Allowed

Idbi Bank Limited v. Hardeep Kaur and Another

DRT27 Dec 2024OA/54/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by IDBI Bank Ltd. for the recovery of Rs.30,61,088.00p along with interest from two defendants who failed to repay a KCC loan and FITL. The Tribunal quantified the debt, with the applicant entitled to recover via sale of mortgaged property or attachment of personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.30,61,088.00p with interest @8.00%p.a. Recovery Certificate issued pending enforcement.

Idbi Bank Limited versus Hardeep Kaur and Another — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.54/2023 PRESIDED OVER BYMRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 15.12.2022

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 27.12.2024

¶5

IDBI BANK LTD., a Company incorporated and registered under the Companies at 1956 and a Banking Company within the meaning of Section 5(c) under banking regulations Act, 1949 having its registered head office at IDBI Tower, WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai-400005, carrying on the business of Banking and having branches all over India and one of its branches amongst other places a branch office at Mansa, District Mansa in the State of Punjab, through its Branch Manager as branch head Sh. Satish Singh.

¶6

……..Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Smt. Hardeep Kaur W/o Sh. Rajinder Singh R/o H.No.118, Village Biroke Kalan, Near Cop. Society, District Mansa, Punjab 151502.

¶9

Shri Gurnam Singh S/o Sh. Gurmit Singh, R/o Village Borowal District Mansa, Punjab.

¶10

….……Defendants

¶11

Advocates:

¶12

Argued by Sh. Gaurav Thakur, Advocate proxy for Sh. Omkar Gupta, Advocate for applicant Sh. Jagraj Singh Khiva, Advocate for Defendants

¶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.30,61,088.00p (Rupees Thirty Lacs Sixty One Thousand Eighty Eight only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Satish Singh, Branch Manager o f the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide DOP, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶15

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant no.1 had approached the applicant for the grant of KCC Limit of Rs.24.50 Lacs

¶16

¶17

vide Loan Application dated 12.01.2016, which is Annexure A2 to this OA and further for FITL of Rs.1,33,336.00.

¶18

The applicant sanctioned the KCC Limit of Rs.24.50 Lacs vide Sanction Letter dated 15.01.2016, which is Annexure A3 to this OA further Sanctioned FITL of Rs.1,33,336.00 and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. 4. Defendant no.1 had mortgaged her immovable properties i.e. Land Measuring 64Kanal-00Marla situated at Village Biroke Kalan Tehsil Budhlada and District Mansa, Punjab vide Declaration u/s 4(1) of the Agriculture Credit Operations & Miscellaneous Provisions (BANK) Act, 1978 dated 18.01.2016 along with its Translations, which is Annexure A4 to this OA. Documents executed:- Copy of Demand Promissory Note, Copy of Hypothecation Cum Loan Agreement, Copy of Common Guarantee Deed, Copy of Acknowledgement of debt sum recorded delivery all dated 25.01.2016, which are Annexures A5 to A8 to this OA; Copy of Voucher dated 13.3.2019 & 12.05.2021, which are Annexures A9 & A10 to this OA; Copy of Registered Post acknowledgement due recorded delivery dated 23.08.2022 & 14.11.2022, which are Annexures A11 & A12 to this OA and Copy of Statement of Account along with Bankers Books evidence Acts, which are Annexures A13 & A14 to this OA. 5. The loan accounts became irregular and were classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in both loan accounts there was a debit of Rs.30,61,088.00p, 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. Sh. Jagraj Singh Khiva, Advocate appeared for defendants and filed Power of Attorney but did not filed WS within stipulated period. Therefore, opportunity to file WS by defendants was closed and defense was struck of on 23.07.2024.

¶19

¶20

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Satish Singh, Branch Manager, IDBI Bank Limited, h as been filed.

¶21

Heard arguments Ld. Counsel for applicant. Ld. Counsel for defendants has not advanced any arguments. Perused record. 9. 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 A14 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant 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 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 were classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,61,088.00p (Rupees Thirty Lacs Sixty One Thousand Eighty Eight only) along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the accounts. 10. In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @10.10%p.a. along with penal Interest @2.00% with half yearly rests from 30.11.2022 till the realization.

¶22

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 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.

¶23

¶24

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.30,61,088.00p (Rupees Thirty Lacs Sixty One Thousand Eighty Eight 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 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 applicant 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.

¶25

Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶26

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶27

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 18.02.2025.

¶28

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.

¶29

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 27.12.2024.

¶30

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

Idbi Bank Limited v. Hardeep Kaur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idbi Bank Limited v. Hardeep Kaur 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 and Sind Bank versus M/S Dev Automobiles and Others

Punjab National Bank versus Narinder Singh

Punjab National Bank versus Nitin Verma and Others

Uco Bank versus Messrs G and M Sons Trading and Manufacturing and Another

Punjab National Bank versus Messrs Sohan Singh and Sons and Others

Bank of India versus Davinder Singh and Others