Allowed

Canara Bank v. Messrs Rajan Trading Company and Others

DRT13 Nov 2024OA/467/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed under Section 19 of the RDBFI Act by Canara Bank for recovery of Rs. 23,62,692.75p from the defaulted borrowers. The respondents were present ex-parte. The Tribunal ordered repayment with modified simple interest at 8% p.a.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued; Recovery of principal sum of Rs.23,62,692.75p plus simple interest at 8% p.a. and costs ordered.

Canara Bank versus Messrs Rajan Trading Company and Others — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.467/2024 PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 22.03.2024

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 13.11.2024

¶5

Canara Bank, a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970) having its Head Office at J.C. Road, Banglore-560002 (Karnataka) and a branch office, amongst other places known as Muktsar branch, 4147, Abohar Road near New Grain Market and Sadar Bazar, Sri Muktsar Sahib-152026, Punjab through Sh. Rakesh Kumar, its Constituted Attorney and Principal Officer.

¶6

……..Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Rajan Tading Company, a sole-proprietorship at near Railway Crossing Jalalabad Road, Muktsar-152026, Punjab through its soleproprietor, Sh. Rajan Teria S/o Late Sh. Sat Pal Teria viz. defendant No. 2.

¶9

Sh. Rajan Teria S/o Late Sh. Sat Pal Teria, R/o House No. 50, Kheta Ram Street, Muktsar, Punjab-152026

¶10

Sh. Anshu Teria S/o late Sh. Sat Pal Teria, R/o 3039, Kheta Ram Street, Ward No. 18, Muktsar, Punjab-152026

¶11

………Defendants

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

Argued by Sh. Mohan Prasad, Advocate proxy for Sh. G.S. Anand, Advocate for the applicant Defendants are ex-parte

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

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.23,62,692.75p (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Sixty Two Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Two and Paisa Seventy Five only). The Original

¶16

¶17

Application has been filed through Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Constituted Attorney and Principal Officer of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 19.01.2015, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶18

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant No.1 and defendant no.2 had time to time approached the applicant for the grant of Cash Credit Limit of Rs.60.00 Lacs and further for its renewal vide Letter Renewals dated 27.09.2018 and 27.04.2020, which are Annexures A9 & A12 to this OA

¶19

The applicant sanctioned the Cash Credit Limit of Rs.60.00 Lacs vide sanction letter dated 30.03.2016 and later sanctioned its renewals vide Sanction Letters- renewal dated 27.09.2018 and 27.04.2020, which are Annexures A2, A8 & A11 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶20

Applicant had already sold the property under SARFAESI vide Sale Certificate dated 20.02.2024, which is Annexure A21 to this OA Documents executed:- Request letter for overdraft facility, Pronote, Cash Credit Agreement, Subordination Agreement, Guarantee Agreement, Letter of the Mortgagor-defendant indicated therein and schedule therewith all dated 31.03.2016, which are Annexures A3 to A7, A14 & A15 to this OA; Letters Re: continuation of guarantee dated 27.09.2018 and 27.04.2020, which are Annexures A10 & A13 to this OA; CERSAI document, which is Annexure A16 to this OA; Letter, inter alia, acknowledging indebtedness and securities as indicated therein dated 24.01.2019 and 24.12.2021, which are Annexures A17 & A18 to this OA; Recall notice dated 09.11.2021 with its translation and postal receipts, which is Annexure A19 to this OA; Notices U/S 13(2) of SARFAESI act dated 13.01.2022 with Postal

¶21

Receipts, which is Annexure A20 to this OA and Certified copy of

¶22

statement of account, which is Annexure A22 to this OA. 5. The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA

¶23

and after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account there

¶24

¶25

was a debit of Rs.23,62,692.75p, 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.

¶26

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 11.11.2024.

¶27

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Constituted Attorney and Principal Officer, Canara Bank has been filed.

¶28

Heard arguments and perused record.

¶29

It was argued by learned proxy 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 A22 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant 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 applicant. 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 is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.23,62,692.75p (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Sixty Two Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Two and Paisa Seventy Five 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.

¶30

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @11.15%p.a. with monthly rests from 23.03.2024 till the realization.

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

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. 11. In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.23,62,692.75p (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Sixty Two Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Two and Paisa Seventy Five 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 shall be entitled to recover aforesaid amount from the 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. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 06.12.2024. 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.

¶34

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 13.11.2024

¶35

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

Canara Bank v. Messrs Rajan Trading Company and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Messrs Rajan Trading Company 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

Punjab National Bank versus Sulakhan Singh

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Jaskaran Singh and Others

Union Bank of India versus M/S C K Garments and Another

Punjab National Bank versus Gurpreet Singh and Another

Punjab National Bank versus Messrs Radhya Creations and Another

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Messrs Shaheed Purshotam Filling Station and Others