Allowed

Punjab and Sind Bank v. Sh. Makbool Mohammad

DRT4 Jun 2024OA/390/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed an original application filed by Punjab and Sind Bank for recovery of a defaulted commercial vehicle loan. The tribunal ordered repayment of the principal amount with interest reduced to 8% per annum and issued a recovery certificate for enforcement against hypothecated or personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.41,77,146.69p with costs and simple interest @8% p.a. from filing date; issuance of Recovery Certificate; liberty to enforce via sale of properties.

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Sh. Makbool Mohammad — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.390/2023

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 20.03.2023

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 04.06.2024

¶6

Punjab and Sind Bank, a body corporate, constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act of 1980, having its Head Office at 21, Rajindra Place, New Delhi and a Branch Office, amongst other places known as Sector-68, Mohali, Punjab through Sh. Danish Sharma, Senior Manager its Constituted Attorney and Principal Officer

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus Sh. Makbool Mohammad S/o Sh. Bhag Mohammad, R/o Village Manauli, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab-140306 (Borrower)

¶9

………Defendant

¶10

Advocates:

¶11

Argued by Sh. Mohan Prashad, counsel proxy for Sh. Pancham Sharma, counsel for the applicant Defendant is ex-parte

¶12

FINAL ORDER

¶13

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.41,77,146.69p (Rupees Forty One Lacs Seventy Seven Thousand One Hundred Forty Six and Sixty Nine Paise only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Danish Sharma, Senior Manager of the applicant bank, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 30.09.2022, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶14

¶15

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant had approached the applicant bank for the grant of Commercial Vehicle Loan of Rs.36.50 Lacs. 3. The applicant Bank sanctioned Commercial Vehicle Loan of Rs.36.50 Lacs (Covered under CGTMSE) vide Sanction Letter dated 31.12.2021, which is Annexure A2 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant. 4. Defendant had hypothecated his movable property i.e. Commercial Vehicle namely Bharat Benz 5428 TT (Tempo Trailer Vehicle) 4x2 BSVI-5 having Chasis No.MEC862FCLMP113099, Engine No.926956D0117873 and bearing Temporary Registration No.T0122PB0650 A vide Deed of hypothecation and Temporary Registration Certificate dated 05.01.2022, which are Annexures A5 and A6 to this OA.

¶16

Documents executed:- D.P. note and Term loan agreement both dated 05.01.2022, which are Annexures A3 and A4 to this OA; Demand/Seizure notice dated 23.06.2022 with postal receipt, which is Annexure A7 to this OA and Statement of Account along with Certificate of Banker’s Book of Evidence Act dated 01.03.2023, which is Annexure A8 to this OA.

¶17

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.41,77,146.69p, which is recoverable and the defendant was served recall notice but he did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant bank requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 6. The defendant was served notice to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of the defendant and he was proceeded ex-parte on 05.04.2024. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Danish Sharma, Senior Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank has been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶18

¶19

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 A8 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant approached applicant bank for availing of the loan facility which was granted to him and for that he had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. 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.41,77,146.69p (Rupees Forty One Lacs Seventy Seven Thousand One Hundred Forty Six and Sixty Nine Paise only) along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the account. 10. In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has claimed interest @12.35%p.a. with monthly rests from 01.03.2023 and till the realization.

¶20

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 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 @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. 11. In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.41,77,146.69p (Rupees Forty One Lacs Seventy Seven Thousand One Hundred Forty Six and Sixty Nine Paise only) with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00%p.a. in the loan account from the date

¶21

¶22

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. 12. Any other application pending stands disposed of. 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 19.06.2024. 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. Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal. Dated: 04.06.2024

¶23

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

Punjab and Sind Bank v. Sh. Makbool Mohammad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab and Sind Bank v. Sh. Makbool Mohammad

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

Union Bank of India versus M/S Dhiman Bus Service and Others

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Avtar Singh and Others

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Karanhar Singh

Canara Bank versus Sh. Jodvir Singh and Another

Punjab National Bank versus M/s Sun king Industries and Others

Bank of India versus M/s Cheryl and Another