Allowed

Canara Bank v. Smt. Jon Moni Baruah

DRT9 Jan 2024OA/49/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an application filed by Canara Bank under Section 19 of the RDBFI Act for issuance of a Recovery Certificate against a defaulting loan applicant. The Bank proved the loan execution via jaminan. The debt account was declared NPA, and the Tribunal found the applicant entitled to recover dues against the hypothecated vehicle and other assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs. 22,63,799.28 with interest at 10.30% p.a. Charge kept alive on hypothecated vehicle. Bank entitled to proceed against secured and personal assets.

Canara Bank versus Smt. Jon Moni Baruah — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

¶2

o A.^{lrgeo2z,DRl,Guwaharr}

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, GUWAHATI

¶4

(North Eastern Region) (Tribunal of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Mizoram, Arunachal p.adesh & Tipura) Before Shri Shiv Sharan Dubev.^presidino Officer

¶5

Q.A. No. 4912O22

¶6

ln the matter of -

¶7

Canara Bank llT Guwahati Branch llT Guwahati Campus, North Guwahati. Kamrup, Assam-781039.

¶8

Applicant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

SMT JON MONI BORUAH Daughter of Umesh Chandra Boruah Village- Garomaragaon, P.S. Samoguri. District Nagaon, Assam, Pin- 782'140.

¶11

Defenda nt

¶12

Presence of the Coungel:

¶13

For the Applicant : Mr. M K. Bora, Advocate

¶14

For the Defendant : None (Ex-parte)

¶15

Dated 09/01/2024

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

This is an application under section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial lnstitutions Act, 1993 filed by the Canara Bank, llT Guwahati Branch, T Guwahati Campus, North Guwahati, Kamrup, Assam-781039, with a prayer to issue Recovery Certificate for the sum of Rs. 22,63,799.28 (Rupees Twenty-Two Lakhs Sixty-Three Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety-Nine and Paiso Twenty-Eight) only as on 31.'12.2021 against the defendant with pendentelite and future inlerest thereon at the contractual rate till realization along with cost and other relief.

¶18

A few facts giving rise lo lhe present application are as under.

¶19

The defendant had approached the applicant Bank and applied for financial assislance for purchase of Back Hoe Loader vehicle by loan application dated 29-01-2018 and after considering the said application, the applicant Bank by

¶20

S[.,rsC.a"a,.&J."r,,""'oi"s3frL?l^{2l'l /} DRT, Guwahati

¶21

¶22

oA. 4g/2O22iDRI-GBahaii

¶23

Sanction Memorandum dated 30-0.1-2018 had sanctioned a credit facility of Rs.19,50,000.00 only to the defendant with tnterest charged 10.30% per annum. The credit facility was to be repaid in 84 monthty instaltments of Rs. 32,675.00 each. The credit facility has been covered by the CGTMSE scheme.

¶24

ln connection with tha sanction of the term loan of RS.19,SO,OOO.OO sanctioned by the applicant Bank and availed by the defendant, Deed of Hypothecation dated 30-0'l-2018 has been signed and executed by the defendant in favour of the applicant Bank as security for repayment of the loan facility thereby agreeing to all the terms and conditions laid down in the said Deed of hypothecation and hypothecated the machinery/vehicle purchased out of the Bank financed (more specifically described in schedule-A of the OA) in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶25

The defendant by executing Particulars of Vehicles dated 02-02-2019 had accepted that the machinery and vehicle which was tinanced by the applicant Bank was received in good condition from the Show Room. The defendant also submitted Sale Certificate.

¶26

The defendant had availed of the said loan facility from the applicant bank, but have not^paid the loan amount as per the terms and conditions as agreed upon with the applicant bank, inspite of repeated demands and request by the applicant bank. As such the loan account declared NPA on 0l-03-2021. Afrer the account became NPA the applicant bank issued notices for repayment of the due amounl, but the defendant has neither chosen for repayment of the remaining installments in the loan account nor approached to the applicant bank for settling the loan account.

¶27

Though applicant Bank ought to file suit on or before 29-01-2021 but as per order dated 10-01-2022^passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Appfication No.21 of 2022 in SMW(C) No.3 of 2020, the lnstant suit is filed within period of limitation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said order directed that the^period from 15-03-2020 till 28-02-2022 shall stand excluded for the^purpose of

¶28

SL'o ' lCJ'a^ta'^{o^ lttd'tV} "*'^{*tq,l.2-</sup> I Pr6siding Offic6r^\u DRT. Gurahati}

¶29

o a 49/2022lDRT6Mh.ii

¶30

¶31

limitation as may be^{prescribed under any generalor special laws in respectof all} judicial or quasi-Judicial proceedings.

¶32

The applicant bank^{thusbecameconstrainedto lile the present Original} Application for the^{recoveryof Rs. 22,63,799.28 (Rupees Twenty-Two Lakhs Sixty-} Three Thousand^{SevenHundred Ninety-Nino and Pabe Twenty-Eight)only as on} 31.12.2021along^{withinterest and costof the application'}

¶33

After filing of^{the OA theTribunalissued notice upon the defendantthrough} registered^post and^{the applicant bank filed servicereport on 18'05 2022and brought} on record the^{postal receiptalong with track consignment reportwhich shows that} notice has not been served^{uponthe sole defendantThereafier the Tribunal ordered} paper publication of notice upon^{the sole defendantand the applicantbank issued} noticetothedefendanton2g.Os.2122throughPaperPublicationintwonewspapers namely^"Ihe Times^{of lndia" and "Dainik Asam". Even after issuance of notice through} paper publication also there^{was no representation on behalfof the soledefendant} either by the^{counselor the personand hencethedefendantwas set ex-parteon} 05.08'2022andhisrighttofilewrittenslatementcumevidenceonaffidavitwasclosed and the matter was^{posted for hearing on behalf of the applicantbank'}

¶34

Supporting the claim^{of the applicantbank Sri Ananya Kumar Bhuyan, Senior} Manager of the^{Applicant Bank has filed evidenceon affidavit coupled with the security} documents marked^{as ExhibitAW-'l/l to AW-l/10suppotting the claim of the applicant} bank.

