Quashed

Sanjay Kumar Bundail v. Union Bank of India

DRT16 Feb 2023SA/211/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this securitization application, applicants claiming to be bona fide owners of mortgaged property sought relief as Union Bank of India initiated recovery actions based on fraudulent credit facilities sanctioned using forged documents. The tribunal found the borrowers committed fraud and the applicants are rightful owners, leading to the quashing of the bank's actions.

What did the court decide?

All actions initiated by the Respondent Bank, including the Securitization Application and recovery proceedings, are quashed and set aside.

Sanjay Kumar Bundail versus Union Bank of India — DRT (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

SA/211/2022

¶3

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR PRESIDING OFFICER: SH. VIVEK SAXENA

¶4

SECURITIZATION APPLICATION No.- 211/2022

¶5

1. SANJAY KUMAR BUNDAIL S/o Mr. Chiranjilal, R/o A-239, Malviya Nagar, Alwar 301002

¶6

2. JAI PRAKASH MEENA S/o Mr. Kishanlal Meena, R/o Village – Post Khohara (Malavali), Tehsil – Laxmangarh, District – Alwar, Rajasthan

¶7

………Applicants

¶8

Versus

¶9

1. UNION BANK OF INDIA Through its Authorized Officer, Branch at Jai Marg, Road No. 2, Near Overbridge, Alwar (Rajasthan) – 301001

¶10

2. SMT. HEMA RANA

¶11

W/o Mr. Colonel Prakash Singh Rana R/o Plot No. A-63, Sector No. 22, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, UP

¶12

---- Respondent Bank

¶13

Counsel –

¶14

Sh. Raj Kumar , Ld. Counsel for the Applicant

¶15

Sh. Lakhwinder Singh & Sh. Puneet Maheshwari, Ld. counsel for Respondent No. 1

¶16

Sh. Anil Sharma, Ld. counsel for Respondent No. 2

¶17

(Final Order)

¶18

(16.02.2023)

¶19

This SA was filed on 25.04.2022 and reply was filed by both the respondents on 18.06.2022.

¶20

On 28.07.2022, Original Sale Deed Dt. 20.06.2012, filed at An. R/1/04 executed between Smt. Hema Rana W/o Mr. Prakash

¶21

¶22

SA/211/2022

¶23

Singh and Mr. Inderjeet S/o Sh. Chhajuram Gurjar was handed over to Investigation Officer for the purpose of investigation as it was prayed by SHO. Kotwali, Police Station, Alwar, as they registered a FIR No. 549/2022 on 17.06.2022 for the offences punishable U/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 419 and 120B IPC.

¶24

Rejoinder to reply was filed on 24.08.2022.

¶25

Vide Order dt. 28.11.2022 respondent bank was directed to not to proceed in the light of order dt. 03.06.2022, passed by DM, Under Section 14 of the Act of 2002.

¶26

As per facts of the case, the SA applicant is third party, who is neither borrower nor guarantor to any kind of credit facilities sanctioned in favour of borrowers as detailed in Demand Notice and Possession Notice, issued by the bank.

¶27

The applicant claims himself owner of property situated at Plot No. K-30 (A&B) Ambedkar Nager, Alwar (hereinafter referred as “Property”) and is aggrieved by Possession Notice dt. 28.03.2022 issued and pasted by bank (Respondent No. 1). This possession notice was issued against Mr. Inderjeet S/o Mr. Chhajuram on account of recovery of outstanding amount of Rs. 21,68,478/-.

¶28

The applicant claims his right over the subject property i.e. Plot No. K-30 (Part A) on the basis of a Registered Sale Deed dt. 12.01.2021 (Ann. A- 11) which was executed between him and Smt Hema Rana, Respondent No. 2.

¶29

With regard to chain of document in favour of Smt. Hema Rana (Respondent No. 2) details of chain documents are mentioned in Para 3 of the SA and in the light of documents annexed at Ann. A-1 to A-5, it is crystal clear that Smt.

¶30

¶31

SA/211/2022

¶32

Hema Rana was absolute owner of the property, then she got it subdivided through An. A-7, repaid entire housing Loan to HDFC Bank through An. A-8 and part property i.e. Plot K-30 (A) was sold out in favour of SA applicant.

¶33

All the documents filed at An. A-1 to A-5 are issued by UIT, Alwar and it is not a matter of transaction of property between two properties.

¶34

This SA applicant, being a bank officer of Nationalized Bank got sanctioned housing loan facility from his employer bank through An. A- 9 and A-10.

¶35

After that, in the record of UTI, property was mutated in the favour of applicant on 25.12.2021 and through letter dt. 08.02.2022 permission for construction was also granted. Both the documents are at An. A/13 & A/14.

¶36

For part B of the property “Sale Deed was executed by Smt. Hema Rana in favour of applicant No. 2, Mr. Jai Prakash Meena. Through Registered Sale Deed dt. 13.01.2021 at An. A-17 and copy of mutation Letter dt. 15.03.2022 and certificate for free hold land are at An. A-18 and An. A-19, issued by UTI Alwar.

