Allowed

Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank v. Sh. Samay Singh

DRT15 Jan 2024OA/881/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex parte application, the Tribunal allowed a recovery claim by Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank against Samay Singh for Rs. 22,48,208 regarding an agricultural loan default. The court awarded uniform simple interest at 7% per annum and authorized recovery from mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued for Rs. 22,48,208 with interest at 7% per annum from the date of filing till realisation.

Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank versus Sh. Samay Singh — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, CHANDIGARH, PRESIDED OVER BY M.M. DHONCHAK

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 881/2023

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 29.05.2023

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 15^th DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶5

Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank , a body corporate, constituted after amalgamation through Gazette Notification dated 29.11.2013 issued by Government of India (Banking Division) in exercise of powers conferred under the Regional Rural Bank Act, 21 of 1976, carrying on Banking business having its head office at Rohtak and one of its Branches at Mussimble, Sub-Tehsil Mustafabad, Tehsil Jagadhri, DistrictYamunanagar, State Haryana, through its duly Authorised and Constituted Attorney, Sh. Naresh Kumar, Assistant Manager presently posted at Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Branch Mussimble, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamunanagar, Haryana-135003

¶6

…..Applicant Versus

¶7

Sh. Samay Singh s/o Sh. Jasmer Singh r/o Village Chaharwala, SubTehsil Mustafabad, Tehsil Jagadhri, Police Station Mustafabad, District Yamunanagar, Haryana-135003

¶8

....Defendant

¶9

Argued by: Sh. Mukesh Kumar Gupta counsel for the applicant bank Defendant ex parte vide order dated 31.08.2023

¶10

FINAL ORDER

¶11

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity), a gainst the

¶12

OA/881/2023 SARVA HARYANA GRAMIN BANK VS SAMAY SINGH 2

¶13

defendant for recovery of Rs.22,48,208/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakh Forty Eight Thousand Two Hundred and Eight Only) . It has been filed through Sh. Naresh Kumar, Assistant Manager of the applicant bank stated to be competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 29.03.2022, Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶14

The brief facts of the case of the applicant as per Original Application are that the defendant had approached the applicant bank for grant of KCC facility of Rs. 13.66 lakh vide application Form dated 01.08.2013 for agricultural credit, Annexure-A3 (copy).

¶15

The applicant bank sanctioned aforesaid facility to the defendant vide sanction letter, Annexure-A4 (copy), as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendant. 4. In order to secure the aforementioned credit facility, the defendant executed hypothecation agreement dated 31.03.2014, Annexure-A5 (copy), letter dated 31.03.2014 regarding terms and conditions, Annexure-A6 (copy), letter of understanding dated 31.03.2014 regarding loan facility, Annexure-A8 (copy) and letter of introduction dated 31.03.2014, Annexure-A9 (copy). Voter ID of defendant is Annexure-A2 (copy).

¶16

The aforesaid loan facility was further secured by creation of mortgage by the defendant in respect of agricultural land measuring 16 Kanal situated in the revenue estate of Chaharwala, Hadbast No. 289, Sub-Tehsil Mustafabad, Tehsil Jagadhari, District Yamunanagar, Haryana, fully detailed in para No. 5.7 of the Original Application.

¶17

The documents relating to the mortgage are as under:

¶18

i. Declaration dated 31.03.2014 regarding agricultural land,

¶19

Annexure-A7 (copy).

¶20

OA/881/2023 SARVA HARYANA GRAMIN BANK VS SAMAY SINGH 3

¶21

ii. Affidavit dated 31.03.2014 regarding mortgaged property, Annexure-A10 (copy).

¶22

iii. Registered mortgage deed dated 31.03.2014 and valuation certificate of property, Annexure-A11 (colly) (copy).

¶23

iv. Request letter dated 28.03.2014 to the Tehsildar, Mustafabad, for entry/mutation of mortgaged property, Annexure-A12 (copy).

¶24

v. Copy of ‘Jamabandi’ for the year 2010-2011, Annexure-A13 (copy).

