recovery Officer directed to distribute sale proceeds.

State Bank of India versus Shri Satish Kumar Jain — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 921/2022

¶4

Date of Institution: 18.05.2022 Date of Decision: 25.07.2023

¶5

State Bank of India, having one of its Specialized Branch Known as Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, at 4^th Floor, Aman Plaza Complex, Tower-B, Adjoining Passport Sewa Kendra, Plot No.311, Lajpat Nagar, Ambedkar Chowk, Jalandhar. (Punjab) – 144001.

¶6

……..Applicant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Sh. Satish Kumar Jain S/o Sh. Gian Chand Jain, proprietor of M/s Nahar Shoppe, R/o H.No.B-4/249, Mohalla Dabangran (also known as Jattan Mohalla), Near Dabba Building, Nai Abadi, Ward No.26, Hoshiarpur. (Punjab) – 146001.

¶9

2^nd Address:-

¶10

C/o M/s Nahar Shoppe at Kanak Mandi Chowk, Gaushala Bazar, Hoshiarpur, (Punjab) – 146001.

¶11

Smt. Sarita Jain W/o Sh. Satish Kumar Jain, R/o H.No.B-4/249, Mohalla Dabangran (also known as Jattan Mohalla), Near Dabba Building, Nai Abadi, Ward No.26, Hoshiarpur. (Punjab) – 146001.

¶12

……….Defendants

¶13

Advocates

¶14

Sh. Vivek Verma, alongwith Sh. Sanjay Sagar, Counsel for the applicant bank.

¶15

Defendants – ex parte

¶16

OA for the Recovery of Rs.34,07,739.86p with interest from 09.05.2022.

¶17

ORDER

¶18

State Bank of India, (Applicant Bank) has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of Rs.34,07,739.86p with interest against Sh. Satish Kumar Jain and another (defendants).

¶19

¶20

Bank’s case is that on 14.03.2013, it had granted a Term loan of Rs.6,70,000/- to defendant No.1 for renovation of his house. To secure the loan defendant No.1 had created equitable mortgage of House measuring 5Marlas 3Sarsahis, situated at Mohalla Dabangran, Nai Abadi, Hoshiarpur. (Punjab) (fully detailed in para No.5(h) of the application).

¶21

On 23.03.2016, at the request of defendant No.1 for self and being proprietor of M/s Nahar Shoppe. Bank had granted a CC limit of Rs.20.00 Lacs. Defendant No.2 had stood guarantor. To secure the loan defendant No.1 had created equitable mortgage of commercial Shop No. B-IV-681/B5-339, measuring 169 Sq. feet situated at Saraffan Bazzar, Near Dabbi Bazar, Hoshiarpur, (Punjab) (fully detailed in para No.5(p) of the application). To secure the loan defendant No.2 had also created equitable mortgage of House measuring 2Marlas 114Sarsahis, situated in Mohalla Dabangran, Nai Abadi, Hoshiarpur (fully detailed in para No.5(q) of the application).

¶22

Further, on 23.03.2017, at the request of defendant No.1 for self and being proprietor of M/s Nahar Shoppe. Bank had renewed the CC limit of Rs.20.00 Lacs. The said renewed CC limit was secured by Primary Security of hypothecation of stocks and collateral security by way of extension of scope of already mortgaged of the immovable properties owned by defendant No.1 and 2. On 26.03.2018, at the request of defendant No.1 for self and being proprietor of M/s Nahar Shoppe bank had again renewed the CC limit of Rs.20.00 Lacs. 5. On 27.08.2020, bank had granted a RBI Covid-19 Regulatory package to the defendants and converted the accumulated interest of Rs.1,35,228/- accrued in the CC limit account No.65253064803, during the deferment period from 01.03.2020 to 31.08.2020 to Term Loan

¶23

¶24

(FITL) account. The said loans were chargeable to different rates of interest. On 09.05.2022, a sum of Rs.34,07,739.86p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶25

On 01.06.2022, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 10.01.2023, they were proceeded ex parte .

¶26

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Manjit Mahey, Chief Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-33. 8. I have perused the evidence on the record. I am of the considered view that the Bank has proved its case that it had advanced the above said loan facilities and on 09.05.2022, a sum of Rs.34,07,739.86p was due.

¶27

8(a) The Term loan of Rs.6,70,000/- for renovation of house, was given by the bank, in the year 2013, to defendant No.1 and no one had given guarantee for the said loan facility. However, defendant No.1 had created equitable mortgage of House measuring 5Marlas 3Sarsahis, situated at Mohalla Dabangran, Nai Abadi, Hoshiarpur. (Punjab) (fully detailed in para No.5(h) of the application). Accordingly, only defendant No.1 is liable to pay the dues in respect of the said Term Loan of Rs.5,57,244.66p alongwith interest. Bank would be entitled to recover the sum by the sale of equitable mortgage of House measuring 5Marlas 3Sarsahis, situated at Mohalla Dabangran, Nai Abadi, Hoshiarpur. (Punjab) (fully detailed in para No.5(h) of the application).

¶28

¶29

Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.34,07,739.86p (Rupees Thirty-Four Lacs Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty-Nine and Paisa Eighty-Six Only) along with pendente lite and future interest from 09.05.2022, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. Out of this, Rs.5,57,244.66p with interest @8.10% per annum with monthly rests in Home Loan from 09.05.2022, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs against defendant No.1 only; Rs.26,86,100.20p with interest @10.60% per annum with monthly rests in CC Limit and Rs.1,64,395/- with interest @11.65% per annum with monthly rests in Term Loan (FITL) from 09.05.2022, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs against all the defendants. The liability with respect to CC Limit and Term Loan (FITL) would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged immovable properties fully detailed in para No.3(A) of the application and hypothecated stocks as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants.

¶30

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 11. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 12. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 28.08.2023, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgage immovable properties and hypothecated stocks as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) of the Act . 13. A Copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to the Recovery Officer as well as the parties. Pronounced in the open court. (A S Narang) Dated: 25.07.2023 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh Pankaj

State Bank of India v. Shri Satish Kumar Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Shri Satish Kumar Jain

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 Messers Cinnamon Tree

Canara Bank versus M/S Ayan Enterprises

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Krishna Foods Products

Punjab National Bank versus Sri Biswajit Paul

Uco Bank versus M/s Arunachal Valley Cold Storage

Punjab National Bank versus Ms Basanti Soap Industry