Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Prasanna Kumar Patel

DRT13 Feb 2024OA/1529/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application for recovery of dues. The court held the defendants jointly and severally liable to pay principal, interest, and costs. A recovery certificate was ordered under Section 19(2) of the RDB Act, and defendants were restrained from alienating properties.

What did the court decide?

Parties ordered to pay Rs. 21,15,000 with interest and costs; Recovery Certificate issued; injunction against alienating properties.

Union Bank of India versus Prasanna Kumar Patel — Cheque Dishonour | DRT (2024)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL : JABALPUR

¶2

(for the States of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh)

¶3

(Presiding Officer - Hon'bte Shri Ram Niwas Patet)

¶4

Original Application No. - 1529122

¶5

Union Bank of lndia, Gopat Bagh, Jabatpur

¶6

Appticant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Prasanna Kumar Patet,

¶9

01 ) S/o Shri Narayan Singh Patel, R/o P/38-A, Professor Cotony, Patan Road, Jabatpur (M.P.); Atso at: Village-Beohari, Padaria, Katangi, Tehsil-Patan, Jabatpur (M.P.)

¶10

1. Parmeshwar Dayat, S/o Shri Ramji, R/o 68, Archa Patan, District-Jabatpur^(M. P. )

¶11

1. Virendra Singh, S/o Shri Mohan, R/o Ramsataiya, Jabera, District-Jabatpur^(M. P. )

¶12

Defendants

¶13

Counsel for the Appticant : Shri Amit Garg, Advocate

¶14

Defendants : Ex-parte

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

(Dated : 13th February, 2024)

¶17

The Appticant-Bank has fited the present Originat Apptication u/s 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act on 30l12lZZ against the Defendants for recovery of Rs. 21,15,000.00 (Rupees Twenty One Lac and Fifteen Thousand onty) atong with interest and other retiefs as stated.

¶18

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of Defendant No,-1, the Applicant Bank sanctioned KCC Loan of Rs. 15 Lac on 01 /07/16 and in consideration of the same the Defendant No.-1 as borrower and Defendant No.-2 & 3 as guarantors in addition to execution of loan and guarantee documents have atso created mortgage over the immovabte property, i.e., A[[ the piece and parcel of [and comprised in Khasra No.' 16612, area 9.71 hect.; situated at PH No.-09120, Mauza-Beohari (Padariya 091201, Tehsit-Patan, District-Jabatpur (M.P.), RIN Pustika No. L-JA-017355; betonging to Defendant No.-1. The Defendants avaited the credit facitities

¶19

¶20

oA 1529/22

¶21

but faited to liquidate the outstanding dues despite issuance of several Notices and lastly on 01 110122 by the Appticant Bank. The Appticant-Bank has retied upon the documents at Ex. A-1 to A-17 which were proved by Shri Prateek Yadav, Manager/Branch Head.

¶22

Despite service of notice, the Defendants neither appeared nor fited written statement. They were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 15/12/23. There is therefore, no reason to disbelieve the contentions of the Bank. Considering the facts of the case, I opine that the Defendants are jointty and severatty liabte to pay the claim amount together with interest and costs. The Appticant-Bank in its apptication has ctaimed interest @12,'10y"^p.a. with monthty rests. However, I feel it fair and reasonable to grant interest @12% p.a. simpte pendentelite and future titt realization of the dues. The mortgaged property is tiabte to be sotd for recovery of amount due atong with the personal properties and assets of the Defendants.

¶23

The Originat Apptication is attowed and it is ordered as underi) The Defendants do pay jointty and severalty Rs. 21,15,000.00 (Rupees Twenty One Lac and Fifteen Thousand onty) together with pendentetite and future interest @12% per annum simple from the date of fiting of the OA, i.e.,30112122, with costs titl its reatization.

¶24

ii) The Appticant Bank is entitled to setl the mortgaged as welt as personal properties and assets of the Defendants for realization of its dues. The Defendants are hereby restrained by means of injunction from depleting, transferring, encumbering, atienating or in any way dea[ing with their properties/assets without first paying the ctaim of the Appticant Bank.

¶25

iii) A Recovery Certificate be issued uls 19(22) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act. The appticant bank may file a memo of cost within 7 days for preparing Recovery Certificate.

¶26

Judgment pronounced in the open court on this 13th Day of February, 2024.

¶27

\ 2^{.2 ,>h} (Ra m Niwas Patet) Presidine Officer

Union Bank of India v. Prasanna Kumar Patel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Prasanna Kumar Patel

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

Bank of Baroda versus Rashanwala Food Proceesing Pvt. Ltd.

Gajendra Mehra versus Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank

Punjab National Bank versus Manish Sharma

Mr Joginder Singh Bhatiya Son of Shri Saudagar Singh versus Iifl Home Finance Limited

Shri Vijay Gupta versus Idbi Bank

Bank of Baroda versus M.S Shri Jai Traders