Allowed

Indian Bank v. Punjab State Federation of Co-Operative House Building Society Limited (Housefed)

DRT4 Mar 2024OA/313/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of Rs. 22,07,12,322/- with interest against the respondents, who were admitted to have defaulted on a term loan secured by a floating charge. The order directed the issuance of a recovery certificate for sale of assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 22,07,12,322/- with interest @10.80% p.a. allowed; Recovery Certificate issued for sale of properties.

Indian Bank versus Punjab State Federation of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 313 of 2022 Date of Institution:08.02.2022 Date of Decision: 04.03.2024

¶4

Indian Bank at SCO Nos. 49-50, Third Floor, Bank Square, Sector-17B, Chandigarh

¶5

……..Applicant Vs.

¶6

Punjab State Federation of Co-operative House Building Society Limited (HOUSEFED), SCO Nos. 150-151-152, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Managing Director

¶7

Managing Director, Punjab State Federation of Co-operative House Building Society Limited (HOUSEFED) SCO Nos. 150-151-152, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh

¶8

……….Defendants

¶9

Advocates

¶10

Sh. Saurav Goyal proxy counsel for Sh. Suresh Goyal, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶11

Sh. Naginder Singh, counsel for the defendants

¶12

OA for the Recovery of Rs.22,07,12,322/- with interest @10.80% per annum with monthly rests from 08.02.2022. ORDER

¶13

Indian Bank (Applicant Bank) has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of Rs.22,07,12,322/- with interest against Punjab State Federation of Co-operative House Building Society Limited (HOUSEFED) and another (defendants).

¶14

Defendant No.1 is a registered Society. Bank’s case is that on 13.09.2012, defendant No. 1 through defendant No. 2 had applied to the erstwhile Allahabad bank for Term Loan-II of Rs. 50 crores, which was sanctioned vide letter dated 04.01.2013. Defendant No. 1 through defendant No. 2 had executed all the documents mentioned in para No. 6 of the OA. To secure the loan, defendant No. 1 had created floating charge in favour of the bank on pari pasu basis with all other lenders on all the business undertaking and assets, movable and immovable and other properties of the defendants. The loan was repayable in 40 quarterly instalments of Rs. 1.25 crores each. The loan was chargeable to interest @11% per annum and base rate at present @10.50% or at such rate at which shall be applicable from

¶15

¶16

time to time. The defendants were also liable to pay additional interest of @2% per annum in case of default. It is alleged that the defendants failed to make the payments as per the repayment schedule, the bank had initiated the SARFAESI action. Defendant No. 1 had made the following payments:

¶17

Sr. No.	Date	Amount
1.	31.03.2014	Rs.1,25,00,000/-
2.	25.02.2016	Rs.24,62,084/-
3.	19.02.2019	Rs.1,25,00,000/-
4.	13.07.2021	Rs.5,00,000/-

¶18

It is alleged that a sum of Rs. 22,07,12,332/- is due from the defendants as on 17.01.2022 (Rs. 18,11,82,613/- as principal amount and Rs. 03,95,29,709/- as accrued interest). On these facts the bank has filed the present OA for recovery of Rs. 22,07,12,322/- with interest @10.80% per annum with monthly rests including penal interest @2 % per annum.

¶19

On 10.05.2023, defendants filed written statement. In their written statement they have admitted that they had taken the loan; they have also admitted that the account had become NPA on 15.08.2019; it is alleged that on 01.09.2021, they had submitted an OTS proposal (Annexure D1); again on 11.10.2021, they had submitted an OTS proposal (Annexure D2); they further alleged that they have been making all efforts to settle the dispute; on 12.08.2022, they wrote a letter to the bank that they will pay 74 per cent outstanding principal amount, out of which, 10 per cent will be paid within 60 days and the remaining 90 per cent will be paid by 31.03.2023; on 07.11.2022, they also informed the bank that they have entered into an OTS in Bank of Maharashtra at 74 per cent of the outstanding principal amount; it is also read that on 31.12.2019, a joint meeting of all the lender banks was held and the applicant bank had also participated in the said meeting; it was informed to the applicant that the defendants can make the payment only by the sale of their properties situated at various locations including Banur; in substance, the defendants have admitted the claim of the applicant.

¶20

¶21

Replication to the written statement was filed wherein the averments made in the OA were reiterated and that of the written statement were denied. 5. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Sh. Sumit Sharma, Assistant General Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A1 to A15. 6. I have perused the evidence on the record. I am of the considered view that the Bank has proved its case that it had advanced a Term Loan-II of Rs. 50 crore and on 17.01.2022, a sum of Rs. 22,07,12,322/- was due. 7. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs. 22,07,12,322/- (Rupees Twenty Two Crore Seven Lakh Twelve Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty Two Only) with interest @10.80% per annum with monthly rests from 08.02.2022, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of the defendants would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of the hypothecated/personal movable and immovable property of the defendants as mentioned in para No.3(A), i.e. floating charge in favour of applicant bank on pari pasu basis with all other lenders on all the business undertaking and assets, moveable and immoveable and other properties of the defendants. 8. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 9. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 10. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 08.04.2024, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) of the Act . 11. A copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to the Recovery Officer as well as the parties. Pronounced in the open court (A S Narang) Dated: 04.03.2024 Presiding Officer DRT-2, Chandigarh (Additional charge)

Indian Bank v. Punjab State Federation of Co-Operative House Building Society Limited (Housefed)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Bank v. Punjab State Federation of Co-Operative House Building Society Limited (Housefed)

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 M/S Balaji Traders

Punjab National Bank versus Rashmi Agarwal

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Goswami Industries

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Ranjeet Singh

Bank of Baroda versus Som Nath

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Universal Chemicals