¶35

Heard the learned^{counsel for the applicant bank who prayedfor issuance of} Recovery Certificate against^{the defendant as per pleadings made in the Application,} supported by evidence on^{affidavit of their witness who affirmed on oaththe} execution of the security^{and other documents by the defendant and also execution} of their own documents^{relied upon, which have been marked exhibits.}

¶36

Considering the facts^{and circumstiancesof the case, I am of the considered} view that the document filed^{by the applicant bank are suppoing the cl3,l[IitlL/nt{AL,}

¶37

r1 'o l'zq Pesiding Oficor ORT, Guweheli

¶38

O A 49/2022,0Rl4usahan

¶39

applicant bank and establishing the liability of the defendant. lt is^proved that the defendant is liable to^pay to the applicant bank the claim made in the Original Application. The loan was obtained and documents have been executed on 30.0'1.2018. Moreover, as^per order daled^{1O.O1.2022passedby} the^Hon'ble Supreme Court in Misc. Application^{No. 21 ot 2022 in SMW(C) No. 3 of 2020, the} instant suit is filed within^period of limitation. The^{Hon'ble SupremeCourt in the} said order directed that the^{periodfrom15.03.2020} 1^{2a.02.2O22shallstand} excluded for the^purpose of limitation as^{may be prescribed under any general or} special laws in respect of all^{judicialor quasi-judicial proceedings.The account} became NPA on 01.03.2021 and the OA has been filed on^{11.02.2022. Hence,the} OA is filed well within the^period of^{limitation and this Tribunalhavinga jurisdictionto} adjudicate the Original Application.

¶40

Considering the unchallenged/unrebutted^{veGion of Sri AnanyaKumar} Bhuyan, the applicant's witness and all the^{documents marked as exhibits, including} duly certilied copy of the statement^{of accountalongwith interest calculation sheet} maintained by the applicant^{Bankin it's regular courseof business,I hold that the} applicant is entitled to^get the^{Recovery Certificate as prayed for.}

¶41

ln the result, the^present Original Application^{No.49 ol 2022 is allowed with} cost as under: -

¶42

i) The sole defendant is liable to^pay to the^{applicantbank a sumof} Rs. 22,63,799.28^(Rupees Twenty-Two Lakhs^{Sixty-Three Thousand} Seven Hundred Ninety-Nine and Paise^{Twenty-Eight)only with} pendentelite and future interest @10.30%^p.a. with monthly rests from 01.01.2022 till the date of full^{paymenurealization} and^{also cost} of^the application.

¶43

The charge of the certificated amount be kept alive on hypothecated vehicle i.e. Brand Name of the vehicle: BACK HOE LOADER MARK-ll,^Makers Name- TEREX EQUIPMENT PVT LTD, Chassis No. TME07611KG0058319,

¶44

sttusl"g4fi,&L? Presidino Ol6b6r ' I ! DRT. Guwehati

¶45

O.A. 4912022/oRTGwahati

¶46

Engine No. 44.330711620140, Owner Name- SMT JON^{MONI BORUAH, as}

¶47

described in Schedule-A of the OA till the amount^{is realizedin full.}

¶48

iii) The applicant bank is entitled to^proceed against the secured^{items towards} recovery of the debts.

¶49

iv) The applicant bank is also entitled to^proceed against the^{personal assets and} properties of the defendant towards recovery of the dues.

¶50

v) The applicant bank is entitled to^{the costs of the O.A. whichincludes the} advocate fees of the applicant bank.^{Applicantis directedto file the cost} memo within 2 weeks from today.

¶51

vi) lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly^{for a sum Rs. 22,63,799.28 (Rupees} Twenty-Two Lakhs Sixty-Three^{ThousandSsvon HundredNinety-Nine} and Paise Twenty-Eight) only in favour of the applicant^{bank against the sole} defendant.

¶52

vii) Communicate copy of this order^{to the concerned parties.} This order is dictated and corrected^{by the undersigned.}

¶53

Judgment dated^gth January^{2024, signedand pronoun@din the Tribunal} today under my signature.

¶54

Copy of the JudgmenuFinal^{Order be uploaded} in the Tribunal's Website and

¶55

tile be consigned to Record^Room.

¶56

strlc{"orga.:P;$"t (Shiv Sharan DubeY)'^a t Proslding Omcer DRT, Guwahati.

Canara Bank v. Smt. Jon Moni Baruah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Smt. Jon Moni Baruah

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

Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank) versus M/S Om Jai Vishnu Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Punjab National Bank versus M/s Koshila Enterprises and Others

Uco Bank versus Ms Satyendra Kumar Singh

Hdfc Bank versus M/S V.S. Construction

Union Bank of India versus M/S Garv Impex

Canara Bank versus M/S Bansal Zever Mahal