Allowed

Punjab National Bank v. Sh. Amandeep Singh

DRT26 Jul 2024OA/790/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT-III, Chandigarh allowed an original application for recovery of a dues of approximately Rs. 23.62 Lacs along with interest. The court considered mortgage documents and allowed uniform simple interest at 8% p.a. instead of claimed rates, enabling recovery from mortgaged or personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 23,62,014.69p plus costs and simple interest at 8% p.a. from the date of filing till realization, executable against mortgaged or personal assets.

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Amandeep Singh — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.790/2022

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 09.05.2022

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 26.07.2024

¶6

Punjab National Bank, a body corporate constituted under the provisions of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its Corporate Office at Plot No.4, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi 110075 and Branch Offices, Bhandal bet, Kapurthala Punjab, through Shri Suresh Kumar, Branch Manager cum-Principal Officer and duly constituted Attorney of the Applicant Bank ……..Applicant Versus Sh. Amandeep Singh S/o Sh. Harbhajan Singh, R/o 11, Village Bhullar Bet, Tehsil Kapurthala, District Kapurthala, Punjab-144804

¶7

….……Defendant Advocates: Argued by Sh. Harinder Kumar, Advocate for the applicant Defendant is ex-parte FINAL ORDER 1. 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.23,62,014.69p (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Sixty Two Thousand Fourteen and Sixty Nine Paise only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Suresh Kumar, Branch Manager of the applicant bank, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide General Power of Attorney dated 24.09.2015, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶8

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant had approached the applicant bank for the grant of KCC Limit of Rs.20.00 Lacs vide Loan application dated 19.05.2015.

¶9

¶10

The applicant Bank sanctioned the KCC Limit of Rs.20.00 Lacs vide Loan application-cum-Sanction Letter dated 19.05.2015, which is Annexure A2 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant.

¶11

Defendant had mortgaged his immovable property i.e. agricultural land measuring 39K-11M situated at Village Bhullar, Sub Tehsil Dhilwan, District Kapurthala, Punjab vide Declaration u/s 4(1) of Punjab Agriculture Credit Operations and Miscellaneous Provisions (Banks) Act, 1978, Letter to Tehsildar for creation of charge bearing mutation no.87 dated 08.06.2015, and Jamabandi for the year 20122013 along with its translation, which are Annexures A3 & A8 to this OA.

¶12

Documents executed:- Legal Search Report dated 08.06.2015, which is Annexure A4 to this OA; Agreement of Hypothecation, Letter of Undertaking and Letter of Consent Revised all dated 16.06.2015, which are Annexures A5 to A7 to this OA; Balance Confirmation Letters dated 05.05.2017 and 02.01.2020, which are Annexures A9 & A10 to this OA; Legal/Recall Notice dated 14.02.2019 with postal receipt, which is Annexure A11 (Colly) to this OA and Statement of account along with Certificate certified under Banker Books Evidence Act, 1891 dated 25.04.2022, which is Annexure A12 (Colly) 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.23,62,014.69p, which is recoverable and the defendant was served recall notice but he did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant bank requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 6. The defendant was served notice to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendant and he was proceeded exparte on 21.05.2024.

¶13

¶14

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Suresh Kumar, Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank has been filed.

¶15

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶16

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 A12 Colly) to this OA, it is proved that the defendant approached applicant bank for availing of the loan facility which was granted to him and for that he had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. The defendant failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, account of the defendant 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.23,62,014.69p (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Sixty Two Thousand Fourteen and Sixty Nine Paise only) along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the account.

¶17

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has claimed interest @(BR+2) i.e. upto 3 Lacs @7% and above @12%p.a. along with penal interest @2%p.a. with half yearly rests from 01.04.2022 till the realization.

¶18

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 defendant, 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

¶19

¶20

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.

¶21

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.23,62,014.69p (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Sixty Two Thousand Fourteen and Sixty Nine Paise only), with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00%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 defendant 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 defendant. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant bank and be sent to defendant through registered/speed post and this order be also uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal and record be consigned.

¶25

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 26.07.2024

¶26

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

Punjab National Bank v. Sh. Amandeep Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. Sh. Amandeep Singh

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