Allowed

Bank of India v. Sh. Dilbagh Singh @ Dalbagh Singh

DRT7 Aug 2024OA/1322/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the original application filed by Bank of India for recovery of Rs.35.49 lakhs against the borrower and guarantor, holding them jointly and severally liable with simple interest at 8% per annum from the date of filing.

What did the court decide?

Declaration that defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.35,49,874.49p with simple interest @8% p.a. from filing date till realization via Recovery Certificate.

Bank of India versus Sh. Dilbagh Singh @ Dalbagh Singh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1322/2023

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 02.11.2023

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 07.08.2024

¶6

Bank of India, a Body Corporate Constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act No.V of 1970, having its Head Office at “Star House” C-5, Block-G, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 and Branch Office amongst other places at Jagraon, Distt. Ludhiana, through Sh. Rajesh kumar, Branch Manager, Authorized by Applicant Bank.

¶7

……..Applicant Versus 1. Sh. Dilbagh Singh @ Dalbagh Singh S/o Sh. Jaswant Singh, R/o Village Bodalwala, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana. (Borrower/Mortgagor) 2. Sh. Ashok Kumar S/o Sh. Babu Ram, R/o H. no. 1396, Gali no.1, Lajpat Rai Road, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana (Guarantor) ….……Defendants Advocates: Argued by Ms. Puja Sharma, Advocate 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.35,49,874.49p (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs Forty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Four and Forty Nine Paise only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Rajesh kumar, Branch Manager of the applicant bank, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Authority Letter dated 30.09.2023, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶8

¶9

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant no.1 had approached the applicant bank for the grant of KCC Limit of Rs.15.00 Lacs vide Loan application dated 18.06.2012, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. Defendant No.2 stood as guarantor.

¶10

The applicant Bank sanctioned the KCC Limit of Rs.15.00 Lacs vide Sanction Letter dated 05.07.2012, which is Annexure A4 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶11

Defendants No.1 had mortgaged his immovable property i.e., land measuring 23K-19M was situated at Village Bodalwala, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana vide Registered Mortgaged Deed bearing vasika no.1767 dated 27.06.2012 along with its Translation, which is Annexure A8 & A8T to this OA.

¶12

Documents executed:- I.D. Proof of defendants in File 3, which is Annexure A3 to this OA; Demand Promissory Note, Hypothecationcum-loan Agreement, Deed of Guarantee and Agreement all dated 05.07.2012, which are Annexures A5 to A7 & A9 to this OA; Acknowledgment of Debts dated 25.11.2014, 25.05.2016, 25.05.2018 and 08.04.2021, which are Annexures A10 to A13 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 20.02.2023 with postal receipts, which is Annexure A14 to this OA and Statement of account with certificate, which is Annexure A15 to this OA.

¶13

The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan account there was a debit of Rs.35,49,874.49p, 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. 6. 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 09.07.2024.

¶14

¶15

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Rajesh kumar, Branch Manager, Bank of India h as been filed.

¶16

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record. 9. It was argued by learned 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 A15 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant bank for availing of the loan facility which was 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, account of the defendants was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.35,49,874.49p (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs Forty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Four and Forty Nine Paise only) along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the account.

¶17

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has claimed interest @10.65%p.a. along with penal interest @2%p.a. with half yearly rests from 01.09.2023 till the realization.

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

the loan account from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶21

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.35,49,874.49p (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs Forty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Four and Forty Nine Paise only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00%p.a. in the loan account 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.

¶22

Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶23

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶24

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 30.08.2024.

¶25

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.

¶26

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal. Dated: 07.08.2024

¶27

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

Bank of India v. Sh. Dilbagh Singh @ Dalbagh Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Sh. Dilbagh Singh @ Dalbagh Singh

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

Central Bank of India versus Avtar Singh and Others

Punjab National Bank versus Amandeep Singh and others

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Palwinder Singh and Others

Canara Bank versus Gurnam Singh

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sh. Darshan Singh

Union Bank of India versus M/S v O Maggo Hosiery And Others