Allowed

Indian Bank v. Ms. Gagandeep Kaur Teji and Another

DRT29 May 2025OA/42/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The tribunal allowed an original application filed by Indian Bank for recovery of Rs. 23,01,201.00 from the defendants as sole proprietors of Gaury Fabrics. The court validated the debt and granted recovery of principal plus uniform simple interest at 8% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Declarations of joint and several liability to pay Rs. 23,01,201.00 and issue of recovery certificate.

Indian Bank versus Ms. Gagandeep Kaur Teji and Another — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.42/2024

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BYMRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 06.01.2024

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 29.05.2025

¶6

Indian Bank, a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings Act, 1970 having its Corporate Office at PB No.5555, 254-260, Avvai Shanmugam Salai, Royapettah Chennai and its branches throughout India and amongst other branches one of its branch office at Ludhiana branch, chowk clock Tower, Ludhiana through its constituted attorney Sh. Harish Mishra, Chief Manager, Indian Bank, Ludhiana who is also the principal officer of the plaintiff/applicant.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Ms. Gagandeep Kaur Teji D/o Sh. Mohinder Singh Teji, Sole Proprietor M/s Gaury´s Fabrics, Kothi/Flat No.2, Amaltas Enclave, VPO Bhattian, Ludhiana, Punjab-141008.

¶10

2^nd Address: Kothi No.2, Hazuri Bagh Colony, Near DD Public School, Bhattian, Ludhiana, Punjab-141008.

¶11

M/s Gaury´s Fabrics its sole proprietor Ms. Gagandeep Kaur Teji D/o Sh. Mohinder Singh Teji Kothi/Flat No.2, Amaltas Enclave, VPO Bhattian, Ludhiana, Punjab-141008.

¶12

….……Defendants

¶13

Advocates:

¶14

Argued by Sh. Ashok Kumar Verma, Advocate for the applicant Defendants are ex parte

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

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.23,01,201.00 (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs One Thousand Two Hundred One Only). The Original Application has been filed through

¶17

2 OA NO.42/2024 INDIAN BANK VS GAGANDEEP KAUR TEJI AND ANOTHER

¶18

Sh. Harish Mishra Chief Manager, o f the applicant bank, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 13.10.2014, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶19

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendants no.1 on behalf of defendant no.2 being its sole proprietor had approached the applicant for the grant of Cash Credit Limit of Rs.11.59 & Term Loan of Rs.12.16 (Under MSME PMEGP Scheme) vide Loan applications, which is Annexure A3 to this OA.

¶20

The applicant Bank sanctioned the Cash Credit Limit of Rs.11.59 & Term Loan of Rs.12.16 (Under MSME PMEGP Scheme) vide Sanction letter dated 02.01.2021, which is Annexure A4 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. 4. Defendants had hypothecated his movable assets i.e. all Machineries, stocks of raw material, finished and semi-finished goods etc. and books debts vide Agreement of hypothecation of moveable’s assets dated 14.01.2021, which is Annexure A7 to this OA.

¶21

Documents executed:- Letter of authority dated 06.06.2023, which is Annexure A2 to this OA; A Demand Promissory note, Agreement for backend subsidy, Agreement for open cash credits (stocks and book debts), Term loan agreement all dated 14.01.2021, which are Annexures A5, A6, A8 and A9 to this OA and Statement of Account which are Annexures A10 & A11 to this OA.

¶22

The loan accounts became irregular and were classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in both the loan accounts there was adebit of Rs.23,01,201.00p, 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.

¶23

3 OA NO.42/2024 INDIAN BANK VS GAGANDEEP KAUR TEJI AND ANOTHER

¶24

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 23.05.2025.

¶25

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Harish Mishra, Chief Manager, Indian Bank, h as been filed.

¶26

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶27

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 A11 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant bank for availing of the loan 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 loan 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 bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.23,01,201.00 (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs One Thousand Two Hundred One 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.

¶28

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has claimed interest @ 13.95%p.a. (excluding penal interest @2%) from 23.12.2023 till the realization.

¶29

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

¶30

4 OA NO.42/2024 INDIAN BANK VS GAGANDEEP KAUR TEJI AND ANOTHER

¶31

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 both the loan accounts from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amounts 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.23,01,201.00 (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs One Thousand Two Hundred One Only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00%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 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.

¶32

Any other application pending stands disposed of . 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 13.06.2025. 15. 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.

¶33

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal.

¶34

Dated:29.05.2025

¶35

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

Indian Bank v. Ms. Gagandeep Kaur Teji and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Bank v. Ms. Gagandeep Kaur Teji and Another

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

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Deepak Kumar

Indian Bank versus Smt. Avtar Kaur

Punjab National Bank versus Smt. Surinder Kaur and Another

Uco Bank versus M/S Sat Kartar International and Another

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Jaspal Singh and Another

Punjab National Bank versus Mohammad Kamre Alam and Another