Allowed

Bank of India v. Sh. Mukesh Kumar Rana

DRT23 Jan 2024OA/278/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Bank of India for issuance of a recovery certificate against three defendants for a housing loan default. The court adjusted interest rates to 8% per annum after considering pandemic circumstances.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 21,39,030 plus 8% p.a. interest from 23.01.2023 till realization.

Bank of India versus Sh. Mukesh Kumar Rana — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.278/2023

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 23.01.2023

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 23^rd DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶5

Bank of India , a body corporate, constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, with its Head Office at Bank of India, Star House, C-5, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai, having Branches all over India and a Branch situated at Verma Building, Rajesh Colony, Jagadhri, District Yamunanagar, Haryana, through its Chief Manager-cumGeneral Power of Attorney, Smt. C.S. Rajani, posted at the Zonal Office of the Applicant Bank at Chandigarh

¶6

…..Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Mukesh Kumar Rana s/o Sh. Mohan Singh r/o House No. 1220/3, C-2, Ward No. 18, Ganga Nagar Colony, Jagadhri, District Yamunanagar, Haryana-135003

¶9

Second Address: c/o Electro Mac, Near Varidh Ashram, Buria Chowk, Jagadhri, District Yamunanagar, Haryana-135003

¶10

Sh. Robin Kumar s/o Sh. Mukesh Kumar r/o House No. 1220/3, C-2, Ward No. 18, Ganga Nagar Colony, Jagadhri, District Yamunanagar, Haryana-135003

¶11

Sh. Om Parkash s/o Sh. Mohan Singh r/o House No. 1220/3, C-2, Ward No. 18, Ganga Nagar Colony, Jagadhri, District Yamunanagar, Haryana-135003

¶12

…..Defendants

¶13

OA/278/2023 BANK OF INDIA Vs MUKESH KUMAR AND OTHERS 2

¶14

Argued by: Sh. Vikas Sharma proxy counsel for Sh. Varun Katyal counsel for the applicant bank (through VC) Defendants ex parte vide order 25.09.2023

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

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), against the defendants for recovery of Rs.21,39,030/(Rupees Twenty One Lakh Thirty Nine Thousand and Thirty Only) . It has been filed through Smt. C.S. Rajani, Chief Managercum- General Power of Attorney of the applicant bank stated to be competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 06.12.2021, Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶17

The brief facts of the case of the applicant as per Original Application are that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had approached the applicant bank for grant of Housing Term Loan Facility of Rs. 20 lakh vide loan application dated 30.12.2014, Annexure-A2 (copy). Defendant No. 3 stood as a guarantor for repayment of the loan amount.

¶18

The applicant bank sanctioned aforesaid facility to the defendants vide sanction letter dated 06.02.2015, Annexure-A3 (copy), as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶19

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facility, the defendants executed various loan and security documents, i.e. agreement dated 03.03.2015 for home loan, Annexure-A4 (copy), letter dated 03.03.2015 regarding terms and conditions, Annexure-

¶20

OA/278/2023 BANK OF INDIA Vs MUKESH KUMAR AND OTHERS 3

¶21

A5 (copy), letter dated 03.03.2015 regarding repayment of loan instalment, Annexure-A6 (copy) and deed of guarantee dated 03.03.2015, Annexure-A7 (copy).

¶22

The aforesaid loan facility was further secured by creation of mortgage by defendant No. 1 in respect of residential property bearing House No. 1220/3 measuring 7 Marla Hadbast No. 400 situated at ward No. 18, Ganga Nagar Colony, Jagadhri, District Yamunanagar, Haryana, fully detailed in para No. 5(vii) of the Original Application.

¶23

The documents relating to the mortgage are as under:

¶24

i. Registered mortgage deed dated 18.02.2015, Annexure-A8 (copy).

¶25

ii. Copy of ‘Jamabandi’ for the years 2009-2010, Annexure-A9 (copy).

¶26

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 31.05.2018. The defendants executed acknowledgement of debt/securities letters dated 28.02.2018 and 20.01.2021, Annexures-A10 and A11 (copy). The applicant bank recalled entire outstanding amount vide legal notice dated 12.01.2023, Annexure-A12 (copy), but to no avail.

¶27

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account, a sum of Rs.21,39,030/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakh Thirty Nine Thousand and Thirty Only) , is recoverable against the defendants

¶28

OA/278/2023 BANK OF INDIA Vs MUKESH KUMAR AND OTHERS 4

¶29

as per statement of account, certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891, Annexure-A13 (colly) (copy).

¶30

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

¶31

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 25.09.2023 .

¶32

In support of contents of the OA, affidavit of evidence of Smt. C.S. Rajani, Chief Manager-cum-General Power of

¶33

Attorney of the applicant bank was filed.

¶34

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

¶35

It was argued by the learned proxy 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 A13 , 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.21,39,030/- (Rupees Twenty One

¶36

OA/278/2023 BANK OF INDIA Vs MUKESH KUMAR AND OTHERS 5

¶37

Lakh Thirty Nine Thousand and Thirty Only) from the defendants.

¶38

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause, has claimed rate of interest @9.10% per annum plus penal interest @2% per annum. In sanction letter dated 06.02.2015, Annexure-A3 (copy), rate of interest has been mentioned @10.20% per annum.

¶39

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. Housing , 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 @8% per annum from the date of filing of the OA till realisation of the amount ordered vide this order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶40

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.21,39,030/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakh Thirty Nine Thousand and Thirty Only) with current and future simple interest @8% per annum w.e.f. 23.01.2023 , 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

¶41

OA/278/2023 BANK OF INDIA Vs MUKESH KUMAR AND OTHERS 6

¶42

proceedings, if not sold earlier under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial 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.

¶43

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶44

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 11.03.2024 .

¶45

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.

¶46

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

Bank of India v. Sh. Mukesh Kumar Rana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Sh. Mukesh Kumar Rana

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

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Bijender Kumar

Axis Bank versus M/S S. G. L. Traders

Ms Maniks salon and mangli kitchen rep by R Shiva Kumar versus Indusind Bank Limited

Dena Bank versus M/s Trident Tubes Limited.

Ms Sewa Enterprises versus Uco Bank

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Ravi Malik