Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Nishan Singh

DRT21 Aug 2024OA/289/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The debt recovery tribunal allowed the application filed by Union Bank of India to recover Rs.24,01,714.23 from two defendants who failed to repay a KCC loan. The court directed the issue of a recovery certificate and ordered the bank to recover the dues including uniform simple interest at 8% p.a. from the sale of mortgaged or personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Order to pay Rs.24,01,714.23 jointly and severally with costs and interest at 8% p.a.; Issue Recovery Certificate; Liberty to enforce claim.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.289/2023 PRESIDED OVER BYMRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 13.02.2023

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 21.08.2024.

¶5

Union Bank of India, a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act No V of 1970 and having its Head Office at 239,Vidhan Bhawan Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 and branch amongst others, one at Sunam, District Sangrur through Shri Aditya Tripathi, Branch Manager, Principal officer and duly Constituted Attorney of the Bank.

¶6

……..Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Nishan Singh S/o Sh. Ajit Singh, Resident of Village Daska, Tehsil Lehra District Sangrur (Punjab)

¶9

Sh. Mahinder Singh S/o Sh. Ajit Singh, Resident of Village Daska, Tehsil Lehra District Sangrur (Punjab)

¶10

….……Defendants

¶11

Advocates:

¶12

Argued by Sh. P.S.Sobti, Advocate for the Applicant (through VC) Defendants already 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 defendants for recovery of Rs.24,01,714.23p (Rupees Twenty Four Lakh One Thousand Seven Hundred Fourteen And Paisa Twenty Three Only). The Original Application has been filed through Shri Aditya Tripathi, Branch Manager of the applicant bank, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide General Power of Attorney dated 07.06.2010 which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶15

¶16

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant No.1 had approached the applicant bank for the grant of KCC Limit of Rs.10.00 Lacs vide Loan Application dated 25.06.2014.

¶17

The applicant Bank sanctioned the KCC Limit of Rs.10.00 Lacs vide Sanction Letter dated 25.06.2014, which is Annexure A2 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. 4. Defendants No.1 had mortgaged his immovable properties i.e. total land measuring 24 Kanal 06 Marla situated at village Daska, Tehsil Lehra and District Sangrur vide Registered Mortgage Deed bearing V asika No.1019 and Report of Halqa Patwari with its Translation both dated 24.06.2014, which are Annexure A10 to A11A to this OA.

¶18

Documents executed:- DP Note, Hypothecation Agreement, Declaration/Undertaking, Letter of Continuity, Agreement on rate of interest, Simple loan agreement, Guarantee Agreement all dated 25.06.2014, w hich are Annexure A3 to A9 to this OA; Notice all dated 13.05.2016, 27.04.2018 and 19.10.2019 with translation and Postal Receipts, which are Annexures A12 to A14 to this OA; Balance confirmation letter dated 23.05.2017, which is Annexure A15 to this OA and statement of account and Memoranda of Statement of account with certificate dated 10.02.2023, which are Annexures A16 and A17 to this OA

¶19

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.24,01,714.23 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. 6. 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 27.03.2024.

¶20

¶21

In support of the OA, affidavit of Shri Aditya Tripathi, Branch Manager, Union Bank of India has been filed.

¶22

Heard ex parte arguments and perused record.

¶23

It was argued by learned counsel through Video

¶24

Conferencing 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 A17 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.24,01,714.23 (Rupees Twenty Four Lakh One Thousand Seven Hundred Fourteen And Paisa Twenty Three 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.

¶25

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has claimed interest @11.25%p.a. with monthly rests from 01.02.2023 the realization.

¶26

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 just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @8.00%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.

¶27

¶28

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.24,01,714.23 (Rupees Twenty Four Lakh One Thousand Seven Hundred Fourteen And Paisa Twenty Three Only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00%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. 12. Any other application pending stands disposed of. 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶29

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 12.09.2024.

¶30

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. Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 21.08.2024.

¶31

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

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Nishan Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Nishan Singh

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. Dhian Singh

Idbi Bank Limited versus Chamkaur Singh and Another

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Namisha Khanna and Others

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Late Sh. Parkash Singh

Icici Bank Limited versus Harkirat Singh and Others

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Harpal Singh