Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S Pine Products

DRT19 Mar 2024OA/736/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of a due amount against the defendants. It held that while personal liability was time-barred, the remedy regarding the mortgaged land was within limitation. The recovery order is directed solely against the mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.42,91,897/- with interest allowed; Recovery Certificate issued for sale of mortgaged land; Distribution of proceeds directed.

State Bank of India versus M/S Pine Products — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 736/2022 Date of Institution: 28.03.2022 Date of Decision: 19.03.2024

¶4

SBI, one of its Branch Offices amongst other places at SBI, Hoshiarpur, Punjab.

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

M/s Pine Products through its Sole Prop. Sh. Sandeep Kumar, VPO Bohan NR Rayat Bahra College, Hoshiarpur, Punjab.

¶8

Sandeep Kumar S/o Ashok Saini, VPO Bohan NR Rayat Bahra College, Hoshiarpur, Punjab.

¶9

……….Defendants

¶10

Advocates

¶11

Ms. Dipti Toni, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants – ex parte

¶12

OA for the Recovery of Rs.42,91,897/- with interest from 17.11.2021.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

SBI, (Bank) has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of Rs.42,91,897/- with interest against M/s Pine Products and another (defendants).

¶15

Bank’s case is that on 18.09.2017, it had granted a Cash Credit Limit of Rs.20.00 Lacs and Term Loan of Rs.20.00 Lacs and FITL Limit of Rs.1,50,000/- to defendant No.1 through its sole proprietor i.e. defendant No.2 for business purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant 1 through defendant No.2 had mortgaged their land measuring 2K – 17M situated at Village Bohan, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur (fully detailed in para No.5(h) of the application). The loans were chargeable to different rate of interest. On 17.11.2021, a sum of Rs.42,91,897/- was

¶16

¶17

due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶18

On 04.05.2022, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 25.01.2023, they were proceeded ex parte .

¶19

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Randhir Singh, Branch Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-10. 5. I have perused the evidence on the record. I am of the considered view that the Bank has proved its case that it had advanced the Cash Credit Limit of Rs.20.00 Lacs and Term Loan of Rs.20.00 Lacs and FITL Limit of Rs.1,50,000/- and on 17.11.2021, a sum of Rs.42,91,897/was due.

¶20

5(a) The loan was given by the bank in the year 2017 and the present OA was filed before this Tribunal in the year 2022. Accordingly, the OA against defendants for their personal liability is time barred. Since defendants had created the mortgage, the OA against defendants on the basis of creation of mortgage is well within time.

¶21

Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.42,91,897/- (Rupees Forty Two Lacs Ninety One Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety Seven Only) with interest @12.60% per annum with monthly rests from 17.11.2021, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged land fully detailed in para No.5(h) of the application only.

¶22

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

¶23

Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.

¶24

¶25

Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 19.04.2024, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgage land and standing crops as per the provisions of Section 19(20AB) of the Act . 10. A Copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to the Recovery Officer as well as the parties. Pronounced in the open court. (A S Narang) Dated: 19.03.2024 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh Pankaj

State Bank of India v. M/S Pine Products

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S Pine Products

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

Dream Digital Others versus the Varachha Cooperative Bank Limited

Hari So Mahadeo Choure versus Ms Godavari Traders

Ganesh Prasad Jaiswal versus Punjab National Bank

Canara Bank versus M/S Radha Traders

Uco Bank versus Sunil Kumar Anand

Mr Mohinder Kumar versus the Baghat Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd.