Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Smt. Sheilja Kanwar

DRT31 Jan 2024OA/20/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's original application under Section 19 RDBFI Act, declaring the defendant liable to pay the outstanding loan amount with interest at 10% p.a., and directed the issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued. Defendant ordered to pay Rs.35,03,377.99p plus costs and simple interest at 10% p.a. from filing date till realization.

Union Bank of India versus Smt. Sheilja Kanwar — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2024)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.20/2022

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 13.10.2021

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 31.01.2024

¶6

Union Bank of India, a body corporate, constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act No.V of 1970, carrying on Banking business and having its Head Office at 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 in the State of Maharashtra and its Branch Office inter-alia at Union Bank of India, Zirakpur Branch, near N K Sharma Group of Companies, Show Room no.5-6, Chiranji Enclave, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, Punjab through its Branch Head cum duly Constituted attorney, Ms. Shalini Sharma

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Smt. Sheilja Kanwar W/o Late Sh. Dinesh Raj Sharma, Legal Representative (LR) of Sh. Dinesh Raj Sharma (since deceased), R/o Flat no.A4, Block F-2, Kanwar Ashianna, Prem Nagar, Near HRTC Workshop, Ward no.1, Una (H.P.) 174303

¶10

(Borrower/LR) ………Defendant

¶11

Advocates:

¶12

Argued by Ms. Lovedeep Kaur, counsel proxy for Ms. Karuna Kumari Dogra, counsel for the applicant Defendant is ex-parte

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

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.35,03,377.99p (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs Three Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Seven and Ninety Nine Paisa only). The Original Application has been filed Ms. Shalini Sharma, Branch Manager of the applicant bank, who is competent to institute the Original Application

¶15

¶16

vide Authority Letter dated 13.08.2021, which is Annexure A1 to this OA. 2. The brief facts of the OA are that Late Sh. Dinesh Raj Sharma and defendant had approached the applicant bank for the grant of Housing loan of Rs.45.00 Lacs vide Loan Application dated 12.03.2019, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. 3. The applicant Bank sanctioned the Housing loan of Rs.45.00 Lacs vide Sanction Letter dated 14.03.2019, which is Annexure A3 to this OA; and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by Late Sh. Dinesh Raj Sharma and defendant. 4. Defendant had mortgaged her immovable property i.e. Residential Apartment no.412 on 4^th floor, type 3BHK in Tower/Block T-18 also called as “Meadows” having super area of admeasuring 1502 sq. ft., carpet area of 998 sq. ft. in ATHENS-I; situated at Village Ramgarh Bhuda, Hadbast no.42, Tehsil Derabassi, District SAS Nagar, Punjab vide Tripartite Agreement and Letter for permission to mortgage dated 31.05.2019, which are Annexures A10 and A11 to this OA. Documents executed:- D.P. Note, Simple Agreement AD-02A, Letter of Undertaking by borrowers, Letter of Continuity and Interest Agreement all dated 31.05.2019, which are Annexures A4 to A8 to this OA; Allotment letter dated 12.07.2018, which is Annexure A9 to this OA; Legal search report dated 27.07.2018, which is Annexure A12 to this OA; Project Valuation report dated 07.02.2018, which is Annexure A13 to this OA; Legal notice dated 09.04.2021, which is Annexure A14 to this OA and Statement of account along with Certificate of Banker’s Book of Evidence Act, which are Annexures A15 and A16 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.35,03,377.99p, which is recoverable and the defendant was served recall notice but she did not repay the outstanding amount,

¶17

¶18

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

¶19

The defendant was served notice to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendant and she was proceeded ex-parte on 04.01.2024. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Ms. Shalini Sharma, Branch Manager, Union Bank of India has been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶20

It was argued by learned proxy 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 A16 to this OA, it is proved that Late Sh. Dinesh Raj Sharma and defendant 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. After the death of Sh. Dinesh Raj Sharma, 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.35,03,377.99p (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs Three Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Seven and Ninety Nine Paisa only) along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the account.

¶21

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has claimed interest @10.70%p.a. (inclusive of @2%p.a. penal interest) with monthly rests from 01.10.2021 till the realization.

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

of the defendant, 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 @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 defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.35,03,377.99p (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs Three Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Seven and Ninety Nine Paisa only) 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 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.

¶25

Any other application pending stands disposed of. 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶26

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 14.02.2024. 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.

¶27

Pronounced by me in the Open Tribunal

¶28

Dated: 31.01.2024

¶29

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

Union Bank of India v. Smt. Sheilja Kanwar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Smt. Sheilja Kanwar

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

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Joginder Singh

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Sukhdarshan Singh and Another

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Sukhpal Singh and Another

Icici Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Rajesh Kumar Yadav and Others

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sh. Sukhwinder Singh and Others

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Durga Enterprises and Another