¶37

From the above said discussion and in the light of documents filed at AN-1 to An-20, it is crystal clear that both the SA applicant are absolute owner of the subject property and their is no doubt in it.

¶38

Now, the issue of credit facility as sanctioned by respondent bank, in favour of their defaulter is to be decided. Upon receiving Possession Notice the applicants contacted to respondent no. 2, who through her husband forwarded a Police complaint on 02.04.2022 (at An, A-24)

¶39

¶40

SA/211/2022

¶41

and also obtained copy of Tempered Lease Deed (having no photograph of Smt. Hema Rana) filed at An. A-25. Through RTI.

¶42

Copy of sale deed dt. 20.06.2021, which is not having actual photograph of Smt. Hema Rana was also obtained and the same is at An. A- 26.

¶43

Later on FIR No. 424/2020, 425/2020 and 426/2020 were lodged by Union Bank of India the respondent no. 1, against Mr. Chhajuram and other accused as they committed fraud of Rs. 1.41 crores, with them.

¶44

So, as the issue of obtaining credit facility, by Mr. Inderjeet Singh on the basis of forged Patta and Lease Deed is involved, so, it is rightly pointed out by respondent NO. 2, that, she sold out the property to SA applicants and they are rightful owner as of now.

¶45

An A/27, is FIR No. 424/2020, dt. 10.07.2020, Ann. A/28 is FIR No. 425/2020 dt. 11.07.2020 and FIR at An. A/29 is FIR No. 426/2020 dt. 11.07.2022, all three FIR’s are lodged by Mr. Rohitash Kumar, Manager of respondent bank against Laxmi Devi, Krisanlal, Inderjeet Gurjar and Ajay Kumar Sharma and details of fraud committed by Inderjeet Gurjar.

¶46

The respondent bank, while filing reply to Para No. 5.18, vehemently denied the contents of Para 5.18 of SA and look specific ground that “The answering respondent has not lodged any first information report in connection with the present matter” and claimed that credit facility was sanctioned without any fault.

¶47

¶48

SA/211/2022

¶49

Later on FIR No. 549/2022 was also lodged against Inderjeet Gurjar, on 17.06.2022, Investigation Officer, obtained hand writing expert opinion from State Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan and as per this opinion signature of Smt. Hema Rana marked as Q-1 to Q-4 on Lease Deed, Sale Deed dt. 20.06.2012 were found to be forged. Finally charge sheet was filed and trial is pending.

¶50

From, the perusal of documents filed by SHO, Police Station, Kotwali, Alwar. It is clear that Mr. Inderjeet Gurjar, created false/forged/fabricated Lease Dt. 04.08.2002, Sale Letter dt. 20.06.2021, using forged signatures of Smt. Hema Rana and availed credit facility from the respondent bank whereas, Smt. Hema Rana was absolute owner of the subject property since, 04.05.2006 and so, present SA applicants are rightful owner on account of Sale Deeds dt. 06.01.2021 at An. A/11 and A/17.

¶51

In the entire reply filed by the respondent bank, it is claimed that they sanctioned credit facility on the basis of document filed at An. R/1/04 to R/01/08, so they are not at fault, but in my considered opinion, in the light of documents at An A/1 to A/15, it is clear that the property was owned by Smt. Hema Rana and further as per Letter dt. 07.04.2021, issued by Punjab National Bank, addressed to respondent bank informing that original title documents are with them, as they sanctioned credit facility, it is again clear that subject property was

¶52

¶53

SA/211/2022

¶54

legally mortgaged with Punjab National Bank.

¶55

Accordingly, in my considered opinion, the respondent bank was cheated by Mr. Inderjeet Gurjar, who obtained credit facility and so they do not have any security night over the subject mortgaged property as the applicants are absolute owner of the subject property and one part is dully mortgaged with a nationalized bank.

¶56

Therefore, all the actions initiated by the respondent bank are quashed and set aside. Respondent bank is at liberty take other legal actions, as they filed three FIR against Mr. Inderjeet in the year 2020 for the same cause of action.

¶57

While, making a conclusion of this Judgment, I would like to mention here that somewhere, officer of the bank, who sanctioned credit facility in favour of Mr. Inderjeet Gurjar failed to obtain Title Search Report and he simply relied upon the documents filed by borrower and now are facing wrongful loss. Concerned officer is required to be careful in future as it’s a matter of loss to public money.

¶58

Accordingly, with these observations, this Securitization Applicartion, stands disposed of with not cost. Copy of the order be given free to the parties concerned. File be placed before the Registrar for compliance. After compliance file be consigned to record.

¶59

(Vivek Saxena) Presiding Officer DRT, Jaipur

SA/211/2022

SA/211/2022

Sanjay Kumar Bundail v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar Bundail v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Nidhikamal Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Milap Singh

Icici Bank Limited versus Laxman Ram Choudhary

Lt Col Jagdish Chandra Sharma versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Smt Megha Panwar versus Bank of Baroda

Rajendra Kumar Agrawal versus Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd.