Allowed

Bank Of India v. Sh. Roop Singh @ Sh. Jagroop Singh and Another

DRT12 Jul 2024OA/1177/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's original application under Section 19 RDDBFI Act, 1993. The court ordered the respondents to repay Rs.22.46 Lacs along with uniform simple interest at 8.00% p.a. and directed the issuance of a Recovery Certificate for execution of the debt.

What did the court decide?

Declaration of joint and several liability to pay Rs.22,46,430.39 with simple interest at 8.00% p.a. and issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

Bank Of India versus Sh. Roop Singh @ Sh. Jagroop Singh and… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1177/2023 PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 11.09.2023 DATE OF DECISION: 12.07.2024 Bank Of India, a body corporate and a nationalized bank under the provisions of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act of 1970 with its Head Office at Bank Of India, Star House, C-5, “G” Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai400051 and amongst others a branch at Nihal Singh Wala, District Moga through Sh. Prasad Dwarka constituted Attorney of applicant Bank.

¶4

……..Applicant Versus 1. Sh. Roop Singh @ Sh. Jagroop Singh S/o Sh. Angrez Singh, R/o Village Dina, Tehsil Nihal Singh Wala, District Moga, Punjab Borrower/Mortgagor 2. Sh. Bhupinder Singh S/o Sh. Darshan Singh, R/o Village Dina, Tehsil Nihal Singh Wala, District Moga Punjab Guarantor/Defendant ….……Defendants Advocates: Argued by Ms. Sonal Chabra, counsel proxy for Sh. Pankaj Beri, counsel for the applicant Defendants are ex-parte FINAL ORDER 1. Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.22,46,430.39p (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Forty Six Thousand Four Hundred Thirty and Paisa Thirty Nine only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Prasad Dwarka, constituted Attorney o f the applicant bank, who is competent to institute the Original Application

¶5

¶6

vide Power of Attorney dated 05.12.2016, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶7

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendants no.1 had approached the applicant bank for the grant of Cash Credit Limit (KCC) of Rs.10.00 Lacs and Over Draft Limit (Mortgaged Loan) of Rs. 5.00 Lacs vide Loan Applications dated 18.03.2014, which is Annexure A3 to this OA. Defendant no.2 stood as guarantor.

¶8

The applicant Bank sanctioned the Cash Credit Limit (KCC) of Rs.10.00 Lacs and sanctioned Over Draft Limit (Mortgaged Loan) of Rs. 5.00 Lacs vide Sanction Letter dated 04.04.2014, which is Annexure A2 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶9

Defendants No.1 had mortgaged his immovable property i.e. total land measuring 30K-04M situated at Village Dina, Tehsil Nihal Singh Wala, District Moga (Punjab) vide Registered Mortgaged Deed bearing v asika No.32 dated 0 7.04.2014 along with its Translations, which is Annexure A10 to this OA.

¶10

Documents executed:- Demand Promissory Note (Crop Loan), Hypothecation cum Loan agreement, Demand Promissory Note (Mortgage Loan), Letter of Declaration, Undertaking & Authority, Agreement (L516) and Deed of Guarantee all dated 12.04.2014, which are Annexures A4 to A9 to this OA; Acknowledgments of Debt and Securities dated 08.08.2016, 29.11.2018 and 25.11.2021 which are Annexures A11 to A16 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 08.08.2023 with postal receipts, which is Annexure A17 to this OA and Statement of account (Crop Loan) and (Mortgage Loan) with certificates, which are Annexures A18 & A19 to this OA.

¶11

The loan accounts became irregular and were classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in both the loan accounts there was a debit of Rs.22,46,430.39p, which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notices but they did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant bank requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶12

¶13

The defendants were served notices to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte on 07.05.2024.

¶14

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Prasad Dwarka, constituted Attorney, Bank of India has been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record. 9. It was argued by learned proxy counsel that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant bank had proved its case. From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A19 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant bank for availing of the loan facilities which were granted to them and for that they had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. The defendants failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, both the accounts of the defendants were classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.22,46,430.39p (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Forty Six Thousand Four Hundred Thirty and Paisa Thirty Nine only) along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of both the accounts. 10. In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has claimed interest @11.65%p.a. in KCC and @13.65%p.a. in Over Draft with half yearly rests from 02.08.2023 till the realization. The Tribunal is of the considered opinion that sometimes in appropriate cases the prerogative of mercy is the brightest jewel in the crown of the Judge. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case including nature of the mortgaged property, undertaking of the defendants, quantum of loan and prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yester years, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @8.00%p.a. in

¶15

¶16

both the loan accounts from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly. 11. In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.22,46,430.39p (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Forty Six Thousand Four Hundred Thirty and Paisa Thirty Nine only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00%p.a. in both the loan accounts from the date of filing of OA till the date of realization of the amount. Accordingly, the applicant bank shall be entitled to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of hypothecated/mortgaged properties of the defendants in execution proceedings if not sold earlier under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. If the dues of the bank still remain unsatisfied, it shall be entitled to recover the same by attachment and sale of personal assets of the defendants. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law. 12. Any other application pending stands disposed of. 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶17

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 01.08.2024.

¶18

Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant bank and be sent to defendants through registered/speed post and this order be also uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal and record be consigned.

¶19

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 12.07.2024

¶20

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Bank Of India v. Sh. Roop Singh @ Sh. Jagroop Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank Of India v. Sh. Roop Singh @ Sh. Jagroop Singh and Another

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

Union Bank of India versus Messrs K R Handloom and Others

Inder Mohan versus Au Small Finance Bank Limited and Another

Jagdeep Singh and Another versus Tata Capital Finance Ltd.

Indian Bank versus M/S Anisha Embroidery and Another

Bank of India versus Malook Singh and Another

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Satnam Singh and Another