Allowed

Bank of India v. Sh. Jagdeep Singh

DRT4 Mar 2025OA/254/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Bank of India for recovery of approximately Rs. 50 Lakhs from three defendants who were joint borrowers. The court found the loan sanctioned, classified as NPA, and outstanding. Interest rate was reduced from 12.7% to 8%. A Recovery Certificate was issued.

What did the court decide?

Directed recovery of Rs. 50,09,302.64 with interest at 8% p.a. via Recovery Certificate; sale of mortgaged or personal assets allowed for recovery.

Bank of India versus Sh. Jagdeep Singh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.254/2023

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BYMRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 20.02.2023

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 04.03.2025

¶6

Bank of India, a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970, having its Head Office at “Star House”, C-5, G-Block, 2^nd Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 and having its Zonal Office at Surya Kiran Complex, 1^st Floor, Phase II, The Mall, near Rakh BAgh, Civil Lines, Ludhiana and amongst various branches having its branch at Payal, Opposite Bus Stand, Tehsil Payal, District Ludhiana through its duly constituted attorney and Authorized Officer of plaintiff Sh. Kailash Kumar Sagar.

¶7

……..Applicant Versus

¶8

Sh. Jagdeep Singh S/o Sh. Mejar Singh, R/o Khuli Kalan, Tehsil Payal and District Ludhiana

¶9

Sh. Jagdev Singh S/o Amarjit Singh, R/o Khuli Kalan, Tehsil Payal, District Ludhiana (Pb)

¶10

Smt. Harbans Kaur Wd/o Major Singh, R/o Khuli Kalan, Tehsil Payal and District Ludhiana

¶11

……… .Defendants

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

Argued by Sh. Satish Jaswal, Advocate proxy for Sh. Mouhit K. Geol, Advocate for the applicant Defendants are ex-parte

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.50,09,302.64p (Rupees Fifty Lacs Nine Thousand Three Hundred Two and Sixty Four Paise Only). The Original Application has been filed

¶16

¶17

through Sh. Kailash Kumar Sagar, Constituted Attorney of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide General Power of Attorney dated 13.12.2019, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶18

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendants had approached the applicant for grant of KCC Limit of Rs.25.00 Lacs and Agriculture Overdraft Limit of Rs.10.00 Lacs vide Loan Applications dated 14.07.2017, which are Annexures A3 & A4 to this OA.

¶19

The applicant sanctioned KCC Limit of Rs.25.00 Lacs and Agriculture Overdraft Limit of Rs.10.00 Lacs vide Sanction Letter dated 14.07.2017, which is Annexure A5 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶20

Defendant no.1 mortgaged his immovable properties i.e. Agriculture land measuring 75K-19M situated in Khuli Kalan, Hadbast no.396, Sub Tehsil Maloud, Tehsil Payal and District Ludhiana vide Jamanbandi for the year 2015-2016 with its translation, wh ich is Annexure A22 to this OA.

¶21

Documents executed:- Legal Opinion dated 29.06.2017, which is Annexure A1 to this OA; D.P. Note, Declarations by Borrower, Agreements of loan cum Hypothecation, Letters of Declaration, undertaking & authority, MCLR Agreements and Deed of Guarantee all dated 14.07.2017, which are Annexures A6 to A18 to this OA; Acknowledgements of Debt dated 13.05.2020, which are Annexures A19 and A20 to this OA; Transfer deed bearing vasika no.114 with its translation, which is Annexure A21 to this OA; Statements of accounts alongwith Memorandum of interest duly certified under Banker’s Books Evidence Act, 1891, which are Annexures A23 to A24 to this OA.

¶22

The loan accounts became irregular and were classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in both loan accounts there was adebit of Rs.50,09,302.64p, which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notices but they did not repay the

¶23

¶24

outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶25

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 15.02.2025. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Vinod Kumar, Constituted Attorney, Bank of India h as been filed. 8. Heard 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 had proved its case. From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A24 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant for availing of the loans 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 loans 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 is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.50,09,302.64p (Rupees Fifty Lacs Nine Thousand Three Hundred Two 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 the accounts.

¶26

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @12.70% from 06.02.2023 till the realization.

¶27

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 loans and prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yester years, while

¶28

¶29

exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @08.00%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. 11. In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.50,09,302.64p (Rupees Fifty Lacs Nine Thousand Three Hundred Two and Sixty Four Paise Only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00%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 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 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.

¶30

Any other application pending stands disposed of. 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 05.04.2025. 15. Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant 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.

¶31

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 04.03.2025

¶32

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

Bank of India v. Sh. Jagdeep Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Sh. Jagdeep 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

Icici Bank Limited versus Malhi Trading Co.

Union Bank of India versus M/s Bhagwati Agencies

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Sh. Balwinder Singh

Idfc First Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Sumesh Chadha

State Bank of India versus Sh. Pargat Singh Toor

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Sh. Sawinder Singh