Allowed

Idbi Bank Limited v. Diyal Singh and Another

DRT26 Jul 2024OA/751/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application by IDBI Bank for recovery of dues from two defendants, who failed to repay a loan facility. Relief included uniform simple interest and recovery via sale of mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Giants a decree of Rs.36,27,071 plus uniform simple interest at 8% p.a. from filing date for realization through sale of mortgaged or personal assets.

Idbi Bank Limited versus Diyal Singh and Another — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.751/2022 PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 28.10.2021

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 26.07.2024

¶5

IDBI Bank Limited, a company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 2013 and Banking Company within the meaning of Section 5 (c) under the Banking Regulation Act 1949 having its registered office at IDBI Tower, WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai and having one of its branch office at Rajpura Address:- Plot No.-7, PatialaChandigarh Road, District Patiala (Punjab) through Sh. Rajat Kumar posted as Branch Head/Assistant General Manager and being an authorized signatory of the bank.

¶6

……..Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Diyal Singh S/o Sh. Bir Singh Village Akarh, Tehsil Fatehgarh Sahib District Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab-140407.

¶9

Sh. Sukhwinder Singh S/o Sh. Diyal Singh Village Akarh, Tehsil Fatehgarh Sahib District Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab-140407

¶10

….……Defendants

¶11

Advocates:

¶12

Argued by Sh. Jiteshwar Malhi, Advocate proxy for Sh. D.P. Garg, Advocate for the applicant Defendants are ex-parte

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

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.36,27,071.00 (Rupees Thirty Six Lacs Twenty Seven Thousand and Seventy One only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Rajat Kumar, Branch Head/Assistant General Manager o f the applicant bank, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Delegation of Powers, which is Annexure P/A to this OA.

¶15

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant no.1 had approached the applicant bank for the grant of KCC Limit of Rs.25.00

¶16

¶17

Lacs vide Loan application dated 17.11.2014, which is Annexure A1 to this OA and again approached the applicant bank for its renewal. Defendant no.2 stood as guarantor. 3. The applicant Bank sanctioned the KCC Limit of Rs.25.00 Lacs vide Letter of Intent dated 25.11.2014, which is Annexure A2 to this OA and also sanctioned its renewal vide Application for Review dated 22.05.2018, which is Annexure A9 to this OA. Later applicant bank restructured the KCC Limit converting the overdue interest into a fresh Term Loan of Rs.1,70,853.00 and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant. 4. Defendants No.1 had mortgaged his immovable properties i.e. total land measuring 32K situated at Village Akkar, Tehsil Rajpura, Distric t Patiala (Punjab) vide Declaration Under Section 4 (1) along with its Translation and Letter for Mutation to Sub- Registrar dated 25.11.2014, which are Annexures A6 & A7 to this OA. Documents executed:- Demand Promissory Note, Letter of Authority, Deed of Hypothecation, Guarantee Deed all dated 26.11.2014, which are Annexures A3 to A5 and A8 to this OA; Acknowledgment of debt cum revival letter dated 23.05.2016, which is Annexure A10 to this OA; Recall Notice to Borrower, Guarantee Invocation both dated 17.04.2021, which are Annexures A12 & A13 to this OA and Account Statement along with Certificate, which is Annexure A11 to this OA. 5. The loan accounts became irregular and were classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in both the loan accounts there was a debit of Rs.36,27,071.00, 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. 6. 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 21.05.2024. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Rajat Kumar, Branch Head/Assistant General Manager, IDBI Bank Limited h as been filed.

¶18

¶19

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶20

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 facilities which were 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, accounts of the defendants were classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.36,27,071.00 (Rupees Thirty Six Lacs Twenty Seven Thousand and Seventy One 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.

¶21

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has claimed interest @10.25%p.a. and penal interest @2.00%p.a. along with yearly rests from 29.09.2021 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 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

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.36,27,071.00 (Rupees Thirty Six Lacs Twenty Seven Thousand and

¶24

¶25

Seventy One only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00%p.a. in the loan accounts 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.

¶26

Any other application pending stands disposed of. 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶27

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 17.08.2024.

¶28

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: 26.07.2024 (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Idbi Bank Limited v. Diyal Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idbi Bank Limited v. Diyal 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

Canara Bank versus Gurinderjit Singh and Another

Idbi Bank Limited versus Sh. Karnail Singh

Canara Bank versus Dilbag Singh and Another

Axis Bank Ltd. (earlier Uti Bank Ltd.), versus Sh. Jarnail Singh and Others

Punjab National Bank versus Smt. Deepti Juneja

Union Bank of India (Erstwhile Corporation Bank), versus Baljeet Singh and Others