Dismissed

Govind Hari Dixit v. Bank of India

DRT6 Jun 2023SA/32/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants in a Securitization Application claimed the bank's NPA declaration and demand notice were illegal because they had deposited partial amounts towards their housing loan. The Tribunal dismissed the application, ruling that the applicant concealed the existence of another NPA Cash Credit facility, rendering the failure to inform the Tribunal material to the case.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application stands disposed of as dismissed.

Govind Hari Dixit versus Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR

¶3

PRESIDING OFFICER: SH. VIVEK SAXENA

¶4

SA No.- 32/2022

¶5

Govind Hair Dixit S/o Sheri Ramendra Prasad Dixit, resident of 80/19, Sector-8, Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur Rajasthan302022.

¶6

Bhawana Dixit W/o Shir Govind Hari Dixit, resident of 80/19, Sector-8, Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur Rajasthan302022.

¶7

.........Applicants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Bank of India through chief Manager, B-4, Sector No. 2, Near White House, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur-302004.

¶10

The Branch Manager, Bank of India, Sarju Tower, Ramchandrapura Industrial Area, opposite Poornima University, Goner Road, Tehsil Sanagner, Jaipur-302022.

¶11

........Respondents

¶12

Present:-

¶13

Sh. Atul Saxena, Counsel for the Applicant

¶14

Sh.R C Sharma, Counsel for the Respondent Bank

¶15

(Final Order)

¶16

(06.06.2023)

¶17

This Securitization Application was filed by the SA applicant on 12.01.2022 and in the entire SA the applicant has challenged the

¶18

¶19

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶20

actions initiated by the respondent bank pertaining to loan account no. 665475110000029 only.

¶21

In Para 5(i) of the SA availing credit facility for housing loan for Rs. 29.50 Lacs through sanction letter dated 31.01.2018 (Annexure A/1) is admitted and it is also admitted that the entire housing loan was to be repaid in 318 EMIs of Rs. 22970. The property situated at Plot no. 84/227, Ground Floor, Block No. 84, Pratap nagar Scheme, Sanganer, Jaipur was mortgaged by the SA applicant in the said house loan account.

¶22

In Para 5(ii), it is admitted that on account of impact of COVID-19 the economy was adversely affected and therefore, there was default in depositing due EMIs and finally the account was declared as NPA through demand notice dated 28.05.2021 (Annexure A/2).

¶23

In Para 5(iii) of the SA, it is admitted that the applicant deposited an amount of Rs. 1.25 Lacs on 06.07.2021, applicant also deposited an amount of Rs. 30500/- on 18.08.2021 against the pending installments and also deposited two EMI for an amount of Rs. 23000/- through cheque on 21.10.2021 and on 10.11.2021.

¶24

The proof of deposit of amounts are filed at Annexure A/3 & A/4 to the SA.

¶25

In Para 5(v), it is admitted that again a demand notice was issued by the respondent bank on 04.10.2021 (Annexure A/5) through which the respondent bank claim outstanding amount of Rs. 2871265/- and the date of NPA was 27.09.2021 whereas in the earlier demand notice date of NPA was 29.04.2021.

¶26

The main objection taken by the SA applicant is that after issuance of the first demand notice dated 28.05.2021, the SA applicant deposited an amount of Rs. 1.25 Lacse on 06.07.2021, an amount of Rs. 30500/- on 18.08.2021 and further deposited an amount of Rs. 46000/- through cheques on 21.10.2021 and 10.11.2021, therefore,

¶27

¶28

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶29

the account was not NPA so, second demand notice dated 04.10.2021 issued by the Respondent bank is completely illegal, therefore, the declaration of account as NPA on 27.09.2021 is also illegal.

¶30

Ld. counsel finally prayed that the Demand Notice dated 04.10.2021 is showing excessive demand which is against the statement of account showing deposit of amount by the SA applicant and therefore, Ld. counsel for the SA applicant prayed that all the actions including demand notice issued by the respondent bank are required to be quashed and set aside.

¶31

Once again for the sake of more clarity it is clarified here that in the entire SA as well as on the basis of documents filed by the SA applicant, the SA applicant has accepted only availing of credit facility of Rs. 29.50 Lacs for housing loan and there is nothing about any other loan account because as per reply the SA applicant has also availed a credit facility of Rs. 9.00 Lacs on 05.12.2017 and the applicant was having another loan account of said credit facility for Rs. 9.00 Lacs bearing no. 66543011000037.

¶32

In my opinion, from the above said facts and from the details filed by the respondent bank along with reply with regard to loan account no. 66543011000037, the SA applicant was required to inform to this Tribunal about availing the said credit facility of Rs. 9.00 Lacs but applicant failed to do so and that can be a matter of concealment of fact by the SA applicant at the time of filing this SA before this Tribunal.

¶33

From the facts as narrated in the reply it is clear that the SA applicant first obtained a credit facility for Rs. 9.00 Lacs as Cash Credit Limit on 05.12.2017 and after that he obtained credit facility of Rs. 29.50 Lacs on 31.01.2018.

¶34

¶35

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶36

As stated by Respondent bank in reply, the account of Cash Credit Limit was classified as NPA on 30.09.2019 and the respondent bank issued a demand notice on 13.01.2020 in favor of the SA applicant and considering the guidelines as directed by RBI, the said housing loan was also declared as NPA on 29.04.2021 because as per Para 2.2.2 of Master Circular of RBI dated 01.07.2015 the accounts were to be declared as NPA borrower wise and not facility wise. For ready reference the relevant circular is reproduce here as under:-

¶37

“2.2.2 Treatment of NPAs – Borrower-wise and not Facility-wise

¶38

(i) In respect of a borrower having more than one facility with a bank, all the facilities granted by the bank will have to be treated as NPA and not the particular facility or part thereof which has become irregular.”

¶39

Ld. counsel for the respondent bank submitted that there is nothing illegal in the declaration of account of housing loan as NPA because the account of Cash Credit limit was declared as NPA and despite having served demand notice for the said account, the SA applicant failed to deposit the amount, therefore, another account was also declared as NPA and so, there is nothing illegal in the actions initiated by the respondent bank.

¶40

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶41

It is a fact that in the entire SA the SA applicant remained silent about the loan in the shape of Cash Credit facility and there is no reference with regard declaration of account as NPA, SA applicant is trying to take benefit of amount deposited by him in the present account of housing loan whereas it is a fact that account of housing loan under challenged in this SA was also declared as NPA on account of fact, that the account of Cash Credit Limit was also NPA. Accordingly, considering the fact that the account was declared as NPA borrower wise and not facility wise and SA applicant failed to inform the fact of loan of credit facility of Cash Credit Limit.

¶42

The applicant is trying to mislead this Tribunal by concealing the fact that credit facility of Cash Credit Limit account was also declared as

¶43

¶44

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶45

NPA and therefore, the prayer of SA applicant is not liable to be accepted.

¶46

Entire actions initiated by the respondent bank are as per law. Accordingly, this Securitization Application stands disposed of as dismissed.

¶47

Copy of the order be given free to the concerned parties.

¶48

File be placed before the Registrar for compliance after compliance

¶49

file be consigned to record, as per rules.

¶50

(VIVEK SAXENA) Presiding Officer DRT, Jaipur

¶51

Govind Hari Dixit v. Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govind Hari Dixit v. 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 Harphool Yadav

Surendra Singh Inda versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

State Bank of India versus M/ S Bhagwati Industries

Sandeep Jhanwar versus Reliagre Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited

State Bank of India versus Sh Bhagirath Ram

Icici Bank Limited versus Nishan Singh