Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Messrs Jagdish Singh Contractor and Others

DRT23 Dec 2024OA/362/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The tribunal allowed the debtor recovery application instigated by Bank of Baroda. It directed the defendants to pay the outstanding sum with a uniform simple interest rate of 8% p.a. from the application date, distinguishing the rates claimed by the bank. A recovery certificate was issued.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued directing payment of outstanding sum with 8% per annum simple interest.

Bank of Baroda versus Messrs Jagdish Singh Contractor and Others — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.362/2024 PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 01.02.2024

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 23.12.2024

¶5

Bank of Baroda erstwhile Vijaya Bank a Body Corporate, with perpetual succession constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act of 1970 having its Registered Head Office at Baroda Bhawan, R.C. Dutt Road, Alkapuri Baroda 390007, Gujarat and having amongst other branches one such branch at circular road, Nabha District Patiala, Punjab PIN 147201 and Regional Office Stressed Assets Recovery Branch at SCO no.62-63, Sector 17, Chandigarh through its constituted attorney Sh. Hitesh Sehgal.

¶6

……..Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s Jagdish Singh Contractor, through its proprietor Sh. Jagdish Singh Address: Street no.6, Defense Colony, Alohharan Kalan, Nabha-147201.

¶9

Sh. Jagdish Singh S/o Dayal Singh, Prop. M/s Jagdish Singh Contractor, R/o Street no.6, Defense Colony, Alohharan Kalan, Nabha-147201.

¶10

Mrs. Kamaljit Kaur W/o Sh. Jagdish Singh, R/o Street no.6, Defense Colony, Alohharan Kalan, Nabha-147201

¶11

Advocates:

¶12

Argued by Sh. Kanchan Sehgal, Advocate for the applicant Defendants are ex-parte

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.26,16,252.11p (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs Sixteen Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Two and Eleven Paise only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Hitesh Sehgal, Chief Manager o f the applicant,

¶15

¶16

who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Board Resolution dated 14.11.2017, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. 2. The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant No.1 through its Prop. i.e. defendant No.2 had approached the applicant for the grant of OD Limit of Rs.20.00 Lacs vide Loan Application dated 22.12.2017, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and further for its renewal vide Loan Application dated 28.02.2019, which is Annexure A12 to this OA. Thereafter defendants again approached the applicant for grant of Vehicle Loan of Rs.2.95 Lacs vide Loan Application dated 23.04.2018, which is Annexure A17 to this OA. Later defendants approached the applicant for Term Loan (FITL) of Rs.2.35 Lacs vide Loan Application, which is Annexure A23 to this OA. 3. The applicant sanctioned OD Limit of Rs.20.00 Lacs vide Sanction Letter dated 23.01.2018, which is Annexure A4 to this OA and further application sanctioned its renewal vide sanction Letter dated 28.02.2019, which is Annexure A13 to this OA. Thereafter applicant sanctioned the Vehicle Loan of Rs.2.35 Lacs vide sanction Letter dated 23.04.2018, which is Annexure A18 to this OA. Later applicant sanctioned the Term Loan (FITL) of Rs.2.35 Lacs and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶17

Defendant no.3 had Mortgaged her immovable properties i.e. a. Residential House measuring 0B-4B-19B situated at Village Alohran, Tehsil Nabha and District Patiala, Punjab vide Equitable mortgage of Sale Deed bearing vasika no.2949 dated 12.09.2011 with its translation

¶18

b. Defendant no.2 had hypothecated its movable properties i.e. Car Namely Alto 800 bearing engine no.F8DN6002518, Chasis No.MA3EUA61S00C46670 and Registration NO. PB34B1759 vide copy of RC filed in compliance of the order dated 19.11.2024 vide diary no.19885 dated 18.12.2024

¶19

Documents executed:- Gazette Notification dated 02.01.2019, which is Annexure A1 to this OA; Loan Agreement cum Hypothecation

¶20

¶21

Agreement and Letter of Guarantee both dated 23.01.2018, which are Annexures A5 and A6 to this OA; Memorandum of Entry and List of Title Deeds both dated 24.01.2018, which are Annexures A7 and A8 to this OA; Affidavit dated 22.12.2017, which is Annexure A9 to this OA; Non Encumbrance Certificate and Legal Search Report both dated 28.12.2017, which are Annexures A10 and A11 to this OA; Loan Agreement cum Hypothecation Agreement, Letter of Guarantee, Permission Letter dated 28.02.2019, which are Annexures A14, A15 and A16 to this OA; Agreement cum Hypothecation and Letter of Guarantee dated 23.04.2018, which are Annexures A19 and A20 to this OA; Performa Invoice dated 17.04.2018, which is Annexure A21 to this OA; CERSAI report dated 11.06.2018, which is Annexure A22 to this OA; Modification Deed and Agreement for re-schedulementcum-funded interest term loan both dated 15.02.2021, which are Annexures A24 and A25 to this OA; Acknowledgment of Liability dated 27.02.2019 and 02.02.2021, which are Annexures A26 and A27 to this OA; Letter of Acknowledgment of Debts dated 04.02.2021 and 10.02.2022, which are Annexure A28 and A29 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 25.10.2021 with postal receipts, which is Annexures A30 and A31 to this OA; Notice U/s 13(2) dated 19.01.2023, which are Annexure A32 and A33 to this OA and Statement of Account along with certificate, which are Annexures A34 to A36 to this OA. 5. The loan accounts became irregular and were classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in all loan accounts there was a debit of Rs.26,16,252.11p which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notices but they did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant 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 14.11.2024.

¶22

¶23

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Hitesh Sehgal, Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda h as been filed. 8. Heard arguments and perused record. 9. It was argued by learned counsel that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case. From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A36 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant for availing of the loan facilities which was granted to them and for that they had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the applicant. The defendants failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, accounts of the defendants was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.26,16,252.11p (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs Sixteen Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Two and Eleven Paise only), jointly and severally, along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the accounts.

¶24

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @11.80%p.a. in respect of OD Limit, interest @9.75%p.a. in respect of Vehicle Loan & interest @10.10%p.a. in respect of FITL plus penal interest @2.00%p.a. with monthly rests in all from 01.01.2024 till the realization.

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

all the loan accounts 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 defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.26,16,252.11p (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs Sixteen Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Two and Eleven Paise only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00%p.a. in all the loan accounts from the date of filing of OA till the date of realization of the amount. Accordingly, the applicant 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 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.

¶28

Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶29

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶30

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 13.02.2025.

¶31

Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant 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.

¶32

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal .

¶33

Dated: 23.12.2024

¶34

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer,

¶35

DRT-III, Chandigarh

Bank of Baroda v. Messrs Jagdish Singh Contractor and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Messrs Jagdish Singh Contractor and Others

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

Messrs Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. versus Messrs Pursharthi Dhaba and Others

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Harbhajan Singh and Another

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Surjit Kaur and Another

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Satnam Singh and Others

Punjab National Bank versus Gurbachan Singh and Another

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Najar Singh and Others