Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Ritu Devi and Another

DRT7 Aug 2024OA/598/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed a recovery application filed by Union Bank of India for Rs. 27,95,784.67 against borrowers with a housing loan. The Tribunal deemed it just to grant interest at 8% p.a. instead of the claimed rate and ordered recovery from mortgaged or personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued for Rs. 27,95,784.67 with 8% p.a. interest; defendants to pay jointly and severally.

Union Bank of India versus Ritu Devi and Another — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.598/2023

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 24.08.2022

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 07.08.2024

¶6

Union Bank of India, a body corporate and banking company constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970, having its Head Office at 239, Vidhan Bhawan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai -400021 and amongst other places Branch at Landran Kharar, Mohali, Punjab through Sh. Munish Sharda Principal Officer, General Attorney and Branch Manager of applicant bank (Transferee Bank from Andhra Bank Transferor)

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Smt. Ritu Devi W/o Sh. Mohinderpal, R/o Shahpurkandi, Shahpur, Pathankot, Punjab (Borrower/Mortgagor)

¶10

Sh. Mohinderpal S/o Sh. Garib Dass, R/o Shahpurkandi, Shahpur, Pathankot, Punjab (Co-Borrower)

¶11

….……Defendants

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

Argued by Sh. Kamal Dev Sharma, Advocate proxy for Sh. Sunil Kwatra, Advocate for the applicant Defendants are ex-parte

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.27,95,784.67p (Rupees Twenty Seven Lacs Ninety Five Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty Four and Sixty Seven Paise only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Munish Sharda, Branch Manager of the applicant bank, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide General Power of Attorney dated 27.02.2017, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶16

¶17

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendants had approached the applicant bank for the grant of Housing Loan of Rs.29.00 Lacs vide Loan application 2019, which is Annexure A3 to this OA.

¶18

The applicant Bank sanctioned the Housing Loan of Rs.29.00 Lacs vide Sanction Letter dated 04.04.2019, which is Annexure A4 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. 4. Defendant No.1 had mortgaged her immovable properties i.e. total land measuring 0-2.1/3 Marla (about 70 Square Yards) situated at Village Bhago Majra bearing Plot No.335 Hadbast No. 75, Tehsil Kharar, District Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Mohali (Punjab) vide equitable mortgage of Sale Deed bearing vasika no.2019-20/15/1/287 dated 04.04.2019 with its translation, which are Annexures A9 & A10 to this OA.

¶19

Documents executed:- Amalgamation dated 04.03.2020, which is Annexure A2 to this OA; DPN, Composite Agreements, Letter of Consent and Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed all dated 04.04.2019, which are Annexures A5 to A8 and A10 to this OA; Acknowledge of Debt dated 03.04.2021, which is Annexure A11 to this OA; Demand Notice U/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act dated 07.01.2022, which is Annexure A12 to this OA; Possession Notice U/s 13(4) of SARFAESI Act dated 29.04.2022, which is Annexure A13 to this OA and Statement of Account along with Certificate under Bankers Book Evidence Act dated 24.08.2023, which is Annexure A14 to 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.27,95,784.67p, 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.

¶20

¶21

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 30.05.2024.

¶22

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Munish Sharda, Branch Manager, Union Bank of India h as been filed.

¶23

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶24

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 A14 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.27,95,784.67p (Rupees Twenty Seven Lacs Ninety Five Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty Four and Sixty Seven Paise 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.

¶25

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has claimed interest @9.75%p.a. along with penal interest @2%p.a. from 28.08.2022 till the realization.

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @08.00%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.27,95,784.67p (Rupees Twenty Seven Lacs Ninety Five Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty Four and Sixty Seven Paise only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00%p.a. in the loan account from the date of filing of OA till the date of realization of the amount. Accordingly, the applicant 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. 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 29.08.2024. 15. 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. Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 07.08.2024 (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Union Bank of India v. Ritu Devi and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Ritu Devi 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

Central Bank of India versus Avtar Singh and Others

Punjab National Bank versus Amandeep Singh and others

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Palwinder Singh and Others

Canara Bank versus Gurnam Singh

Bank of India versus Sh. Dilbagh Singh @ Dalbagh Singh

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sh. Darshan Singh