Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Guljar Singh and Another

DRT9 Apr 2024OA/568/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application for recovery of a debt of Rs.31,13,618.60p. The tribunal directed the defendants to pay the principal, costs, and simple interest at 9.65% p.a. It granted the right to recover dues via sale of mortgaged properties or personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Debt of Rs.31,13,618.60p with costs and 9.65% p.a. interest allowed; Recovery Certificate issued; recovery via mortgage sale or personal asset attachment authorized.

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Guljar Singh and Another — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.568/2022

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 09.03.2022

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 09.04.2024

¶6

Union Bank of India (erstwhile Corporation Bank), a body constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (Act No.5 of 1970) carrying on banking business and having its Central Office at 239, Vidhan Bhawan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 and one of its Branch Office at Ishwar Nagar, Near Nanaksar Gurudwara, Devigarh Road, Post Office Saphera, Tehsil and District Patiala, Punjab through authorized officer Sh. Shivam Srivastava, Branch Manager

¶7

……..Applicant Versus 1. Sh. Guljar Singh S/o Sh. Chanan Singh, R/o Village Panjeta, Post Office Bhunarheri, Tehsil and District Patiala (Borrower) 2. Sh. Gurnam Singh S/o Sh. Jaswant Singh R/o Village Panjeta, Post Office Bhunarheri, Tehsil and District Patiala (Guarantor) ………Defendants Advocates: Argued by Ms. Sonal Chabra, counsel proxy for Sh. Ajay Singla, counsel for the Applicant Defendants are ex-parte

¶8

FINAL ORDER 1. 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.31,13,618.60p (Rupees Thirty One Lacs Thirteen Thousand Six Hundred Eighteen and Sixty Paisa only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Shivam Srivastava, Branch Manager of the applicant bank, who is competent to institute the Original Application

¶9

¶10

vide Authority Letter dated 25.02.2022, which isAnnexure A1to this OA.
2. The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant No.1 had approached the applicant bank for the grant of Agriculture Cash Credit
Limit of Rs.55.00 Lacs vide Application for Agriculture Credit dated 18.07.2014.
3. The applicant Bank sanctioned the Crop Kisan Credit Card Limit
of Rs.55.00 Lacs vide Credit Sanction Intimation Letter dated
26.09.2014, which isAnnexure A2to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants.
4. Defendant No.1 had mortgaged his immovable properties i.e. total land measuring 20 Bighas 15½ Biswas i.e. 4.32 Acres situated at Village Panjeta, Tehsil and District Patiala,vide Self Declaration u/s 4(1) dated 15.10.2014 registered with office of Sub-Registrar, Patiala bearing no.341-A dated 15.10.2014 andJamabandi for the year 2017-18 along with its translation, which isAnnexure A9to this OA. Documents executed:- Common deed of Hypothecation of crops/stocks,
Demand Promissory Note, Take delivery note to DPN, Guarantee
Agreement, Letter of undertaking and Request for overdraft
facilities/cash credit limit all dated 17.10.2014, which areAnnexures A3 to A8to this OA; Acknowledgment of debt dated 18.01.2017, which isAnnexure A10to this OA; Notice dated 27.07.2018 along with its translation and postal recepits, which isAnnexure A11to this OA; Notice dated 19.02.2022 along with postal receipts, which isAnnexure A12to this OA and Statement of account along with the certificate, which isAnnexure A13to this OA
5. 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.31,13,618.60p, which is recoverable and the 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.

¶11

¶12

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 05.03.2024.

¶13

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Shivam Srivastava, Branch Manager, Union Bank of India has been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and 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 bank had proved its case. From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A13 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant bank 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 bank. 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 bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.31,13,618.60p (Rupees Thirty One Lacs Thirteen Thousand Six Hundred Eighteen and Sixty Paisa only) along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, 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 @9.65%p.a. along with penal interest @2%p.a. with half yearly rests along with full costs from 01.02.2022 till the realization.

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @9.65%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.

¶17

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.31,13,618.60p (Rupees Thirty One Lacs Thirteen Thousand Six Hundred Eighteen and Sixty Paisa only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @9.65%p.a. in the loan account 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.

¶18

Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶19

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶20

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal

¶21

on 22.04.2024.

¶22

Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant bank 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.

¶23

Pronounced by me in the Open Tribunal.

¶24

Dated: 09.04.2024

¶25

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer,

¶26

DRT-III, Chandigarh

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Guljar Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Guljar 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

Icici Bank Ltd. versus M/s Sadhu Ram Industries and Others

Central Bank of India versus M/S Nandha Brick Kiln and Others

Canara Bank versus Parteek Jain

Canara Bank versus Sh. Charan Singh and Others

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Satnam Singh and Others

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Ajay Kumar Juneja and Another