Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sh. Manish Kumar

DRT19 Jan 2024OA/1016/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed an original application for recovery of outstanding loan dues of Rs. 25,36,104 against a borrower who failed to repay an agricultural credit facility. The tribunal exercised discretion to reduce the claimed interest rate to 8% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 25,36,104 with simple interest at 8% per annum from the date of filing; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

State Bank of India versus Sh. Manish Kumar — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1016/2023

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 06.07.2023

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 19^th DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶5

State Bank of India, a body corporate, constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955, having its Corporate Centre at State Bank of India Bhawan, Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai and one of its local head offices at Sector-17, Chandigarh, including one of its specialised Branches known as Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (SARB) at SCO No. 70, Sector-5, Panchkula, District Panchkula (Haryana), through its Chief Manager, Sh. Ravindra Kumar Dass

¶6

….. Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Manish Kumar s/o Sh. Kuria Ram r/o Village Bhamnouli, Tehsil Bilaspur, District Yamunanagar (Haryana)

¶9

.... Defendant

¶10

Argued by: Sh. Gaurav Singla, Advocate for the applicant bank (through VC) Defendant ex parte vide order dated 31.08.2023

¶11

FINAL ORDER

¶12

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity), against the defendant for recovery of Rs.25,36,104/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakh

¶13

Thirty Six Thousand One Hundred and Four Only). It has been filed through Sh. Ravindra Kumar Dass, Chief Manager of the applicant

¶14

OA/1016/2023 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS MANISH KUMAR 2

¶15

bank stated to be competent to institute the Original Application vide Gazette Notification dated 20.03.2017, Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶16

The brief facts of the case of the applicant as per Original Application are that the defendant had approached the applicant bank for grant of Credit Facility of Rs. 20,00,000/- under KCC Scheme vide loan application Form dated 31.10.2013 for agricultural credit, Annexure-A2 (copy).

¶17

The applicant bank sanctioned aforesaid facility to the defendant vide letter of arrangement dated 31.10.2013, Annexure-A3 (copy), as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendant.

¶18

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facility, the defendant executed hypothecation agreement dated 13.11.2013, Annexure-A4 (copy).

¶19

The aforesaid loan facility was further secured by creation of registered mortgage by the defendant in respect of agricultural land measuring 32 Kanal 10 Marla situated in the revenue estate of Bhamnouli, Tehsil Bilaspur, District Yamunanagar, Haryana, fully detailed in Para No. 5(e) of the Original Application.

¶20

The documents related to mortgage are as under:

¶21

i. Registered mortgage dated 31.10.2013, Annexure-A5 (copy). ii. Copy of the ‘Jamabandi’ for the years 2011-2012, Annexure-A6 .

¶22

It is further the case of the applicant bank that the loan facility was duly availed of by the defendant but he failed to maintain the financial discipline of the applicant bank leading to the loan

¶23

OA/1016/2023 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS MANISH KUMAR 3

¶24

account becoming irregular and it being classified as NPA on 16.09.2021. The defendant executed balance confirmatory-cumacknowledgement of security letter dated 01.10.2016 and revival letters dated 25.09.2019 and 09.02.2022, Annexures-A7, A8 and A9 (copy). The applicant bank recalled entire outstanding amount vide legal notice dated 10.05.2023 along with its postal receipt, Annexure-A10 (colly) (copy), but to no avail.

¶25

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account, a sum of Rs.25,36,104/-

¶26

(Rupees Twenty Five Lakh Thirty Six Thousand One Hundred and Four Only), is recoverable against the defendant as per statement of account, duly certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891, Annexure-A11 (copy).

¶27

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

¶28

Notice of the Original Application was duly served upon the defendant, but since none appeared on behalf of the defendant, thus, the defendant was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 31.08.2023 .

¶29

In support of contents of the OA, affidavit of evidence of Sh. Ravindra Kumar Dass, Chief Manager of the applicant bank was filed.

¶30

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

¶31

OA/1016/2023 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS MANISH KUMAR 4

¶32

It was argued by the learned counsel for the applicant bank that in view of unrebutted documentary evidence brought on record, the applicant bank had proved its case against the defendant for recovery of the amount sought. From perusal of Annexures-A1 to A11 , it is clear that the defendant had approached the applicant bank for availing of the loan facility which was granted to him. It is further clear that the defendant had executed all the relevant documents as stated above in favour of the applicant bank. Unfortunately, the defendant 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.25,36,104/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakh Thirty Six Thousand One Hundred and Four Only) from the defendant.

¶33

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank has claimed rate of interest @11.75% per annum. In letter of arrangement dated 31.10.2013, Annexure-A3 (copy), the rate of interest has been mentioned @11.75% per annum.

¶34

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 mortgaged property, purpose of loan, i.e. agricultural, present conditions of economy based on agriculture, quantum of loan, prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yesteryears, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @8% per annum from the date of filing of

¶35

OA/1016/2023 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS MANISH KUMAR 5

¶36

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

¶37

In the result, the Original Application is allowed with costs holding that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum of Rs.25,36,104/(Rupees Twenty Five Lakh Thirty Six Thousand One Hundred and Four Only) with current and future simple interest @8% per annum w.e.f. 06.07.2023, till the date of realisation of the amount. Accordingly, the applicant bank shall be at liberty to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of mortgaged/hypothecated property of the defendant 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 defendant. However, the applicant bank is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶38

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶39

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 07.03.2024.

¶40

Copy of this order be sent to the applicant bank and the defendant through registered/speed post. This order be uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal.

¶41

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

State Bank of India v. Sh. Manish Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sh. Manish 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

Idbi Bank versus M/s Gilead Communication

Canara Bank versus Sri Bharat Deka

Ms Shree Devnath Infratech Private Ltd. versus Union Bank of India

Union Bank of India versus M/S Kanhiya Beverages

State Bank of India versus Smt. Inderjeet Kaur

State Bank of India versus Sh. Suresh Pal