Allowed

Punjab National Bank v. Smt. Deepti Juneja

DRT26 Jul 2024OA/1371/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT-III, Chandigarh allowed an original application by Punjab National Bank, proceeding ex-parte against a borrower, to recover ₹54.67 Lacs. The Tribunal granted uniform simple interest at 8% p.a. and authorized enforcement through sale of hypothecated assets or attachment of personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; defendant liable to pay ₹54,67,216.41 with simple interest at 8% p.a.; Recovery Certificate issued.

Punjab National Bank versus Smt. Deepti Juneja — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1371/2022

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 28.04.2022

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 26.07.2024

¶6

Punjab National Bank, a body corporate and a nationalized Bank constituted under the provisions of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 5 of 1970 with its Head Office at Plot No.4, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi 110075 and amongst others a branch at SPS Apollo Hospital, Dholewal Chowk, Ludhiana, Punjab through Sh. Ravinder Kumar Juneja, Senior Manager and Attorney holder

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Smt. Deepti Juneja W/o Sh. Harpreet Singh, Proprietor M/s IB Steel Sales, situated at 1097, Street No.8, Dashmesh Nagar, Gill Road, Ludhiana-141003 (Borrower)

¶10

2^nd Address : House No.1023, Street No.7, Dashmesh Nagar, Gill Road, Ludhiana-141003

¶11

….……Defendant

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

Argued by Ms. Rajni Narula, Advocate for the applicant Defendant is ex-parte

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

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 defendant for recovery of Rs.54,67,216.41p (Rupees Fifty Four Lacs Sixty Seven Thousand Two Hundred Sixteen and Forty One Paise only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Ravinder Kumar Juneja, Senior Manager o f the applicant bank, who is competent to institute the Original

¶16

¶17

Application vide General Power of Attorney dated 05.06.1997, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶18

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant proprietor of firm by the name and style of M/s I B Steel Sales was already availing CC Limit (Covered under CGTMSE) of Rs.50 Lacs and had approached the applicant bank for its renewal of Rs.50.00 Lacs vide Loan application dated 11.01.2021, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. 3. The applicant Bank sanctioned renewal of CC Limit of Rs.50.00 Lacs vide Sanction Letter dated 31.03.2021, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant. 4. Defendant had hypothecated her movable property i.e., hypothecation of all kinds of Various Materials i.e. Manufacturing material, stocks of raw material including Excisable raw materials, stock in process, semi-finished goods, Finished goods(including bought out finished goods and Book debts, outstanding decrees, money receivables, government subsidies, claims, bill contracts and investments etc. vide Hypothecation of Goods and Book Debts to Secure Cash Credit Facility dated 31.03.2021, which is Annexure A5 to this OA.

¶19

Documents executed:- Demand Promissory Note and Master Agreement both dated 31.03.2021, which are Annexures A4 & A6 to this OA; Balance and Security Confirmation Letters dated 03.03.2015, 09.11.2017, 07.03.2018 and 05.12.2019, which are Annexures A7 to A10 to this OA; Notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act dated 10.01.2022 with postal receipts, which is Annexure A11 to this OA and Statement of account duly certified, which is Annexure A12 to this OA.

¶20

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.54,67,216.41p, which is recoverable and the defendant was served recall notice but he did not repay the outstanding amount,

¶21

¶22

therefore, the applicant bank requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶23

The defendant was served notice to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendant and he was proceeded exparte on 21.05.2024.

¶24

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Ravinder Kumar Juneja, Senior Manager, Punjab National Bank h as been filed. 8. 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 A12 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant approached applicant bank for availing of the loan facility which was granted to him and for that he had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. The defendant failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, account of the defendant 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.54,67,216.41p (Rupees Fifty Four Lacs Sixty Seven Thousand Two Hundred Sixteen and Forty One Paise only) along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the account.

¶25

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has claimed interest @15.55%p.a. along penal interest with @2%p.a. with monthly rests from 01.04.2022 till the realization.

¶26

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 defendant, quantum of loan and prevalent market rates of

¶27

¶28

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 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. 11. In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.54,67,216.41p (Rupees Fifty Four Lacs Sixty Seven Thousand Two Hundred Sixteen and Forty One Paise only), 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 defendant 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 defendant. 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. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 17.08.2024. 15. Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant bank and be sent to defendant through registered/speed post and this order be also uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal and record be consigned. Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 26.07.2024 (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Punjab National Bank v. Smt. Deepti Juneja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. Smt. Deepti Juneja

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

Canara Bank versus Gurinderjit Singh and Another

Idbi Bank Limited versus Sh. Karnail Singh

Canara Bank versus Dilbag Singh and Another

Axis Bank Ltd. (earlier Uti Bank Ltd.), versus Sh. Jarnail Singh and Others

Union Bank of India (Erstwhile Corporation Bank), versus Baljeet Singh and Others

Indian Bank versus Bhagwan Singh and Another