Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Balvir Singh and Another

DRT24 Apr 2024OA/142/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application for recovery of Rs. 29.66 lakhs against borrower and guarantor. After finding evidence unrebutted, the Tribunal ordered payment with interest reduced to 10% p.a. via its discretion.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 29,66,060.15 plus interest at 10% p.a. ordered. Rural Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the declaration of recovery and issued Recovery Certificate to be executed.

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Balvir Singh and Another — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.142/2022 PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 10.01.2022

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 24.04.2024

¶5

Union Bank of India, a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act No. V of 1970, carrying on Banking Business and having its Head Office at 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-200021 in the State of Maharashtra and its Branch Office inter-alia at Union Bank Of India, Sangrur Branch, Patiala Gate, Sangrur, District Sangrur, Punjab through its Branch Manager cum duly constituted attorney Sh. Lalit Yadav. ……..Applicant Versus 1. Sh. Balvir Singh S/o Sh. Chand Singh, R/o Village Chathe Sekhwan, Tehsil & District Sangrur, Punjab (Borrower) 2. Sh. Harpreet Singh S/o Sh. Ajaib Singh, R/o Village Chathe Sekhwan, Tehsil & District Sangrur, Punjab (Guarantor) ………Defendants Advocates: Sh. Ms. Karuna Kumari Dogra, Advocate for the Applicant Defendants are ex-parte FINAL ORDER 1. Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.29,66,060.15p (Rupees Twenty Nine Lacs Sixty Six Thousand Sixty and Paisa Fifteen only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Lalit Yadav, Branch Manager o f the applicant bank, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide General Power of Attorney dated 15.12.2014, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶6

¶7

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant No.1 had approached the applicant bank for the grant of Cash Credit(Agriculture) Limit of Rs.20.00 Lacs under UGC Scheme vide Loan Application dated 12.06.2018, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. 3. The applicant Bank sanctioned the Cash Credit(Agriculture) Limit of Rs.20.00 Lacs under UGC Scheme vide Sanction Letter dated 14.06.2018, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. 4. Defendant No.1 had mortgaged his immovable properties i.e. total land measuring 26 Bigha- 8 Biswa situated at Village Chattha Sekhwan, Tehsil and District Sangrur, Punjab vide Registered Mortgage Deed bearing vasika No. 856 dated 06.06.2014 along with its Translation, which are Annexures A12 & A13 to this OA. Documents executed:- Demand Promissory Note, Hypothecation Agreement for Agriculture Advance, Declaration/Undertaking for agriculture Advance, Deed of Guarantee, Letter of Continuity, Agreement of Rate of Interest, Letter of Agreement and Simple Loan Agreement all dated 14.06.2018, which are Annexures A4 to A11 to this OA; Affidavit by Mortgagor dated 09.06.2014 along with its Translation, which is Annexure A14 to this OA; Title Search Report dated 04.06.2014, which is Annexure A15 to this OA; Collector rate with Calculation, which is Annexure A16 to this OA; Overdue Letter with postal receipt, which is Annexure A17 to this OA; Recall/ Legal Notice dated 05.02.2021 with postal receipt, which is Annexure A18 to this OA and Statement of account and Certificate by In-Charge Computer System, which are Annexures A19 and A20 to this OA. 5. 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.29,66,060.15p, 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.

¶8

¶9

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 12.03.2024.

¶10

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Lalit Yadav, Branch Manager, Union Bank of India has been filed.

¶11

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶12

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 A20 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. Rs.29,66,060.15p (Rupees Twenty Nine Lacs Sixty Six Thousand Sixty and Paisa Fifteen 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.

¶13

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has claimed interest @14.50%p.a. (inclusive of Penal Interest @2%p.a.) with yearly rests from 01.11.2021 till the realization.

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @10.00%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 defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.29,66,060.15p (Rupees Twenty Nine Lacs Sixty Six Thousand Sixty and Paisa Fifteen only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @10.00%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.

¶17

Any other application pending stands disposed of. 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 01.05.2024. 15. 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.

¶18

Pronounced by me in the Open Tribunal. Dated: 24.04.2024

¶19

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

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Balvir Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Balvir 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

Canara Bank versus Sh. Bohar Singh and Another

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Ranjit Singh

Icici Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Parminder Singh

Punjab National Bank versus M/s Bansal Rice Mill and Others

Canara Bank versus Sh. Mukhtiar Singh

Bank of Baroda versus M/s Geeta Enterprise and Others