Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S Bansal Zever Mahal

DRT9 Jan 2024OA/1970/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application ex-parte, holding defendants liable for the outstanding loan principal and future simple interest, while authorising recovery from mortgaged assets or personal property.

What did the court decide?

Original Application allowed; defendants liable to pay Rs. 33,29,695.38 with interest at 10% p.a. w.e.f. 02.11.2022; Recovery Certificate issued; liberty to recover from mortgaged or personal assets.

Canara Bank versus M/S Bansal Zever Mahal — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2024)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, CHANDIGARH, PRESIDED OVER BY M.M. DHONCHAK

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1970/2022 DATE OF INSTITUTION: 02.11.2022

¶3

DATE OF DECISION: 09^th DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶4

Canara Bank , a body corporate under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, having its head office at 112, J.C. Road, Banglore-560002 and amongst others a Branch at Sector-16, Faridabad, Haryana

¶5

…..Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s Bansal Zever Mahal, through its Proprietor, Sh. Vijay Bansal, at 126 B, Jawahar Colony, NIT Faridabad, Harayana-121005, PAN No. AORPB8536P

¶8

Sh. Vijay Bansal, Proprietor of M/s Bansal Zever Mahal, s/o Sh. Babu Ram Bansal r/o House No. 3537/10, Jawahar Colony, NIT Faridabad, Haryana-121005, PAN No. AORPB8536P

¶9

…..Defendants

¶10

Argued by: Ms Vandna Bhatia counsel for the applicant bank (through VC) Defendants ex parte vide order 24.08.2023

¶11

FINAL ORDER

¶12

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity), a gainst the defendants for recovery of Rs.33,29,695.38/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lakh Twenty Nine

¶13

OA/1970/2022 CANARA BANK Vs M/S BANSAL ZEVER MAHAL AND ANOTHER 2

¶14

Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Five and Thirty Eight Paisa Only) . It has been filed through Sh. Ashish Malik, Authorised Representative of the applicant bank stated to be competent to institute the Original Application vide General Power of Attorney, Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶15

The brief facts of the case of the applicant as per Original Application are that defendant No. 1 through defendant No. 2, had approached the applicant bank for grant of Cash Credit Facility of Rs. 45 lakh.

¶16

The applicant bank sanctioned aforesaid facility to the defendants vide sanction letter dated 10.10.2019, Annexure-A2 (copy), as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶17

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facility, the defendants executed various loans and security documents, i.e. undertaking dated 10.10.2019 regarding rate of interest, AnnexureA3 (copy), cash credit agreement dated 10.10.2019, Annexure-A4 (copy), request for overdraft facilities dated 10.10.2019, AnnexureA5 (copy), pronote dated 10.10.2019, Annexure-A6 (copy), letter dated 10.10.2019 of proprietorship, Annexure-A8 (copy), undertaking dated 10.10.2019 not to divert funds, Annexure-A9 (copy) and letter dated 10.10.2019 of undertaking not to avail OCC facility elsewhere, Annexure-A10 (copy).

¶18

The aforesaid facility was further secured by creation of mortgage by defendant No. 2 in respect of property bearing plot No. 126 B and 127 A, situated in the revenue estate of (Mauza) Saran,

¶19

OA/1970/2022 CANARA BANK Vs M/S BANSAL ZEVER MAHAL AND ANOTHER 3

¶20

Tehsil and District, Faridabad, Haryana, fully detailed in Para No. 5.7 of the Original Application.

¶21

The documents relating to the mortgage are as under:

¶22

i. Affidavit dated 26.09.2019 regarding mortgaged property, Annexure-A7 (copy).

¶23

ii. Letter dated 10.10.2019 by mortgagor to the bank evidencing deposit of title deed, Annexure-A11 (copy).

¶24

iii. Registered Sale deed dated 28.06.2017 and transfer deed dated 01.03.2017, Annexure-A12 (colly) (copy).

