Allowed

Canara Bank v. Smt. Bandana Kumari

DRT16 Jan 2024OA/1022/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte application for recovery of a housing loan default, the Tribunal allowed the Canara Bank's claim for Rs. 20.99 lakh plus interest at 6% p.a. from the filing date, permitting recovery from mortgaged property or personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 20,99,276 with simple interest at 6% p.a. from 24.05.2022; liberty to recover from sale of mortgaged property or personal assets.

Canara Bank versus Smt. Bandana Kumari — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1022/2022

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 24.05.2022

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 16^th DAY OF JANAURY, 2024

¶5

Canara Bank, a body corporate and Nationalised Bank, constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, having its Head Office at 112, J.C. Road, Bangalore and amongst others a Branch at Sector-34, Chandigarh, represented through its General Power of Attorney, Smt. Sahivi Pandit

¶6

....Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Smt. Bandana Kumari w/o Sh. Neeraj Mehta r/o Tehsil Baijnath, Village and Post Office Kudail, Kudail-Kudal-Buhil, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh

¶9

Sh. Neeraj Mehta s/o Sh. Purshotam Singh r/o Tehsil Baijnath, Village and Post Office Kudail, Kudail-Kudal-Buhil, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh

¶10

M/s Gupta Builders and Promoters Private Limited, having its registered and corporate office at SCO Nos. 196-197, Ground Floor, Sector-34-A, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director/Authorised Signatory

¶11

…...Defendants

¶12

Argued by: Sh. I.P.S. Issar, Advocate for the applicant bank (through VC)

¶13

Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 ex parte vide order dated 07.06.2023

¶14

Defendant No. 3 ex parte vide order dated 06.09.2023

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (herein after referred to as ‘the

¶17

OA/1022/2022 CANARA BANK Vs SMT BANDANA KUMARI AND OTHERS

¶18

¶19

Act’ for brevity) against the defendants for recovery of Rs.20,99,276/(Rupees Twenty Lakh Ninety Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy Six Only). It has been filed through Smt. Sahivi Pandit, General Power of Attorney of the applicant bank stated to be competent to institute the Original Application vide General Power of Attorney dated 18.10.2016, Annexure-A2 (copy) and Gazette Notification dated 04.03.2020, Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶20

The brief facts of the case of the applicant as per Original Application are that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had approached the applicant bank for grant of housing loan (Syn Nivas Loan) facility of Rs. 26.91 lakh vide loan application Form dated 29.01.2019 for home loan under Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna, Annexure-A3 (copy).

¶21

The applicant bank sanctioned aforementioned credit facility to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 vide sanction letter dated 14.02.2019, AnnexureA4 (copy), as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶22

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facility, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 executed various loan and security documents, i.e. housing loan agreement dated 14.02.2019, Annexure-A5 (copy) and tripartite agreement dated 14.02.2019, Annexure-A8 (copy).

¶23

The aforesaid loan was further secured by creation of mortgage by the defendants in respect of residential property bearing Flat No. 4025, Second Floor, GBP Camellia, situated in the revenue estate of Aujla, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab, fully detailed in para No. 5(vii) of the Original Application.

¶24

The documents relating to the mortgage are as under:

¶25

i. Agreement for sale dated 07.09.2018, Annexure-A6 (copy).

¶26

ii. Allotment letter dated 07.09.2018, Annexure-A7 (copy).

¶27

OA/1022/2022 CANARA BANK Vs SMT BANDANA KUMARI AND OTHERS

¶28

¶29

iii. Agreement to mortgage dated 14.02.2019, Annexure-A9 (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 30.12.2021. The applicant bank recalled entire outstanding amount vide loan recall notice dated 23.12.2021, Annexure-A10 (copy) and notice dated 28.03.2022 under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, Annexure-A11 (copy), but to no avail.

¶31

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account, a sum of Rs.20,99,276/- (Rupees

¶32

Twenty Lakh Ninety Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy Six Only), is recoverable against the defendants as per statement of account, duly certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, Annexure-A12 (copy).

¶33

Notices of the Original Application were duly served upon the defendants, but since none appeared on behalf of the defendants, thus, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 07.06.2023 and defendant No. 3 was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 06.09.2023.

¶34

In support of the contents of the OA, affidavit of evidence of Smt. Sahivi Pandit, Branch Manager of the applicant bank was filed.

¶35

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

¶36

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 A12 , it is clear that defendants had

¶37

OA/1022/2022 CANARA BANK Vs SMT BANDANA KUMARI AND OTHERS

¶38

¶39

approached the applicant bank for availing of the loan facility which was granted to them. It is further clear that defendants had executed all the relevant documents as stated above in favour of the applicant bank. It is also clear that tripartite agreement dated 14.02.2019, Annexure-A8 (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.20,99,276/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Ninety Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy Six Only) from the defendants.

¶40

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank has not claimed any particular rate of interest. In sanction letter dated 14.02.2019, Annexure-A4 (copy), rate of interest has been mentioned @8.75% 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. 1 being a female, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the OA till realisation of the amount ordered vide this order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶42

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.20,99,276/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Ninety Nine Thousand Two

¶43

OA/1022/2022 CANARA BANK Vs SMT BANDANA KUMARI AND OTHERS

¶44

¶45

Hundred and Seventy Six Only) with current and future simple interest @6% per annum w.e.f. 24.05.2022, 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. The applicant bank is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶46

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶47

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 05.03.2024.

¶48

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

¶49

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

Canara Bank v. Smt. Bandana Kumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Smt. Bandana Kumari

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

Ashrafudheen K versus Urban Co. operative Bnak Ltd.

Punjab National Bank versus M/s Jai Bihar Enterprises and others

Hdfc Bank versus Amandeep Singh Yadav

M S Firozabad Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. versus Bank of Baroda

Karanjit Singh versus Canara Bank

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Ajit Ved Parkash