Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Ajay Kumar Maikap

DRT24 Feb 2025OA/370/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Union Bank of India, the applicant, filed an Original Application under Section 19 of the RDBFI Act to recover Rs.31.57 Lakhs along with interest from two defendants who defaulted on a home loan of Rs.24 Lakhs secured by mortgage. The defendants were present ex parte.

What did the court decide?

Declaration that defendants are liable to pay Rs.31,57,698.65 jointly and severally with costs and simple interest at 8% p.a.; issuance of Recovery Certificate; liberty to enforce via execution or att

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Ajay Kumar Maikap — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.370/2024 PRESIDED OVER BYMRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION:11.03.2024

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 24.02.2025

¶5

Union Bank of India having its Head Office at 239 Vidhan Bhawan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Having its Branch Office at Union Bank of India (Earlier Andhra Bank) SCF 54, Sector-8, Panchkula, Haryana, Through its Attorney Holder, Sh. Satish Kumar Jha, Chief Manager, at Union Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management, Branch SCO-137-138, Sector8C, Chandigarh-160008.

¶6

……..Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Ajay Kumar Maikap S/o Sh. Marutanjay Maikap, R/o Plot No.6, Flat No.6C, Guru Nanak Enclave, Dhakoli, Zirakpur-160104, Punjab.

¶9

Smt. Ranjita Rani Dutta W/o Sh. Ajya Kumar Maikap R/o Plot No.6, Flat No.6C, Guru Nanak Enclave, Dhakoli, Zirakpur-160104, Punjab.

¶10

….……Defendants

¶11

Advocates:

¶12

Argued by Sh. Ravinder Kumar, Advocate for Applicant Defendants are ex parte

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

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.31,57,698.65p (Rupees Thirty One Lacs Fifty Seven Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Eight & Sixty Five Paise Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Satish Kumar Jha, Chief Manager, of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 15.03.2003, which is Annexure A1 to this OA. 2. The brief facts of the OA are that the defendants had approached the applicant for the grant of Home Loan of Rs.24.00 Lacs vide Loan Application dated 16.03.2016, Which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶15

¶16

The applicant sanctioned the Home Loan of Rs.24.00 Lacs vide Sanction Letter dated 21.03.2016, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. 4. Defendant No.1 & 2 had mortgaged their immovable properties i.e. Flat No.6-C, at 3^rd Floor of Plot 6, having covered area 600 sq. feet situated at Guru Nanak Enclave, Village Dhakoli, Hadbast no.48, Sub Tehsil Zirakpur Tehsil & District SAS Nagar Mohali vide Registered Sale Deed bearing Sale deed no.7677 dated 21.03.2016 and Jamabandi with mutation and their translations, which are Annexures A8, A9 and A9A to this OA. Documents executed :- Copy of Demand Promissory Note, Copy of agreement for Home Loan, Copy of declaration, Copy of undertaking letter, Copy of the equitable mortgage all dated 21.03.2016, which are Annexures A4 to A7 & A10 to this OA; Copy of the title search report dated 30.03.2016, which is Annexure A11 to this OA; Copy of CERSAI dated 25.04.2016, which is Annexure A12 to this OA; Copy of Valuation report dated 29.08.2023, which is Annexure A13 to this OA; Copy of the Demand Notice dated 01.12.2014, which is Annexure A14 to this OA and Statement of account along with Banker’s Book Evidence, which is Annexure A15 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.31,57,698.65p, which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notices but they did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 6. The defendants were served notices to appear before this Tribunal. Sh. Vivek Thakral, Advocate appeared on behalf of defendants and filed his Power of Attorney but did not filed WS with in stipulated period. Therefore, opportunity to file WS by defendants was closed and their defense was struck of on 04.02.2025. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Satish Kumar Jha, Chief Manager at Union Bank of India, has been filed.

¶17

¶18

Heard 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 had proved its case. From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A15 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant 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 applicant. 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 is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.31,57,698.65p (Rupees Thirty One Lacs Ninety Seven thousand Six Hundred Ninety Eight & Sixty Five 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. 10. In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @9.75%p.a. with monthly rests from 01.01.2024 till the realization. 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 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.31,57,698.65p (Rupees Thirty One Lacs Fifty Seven Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Eight & Sixty Five Paise Only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00%p.a. in the loan account

¶19

¶20

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 applicant 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.

¶21

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

¶22

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 28.03.2025.

¶23

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. Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 24.02.2025

¶24

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

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Ajay Kumar Maikap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Ajay Kumar Maikap

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 M/S Saluja Enterprises

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sh. Darshan Singh

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Amandeep Singh

Canara Bank versus Sh. Jeet Singh

Canara Bank versus Sh. Ranjit Singh Alias Ranjeet Singh

Canara Bank versus Sh.Ramesh Kumar