¶25

It is further the case of the applicant bank that the loan facility was duly availed of by the defendants but they failed to maintain the financial discipline of the applicant bank leading to the loan account becoming irregular and it being classified as NPA on 08.04.2022. The defendants executed acknowledgement of debt and security letter dated 29.04.2022, Annexure-A15 (copy). The applicant bank recalled entire outstanding amount vide notice dated 26.07.2022 under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, Annexure-A13 (copy), but to no avail.

¶26

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account, a sum of Rs.33,29,695.38/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lakh Twenty Nine Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Five and Thirty Eight Paisa

¶27

Only) , is recoverable against the defendants as per statement of account, certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891, Annexure-A14 (colly) (copy).

¶28

OA/1970/2022 CANARA BANK Vs M/S BANSAL ZEVER MAHAL AND ANOTHER 4

¶29

Since the defendants did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant bank preferred the present Original Application for issuance of Recovery Certificate.

¶30

Notices of the Original Application were duly served upon the defendants, but since none appeared on behalf of the defendants, thus, the defendants were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 24.08.2023 .

¶31

In support of contents of the OA, affidavit of evidence of Sh. Ashish Malik, Authorised Officer of the applicant bank was filed.

¶32

This Tribunal has heard ex-parte arguments advanced by the learned counsel and gone through the record carefully.

¶33

It was argued by the learned counsel that in view of unrebutted documentary evidence brought on record, the applicant bank had proved its case against the defendants for recovery of the amount sought. From perusal of Annexures-A1 to A15 , it is clear that the defendants had approached the applicant bank for availing of the loan facility which was granted to them. It is further clear that the defendants had executed all the relevant documents as stated above in favour of the applicant bank. Unfortunately, the defendants failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement executed between the parties. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.33,29,695.38/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lakh Twenty Nine Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Five and Thirty Eight Paisa Only) from the defendants.

¶34

OA/1970/2022 CANARA BANK Vs M/S BANSAL ZEVER MAHAL AND ANOTHER 5

¶35

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause, has claimed rate of interest @10.95% per annum. In sanction letter dated 10.10.2019, Annexure-A2 (copy), rate of interest has been mentioned @10.95% per annum.

¶36

This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that sometimes in appropriate cases the prerogatives of mercy and magnanimity are the brightest jewels in the crown of the Judge. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case including the Pandemic Covid-19 affecting businesses, nature of the mortgaged property, purpose of loan, i.e. business , quantum of loan, prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yesteryears, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @10% per annum from the date of filing of the OA till realisation of the amount ordered vide this order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶37

In the result, the Original Application is allowed with costs holding that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum of Rs.33,29,695.38/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lakh Twenty Nine Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Five and Thirty Eight Paisa Only) with current and future simple interest @10% per annum w.e.f. 02.11.2022 , till the date of realisation of the amount. The liability of the defendants shall be joint as well as several. Accordingly, the applicant bank shall be at liberty to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of mortgaged/hypothecated property of the defendants in execution proceedings, if not sold earlier under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial

¶38

OA/1970/2022 CANARA BANK Vs M/S BANSAL ZEVER MAHAL AND ANOTHER 6

¶39

Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 or otherwise. If the dues of the bank still remain unsatisfied, the applicant bank shall be at liberty to recover the same by attachment and sale of personal assets of the defendants. However, the applicant bank is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶40

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶41

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 29.02.2024 .

¶42

Copy of this order be sent to the applicant bank and the defendants through registered/speed post. This order be uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal.

¶43

Pronounced in the open Tribunal (M.M. Dhonchak) Presiding Officer DRT-2, Chandigarh

Canara Bank v. M/S Bansal Zever Mahal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S Bansal Zever Mahal

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

Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank) versus M/S Om Jai Vishnu Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Punjab National Bank versus M/s Koshila Enterprises and Others

Uco Bank versus Ms Satyendra Kumar Singh

Hdfc Bank versus M/S V.S. Construction

Union Bank of India versus M/S Garv Impex

Ajay Kumar versus Shubham Housing Development Finance Co.Ltd