Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Satnam Singh and Others

DRT9 Apr 2024OA/793/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application under the RDBFI Act, 1993, for recovery of a defaulted housing loan. The Tribunal directed the defendants to pay the principal amount with simple interest at 7.30% p.a. and authorized the issuance of a Recovery Certificate for execution proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs.24,29,139.09 plus simple interest at 7.30% p.a.; Recovery Certificate issued for sale of mortgaged or personal assets.

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Satnam Singh and Others — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.793/2022

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 11.08.2021

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 09.04.2024

¶6

Union Bank of India, a body corporate, constituted under Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 having its Head Office at 239, Vidhan Bhawan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai and having a Branch Office inter-alia at, SDPH School, Hazuri Road, Chauri Sarak, Ludhiana, through duly authorized person and attorney holder Sh. Balbir Singh Ralhan, Chief Manager

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Satnam Singh S/o Sh. Paramjit Singh

¶10

Smt. Gurmeet Kaur W/o Sh. Paramjit Singh

¶11

Sh. Paramjit Singh S/o Sh. Mohan Singh

¶12

All residents of House No.55 and 113, Mehan Estate, Near Tibba Colony, Mundian Khurd, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana

¶13

….……Defendants

¶14

Advocates:

¶15

Argued by Sh. Amod Kumar Thakur, Advocate proxy for Sh. R.K. Chauhan, Advocate for the applicant Defendants are ex-parte

¶16

FINAL ORDER

¶17

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.24,29,139.09p (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Twenty Nine Thousand One Hundred Thirty Nine and Nine Paise only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Balbir Singh Ralhan, Chief Manager of the

¶18

¶19

applicant bank, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide General Power of Attorney dated 19.06.2002, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶20

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendants approached the applicant bank for the grant of Housing Loan under Union Home Scheme of Rs.22.00 Lacs vide Loan application dated 26.09.2018, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶21

The applicant Bank sanctioned the Housing Loan under Union Home Scheme of Rs.22.00 Lacs vide Sanction Letter dated 04.10.2018, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶22

Defendant No.2 had mortgaged her immovable properties i.e. House built over plot No.42, measuring 125 sq. yards situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Mundian Khurd, Hadbast No.240, Tehsil and District Ludhiana (Punjab) through equitable mortgage of Title Deed bearing vasika No.1074 dated 18.10.2018 along with English Translation, which is Annexure A12 to this OA.

¶23

Documents executed:- Demand Promissory Note, Letter of Continuity, Housing Loan Agreement, Interest Agreement, Texts of consent clause and Letter of Guarantee all dated 11.10.2018, which are Annexures A4 to A10 to this OA; Memorandum of deposit of Title Deed dated 09.11.2018, which is Annexure A11 to this OA; Letters dated 12.07.2019, 10.12.2019, 04.02.2020 and 18.02.2020, which are Annexures A13 to A16 to this OA; Legal Notices dated 07.03.2020 and 13.05.2021 and their Postal Receipts, which are Annexures A17 and A22 to this OA; Certified copy of statement of account under Banker’s Book Evidence Act, which is Annexure A23 to this OA; Certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, which is Annexure A24 to this OA and Valuation Report dated 26.09.2018, which is Annexure A25 to this OA.

¶24

¶25

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.24,29,139.09p, 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.

¶26

The defendants were served notices to appear before this Tribunal. The defendant no. 1 appeared through his counsel on 29.03.2023 who filed his memo of appearance but due to non-filing of POA and non-appearance thereafter, the opportunity to file WS was closed for defendant no. 1 and all the defendants were proceeded exparte on 05.03.2024.

¶27

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Balbir Singh Ralhan, Chief Manager, Union Bank of India h as been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record. 9. 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 A25 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.24,29,139.09p (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Twenty Nine Thousand One Hundred Thirty Nine and Nine 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.

¶28

¶29

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has claimed interest @7.30%p.a. and @2%p.a. with monthly rests from 01.08.2021 till the realization.

¶30

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 @7.30%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.24,29,139.09p (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Twenty Nine Thousand One Hundred Thirty Nine and Nine Paise only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @7.30%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 22.04.2024.

¶31

¶32

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: 09.04.2024

¶33

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

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Satnam Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Satnam Singh 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

Icici Bank Ltd. versus M/s Sadhu Ram Industries and Others

Central Bank of India versus M/S Nandha Brick Kiln and Others

Canara Bank versus Parteek Jain

Canara Bank versus Sh. Charan Singh and Others

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Guljar Singh and Another

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Ajay Kumar Juneja and Another