Allowed

Bank of India v. Buta Singh and Another

DRT27 Nov 2024OA/405/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte proceedings under ODRA 1993, the Tribunal allowed the Bank of India's application to recover ₹34,77,072.00 plus interest at 8% p.a., declaring defendants jointly liable and authorizing recovery from mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of ₹34,77,072.00 with interest at 8% p.a., enforceable via sale of mortgaged properties or attachment of personal assets.

Bank of India versus Buta Singh and Another — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.405/2024

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BYMRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 14.02.2024

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 27.11.2024

¶6

Bank of India, a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act No. V of 1970 having its Head Office “Star House” C-5, Block-G, BandraKurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 and Branch Office amongst other places at Rode, District Moga, (Punjab), through its duly Constituted Attorney Sh. Ajit Dadwal, presently posted as Chief Manager at Bank of India Branch, Muktsar(Punjab).

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Buta Singh S/o Sh. Darshan Singh R/o Village Demru Khurd, PO Lande, Tehsil Bagha Purana, District Moga, (Punjab)-142049

¶10

Sh. Pargat Singh S/o Sh. Darshan Singh R/o Village Demru Khurd, PO Lande, Tehsil Bagha Purana, District Moga, (Punjab)142049.

¶11

………. Defendants

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

Argued by Sh. Meena Malhotra, Advocate for the applicant (through VC)

¶14

Defendants are ex parte

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

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.34,77,072.00p (Rupees Thirty Four Lacs Seventy Seven thousand and Seventy Two Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Ajit Dadwal, Chief Manager o f the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide General Power of Attorney dated 20.02.2023, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶17

¶18

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant no.1had approached the applicant for grant of KCC Limit of Rs.3.00 Lacs & OD Limit of Rs.7.00 Lacs vide Loan Applications dated 19.08.2016, which are Annexures A2 & A3 to this OA and further for enhancement of KCC Limit to Rs.15.00 Lacs and Agriculture Overdraft Limit to Rs.10.00 Lacs vide Loan Applications dated 14.02.2017, which are Annexures A7 & A8 to this OA.

¶19

The applicant sanctioned KCC Limit of Rs.3.00 Lacs & OD Limit of Rs.7.00 Lacs vide sanction letter dated 29.08.2016, which is Annexure A6 to this OA & further enhanced the KCC Limit KCC Limit to Rs.15.00 Lacs and Agriculture Overdraft Limit to Rs.10.00 Lacs vide Sanction Letter dated 07.07.2017, which is Annexure A9 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. 4. Defendant no.1 had mortgage her immovable property i.e. total land measuring 72Kanal situated at Village Demru Khurd, Hadbast no.113, Tehsil Bagha Purana, District Moga vide Declaration u/s 4(1) of the Punjab Agriculture Credit Operations & Miscellaneous Provisions Bank Act, 1976 and Letter to Tehsildar for Creation of Charge bearing rapat no.862 dated 23.08.2016 & rapat no.367 dated 14.07.2017, which are Annexures A4 & A5 and A10 & A11 to this OA. Documents executed:- Demand Promissory Notes, Bearer Letters, Hypothecation Cum Loan Agreements, Consolidated stamped undertakings/Agreements, Misc. Undertakings/Declarations, Deeds of Guarantee all 19.07.2017, which are Annexures A12, A12A to A21 to this OA; Acknowledgment of debt dated 19.07.2017, 14.07.2020, 23.05.2023, 17.07.2019 & 12.07.2022, which are Annexures A22 to A26 to this OA; Recall Notice dated 09.12.2023 with Postal Receipts, which are Annexures A27 to A29 to this OA and Statements of Accounts with duly certified under Banker’s Books Evidence Act, 1891, which are Annexures A30 & A31 to this OA. 5. The loan accounts became irregular and were classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in both the loan accounts there was a debit of Rs.34,77,072.00p, which is recoverable and the

¶20

¶21

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.

¶22

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 25.11.2024.

¶23

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Ajit Dadwal, Chief Manager, Bank of India h as been filed.

¶24

Heard arguments and perused record.

¶25

It was argued by learned counsel through Video Conferencing 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 A31 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant bank for availing of the loan facilities which were 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, accounts of the defendants were classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.34,77,072.00p (Rupees Thirty Four Lacs Seventy Seven thousand Seventy Two Only) along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of both the accounts.

¶26

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @10.85%p.a.in KCC Limit & @11.35% p.a. in Agriculture Overdraft Limit with half yearly rests in both from 04.12.2023 till the realization. The Tribunal is of the considered opinion that sometimes inappropriate 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

¶27

¶28

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 @08.00%p.a. in both 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.

¶29

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.34,77,072.00p (Rupees Thirty Four Lacs Seventy Seven thousand Seventy Two Only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00%p.a. in both the loan accounts 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.

¶30

Any other application pending stands disposed of. 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 31.12.2024. 15. 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. Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 27.11.2024 (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Bank of India v. Buta Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Buta Singh and Another

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

Punjab National Bank versus Gurdeep Singh and Another

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Jeewan Singh and others

Uco Bank versus Baljit Singh and Another

Union Bank of India versus Charanpreet Kaur and others

Indian Bank versus Ajmer Singh and Another

The Federal Bank Limited versus Sarabjeet Kaur and Another