¶25

It is further the case of the applicant bank that the loan facility was duly availed of by the defendant but he failed to maintain the financial discipline of the applicant bank leading to the loan account becoming irregular and it being classified as NPA. The defendant executed balance and security confirmation letters dated 30.03.2017, 11.07.2017, 03.01.2020 and 16.09.2022, Annexures-A16 to A19 (copy). The applicant bank recalled entire outstanding amount vide legal notices dated 20.04.2021 and 11.04.2023 along with its postal receipt, Annexures-A14 and A15 (colly) (copy), but to no avail.

¶26

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account, a sum of Rs.22,48,208/-

¶27

(Rupees Twenty Two Lakh Forty Eight Thousand Two Hundred

¶28

and Eight Only) , is recoverable against the defendant as per recorded interest dated 24.05.2023, Annexure-A20 (copy), statement of account, Annexure-A21 (copy) and statement of total outstanding in account as on 24.05.2023, Annexure-A22 (copy), duly certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891, Annexure-A23 (copy).

¶29

Since the defendant did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant bank preferred the present Original Application for issuance of Recovery Certificate.

¶30

OA/881/2023 SARVA HARYANA GRAMIN BANK VS SAMAY SINGH 4

¶31

Notice of the Original Application was duly served upon the defendant, but since none appeared on behalf of the defendant, thus, the defendant was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 31.08.2023 .

¶32

In support of contents of the OA, affidavit of evidence of Sh. Naresh Kumar, Assistant Manager of the applicant bank was filed.

¶33

This Tribunal has heard ex-parte arguments advanced by the learned counsel and gone through the record carefully.

¶34

It was argued by the learned counsel that in view of unrebutted documentary evidence brought on record, the applicant bank had proved its case against the defendant for recovery of the amount sought. From perusal of Annexures-A1 to A23 , it is clear that the defendant had approached the applicant bank for availing of the loan facility which was granted to him. It is further clear that the defendant had executed all the relevant documents as stated above in favour of the applicant bank. Unfortunately, the defendant failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement executed between the parties. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.22,48,208/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakh Forty Eight Thousand Two Hundred and Eight Only) from the defendant.

¶35

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause, has claimed rate of interest @11.50% per annum plus penal interest @2% per annum. In hypothecation agreement dated 31.03.2014, Annexure-A5 (copy), the rate of interest has been mentioned @13.25% per annum.

¶36

OA/881/2023 SARVA HARYANA GRAMIN BANK VS SAMAY SINGH 5

¶37

This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that sometimes in appropriate cases the prerogatives of mercy and magnanimity are the brightest jewels in the crown of the Judge. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case including the Pandemic Covid-19 affecting businesses, nature of the mortgaged property, purpose of loan, i.e. agricultural , present conditions of economy based on agriculture, quantum of loan, prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yesteryears, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @7% per annum from the date of filing of the OA till realisation of the amount ordered vide this order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶38

In the result, the Original Application is allowed with costs holding that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum of Rs.22,48,208/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakh Forty Eight Thousand Two Hundred and Eight Only) with current and future simple interest @7% per annum w.e.f. 29.05.2023 , till the date of realisation of the amount. Accordingly, the applicant bank shall be at liberty to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of mortgaged/hypothecated property of the defendant in execution proceedings, if not sold earlier under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 or otherwise. If the dues of the bank still remain unsatisfied, the applicant bank shall be at liberty to recover the same by attachment and sale of personal assets of the defendant. However, the applicant bank is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶39

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶40

OA/881/2023 SARVA HARYANA GRAMIN BANK VS SAMAY SINGH 6

¶41

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 04.03.2024.

¶42

Copy of this order be sent to the applicant bank and the defendant through registered/speed post. This order be uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal.

¶43

Pronounced in the open Tribunal (M.M. Dhonchak) Presiding Officer DRT-2, Chandigarh

Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank v. Sh. Samay Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank v. Sh. Samay 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

State Bank of India versus M/s a N Hardware

Canara Bank versus M/s Surabhi Enterprises and others

Punjab National Bank versus M/s Raj Engineering Works and others

Punjab National Bank (Oriental Bank of Commerce) versus M/S Harjot Trading Co.

Krishan Chand Negi versus State Bank of India

Hem Raj versus Jogindra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.