Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S Dhiman Bus Service and Others

DRT3 Jun 2024OA/789/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Union Bank of India against three respondents for recovery of a loan loaning account outstanding of approx Rs 23.40 lakhs. The Tribunal found the case proved on documentary evidence and granted the recovery of the principal amount along with costs and simple interest at 8% per annum, reducing the claimed penal interest rate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of principal sum of Rs. 23,39,663.64 with costs and simple interest at 8.00% p.a.; issue of Recovery Certificate.

Union Bank of India versus M/S Dhiman Bus Service and Others — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.789/2022 PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 07.05.2022

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 03.06.2024

¶5

Union Bank of India (erstwhile Andhra Bank (e-AB)) amalgamated with Union Bank of India under Amalgamation of Andhra Bank into Union Bank of India Scheme, 2020 vide Gazette Notification No. CG-DL-E04032020-21635 G.S.R. 154E and now called as Union Bank of India, a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act No. V of 1970, carrying on Banking Business and having its Head Office at 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 in the State of Maharashtra and its Branch Office inter-alia at Union Bank of India, Zirakpur (e-AB) Branch, SCO 18, Silver City Main, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, Punjab through its Branch Manager cum duly constituted attorney Sh. Sandeep Singh Pathania

¶6

……..Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. M/S Dhiman Bus Service through Proprietor Bhupinder Kumar Plot No. 165, HSIIDC, Industrial Estate, Alipur, Barwala, Panchkula, Haryana-134112

¶9

1. Sh. Bhupinder Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Prakash, H.No. 1226, Morigate, Manimajra, Chandigarh (U.T.)

¶10

1. Sh. Pushup Dhiman S/o Sh. Bhupinder Kumar, H.No. 1226, Morigate, Manimajra, Chandigarh (U.T.) ………Defendants

¶11

Advocates: Argued by Ms. Karuna Kumari Dogra, counsel for the applicant Defendants are ex-parte FINAL ORDER

¶12

1. Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial

¶13

¶14

Institutions Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.23,39,663.64p (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Thirty Nine Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Three and Sixty Four Paise only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Sandeep Singh Pathania, Branch Manager o f the applicant bank, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Authority Letter dated 14.01.2022 with Gazette Notification dated 04.03.2020, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶15

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant No.1 through its proprietor i.e. defendant no.2 had approached the applicant bank for the grant of Over Draft Limit against property (SOD to MSEs) of Rs.22.00 Lacs vide Loan Application dated 05.07.2014 and further for its Renewal. Later on defendant No.1 through its proprietor i.e. defendant no.2 had approached the applicant bank for the grant of Term Loan (FITL) of Rs.1,07,243.00.

¶16

The applicant Bank sanctioned the Over Draft Limit against property (SOD to MSEs) of Rs.19.00 Lacs vide Sanction Letter dated 01.08.2014, which is Annexure A2 to this OA and further renewed the same vide Sanction Letter dated 27.07.2018, which is Annexure A3 to this OA. Later on Applicant Bank sanctioned a Term Loan (FITL) of Rs.1,07,243.00 vide Sanction Letter dated 29.09.2020, which is Annexure A4 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶17

Defendants No.2 had mortgaged his immovable properties detailed as:a) House No. 1227, measuring 38.92 Sq. Yards (covered area 350.29 Feet) and b) House No. 1228, measuring 38.92 Sq. Yards (covered area 350.29 Feet) situated at Mohalla Morigate, Manimajra, Chandigarh (U.T.) within Abadi area vide equitable Mortgage of Sale Deed bearing v asika No.5762 and 5763 dated 2 4.12.2010, which are Annexures A15 &

¶18

¶19

A16to this OA and Memorandums of Deposit of Title Deed dated 04.08.2014 and 27.07.2018, which isAnnexure A17to this OA.
Documents executed:- Composite Agreement, Consent for Disclosure
of Information to CIBIL, Letter of Authorization, Undertaking Letter
and Letter of Consent all dated 27.07.2018, which areAnnexures A5
to A9to this OA; D.P. Note for T/L facility, , Agreement AD-02A,
Letter of Guarantee (SD-01) and General Term Loan Agreement(SD-
18) all dated 30.09.2020, which areAnnexures A10, A12 to A14to
this OA; Letter of Continuity AD-09(M), which isAnnexure A11to this
OA; Affidavit by borrower dated 30.07.2014, which isAnnexure A18
to this OA; Title Report of Both Properties dated 23.06.2014, which is
Annexure A19to this OA; Valuation Report dated 16.05.2018, which
isAnnexure A20to this OA; Acknowledgement of Debt dated
30.09.2020, which isAnnexure A21to this OA; Legal notice dated
02.01.2021 with postal receipts, which isAnnexure A22to this OA;
Demand Notice u/s 13 (2) dated 08.04.2021, which isAnnexure A23
to this OA and Statements of accounts along with Certificate by person In- Charge of Computer system, which areAnnexures A24 & A25to
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.23,39,663.64p, 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. Defendant no. 1 & 2 appeared through their counsel Sh. Sant
Kashyap on 28.03.2023 who filed his Power of Attorney but did not file
WS, hence opportunity to file WS by Defendant no. 1 & 2 was closed
and defense was struck off and due to non appearance, all the defendants were proceeded ex-parte on 04.04.2024.

¶20

¶21

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Sandeep Singh Pathania, Branch Manager, Union Bank of India has been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record. 9. It was argued by learned 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 A25 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, both the 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.23,39,663.64p (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Thirty Nine Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Three and Sixty Four Paise only) along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of both the accounts. 10. In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has claimed interest @13.05%p.a. (including penal interest @2%p.a.) with yearly rests in both, from 01.01.2022 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.23,39,663.64p (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Thirty Nine Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Three and Sixty Four Paise 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 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.

¶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 18.06.2024.

¶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.

¶29

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal .

¶30

Dated: 03.06.2024

¶31

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

Union Bank of India v. M/S Dhiman Bus Service and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S Dhiman Bus Service and Others

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 National Bank versus Smt. Rajwinder Kaur and Another

Punjab National Bank versus Smt. Harjinder Kaur @ Surjit Kaur and Another

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Balwinder Singh and Another

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Karanhar Singh

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Avtar Singh and Others

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Sh. Makbool Mohammad