Allowed

Punjab & Sind Bank v. Sh. Mohinder Singh

DRT20 Mar 2025OA/687/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of Rs.21.26 lakhs plus interest from two borrowers who failed to repay a KCC loan. The court awarded simple interest at 8% p.a. and authorized recovery through mortgage sale or asset attachment.

What did the court decide?

Ordered defendants to pay Rs.21,26,242.00 with costs and 8% simple p.a.; Recovery Certificate issued; liberty to enforce via asset sale.

Punjab & Sind Bank versus Sh. Mohinder Singh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.687/2024

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 06.04.2024

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 20.03.2025

¶6

Punjab & Sind Bank, a body corporate and a nationalized Bank under the provisions of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act of 1980 with its Head Office at Rajendra Place, New Delhi-110024 and having branches amongst others places, Branch at G.T. Road, Branch, Khanna through Mr. Pateek Aggarwal, Branch Manager and duly Constituted Attorney of the applicant.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Mohinder Singh S/o Sh. Sucha Singh R/o Village Jallanpur, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana.

¶10

Sh. Balvir Singh S/o Sh. Dalip Singh R/o Village Jallanpur, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana.

¶11

….……Defendants

¶12

Advocates: Argued by Ms. Monika Sharma, Advocate for the applicant (through VC) Defendants are ex parte

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

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.21,26,242.00 (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Twenty Six Thousand Two Hundred Forty Three only). The Original Application has been filed through Mr. Pateek Aggarwal, Branch Manager of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide General Power of Attorney dated 06.09.2019 and Authorization Letter dated 27.03.2024, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶15

¶16

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendants had approached the applicant for the grant of KCC Limit of Rs.10.00 Lacs and further for its enhancement to Rs.15.00 Lacs.

¶17

The applicant Bank sanctioned the KCC Limit of Rs.10.00 Lacs and further for its enhancement to Rs.15.00 Lacs, Vide Sanction Letters dated 23.06.2014 and 20.02.2016, which are Annexures A2 and A13 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶18

Defendants no.1 had mortgaged his immovable property i.e. Land Measuring 30K-4M situated at Village Jalanpur, Tehsil Samrala District Ludhiana vide Declaration U/s 4(1) dated 20.02.2016 and Registered Mortgage Deed bearing vasika no.821 and 24.06.2014 along with its translation, which are Annexures A21 and A22 to this OA.

¶19

Documents executed:- Certificate of Execution of Documents, Attestation Memo of Documents, D.P. Note, Form No.200, From No.201, From No.312, Form No.159, Form No.199, Form 256(RR) all dated 02.07.2014, which are Annexures A3 to A12 to this OA; Certificate of Execution of Documents, Attestation Memo of Documents, D.P. Note, Form No.200 all dated 29.02.2016, which are Annexures A14 to A17 to this OA; Revival Letter dated 08.04.2021, which is Annexure A18 to this OA; Legal Demand Notice dated 18.03.2024 with postal receipts, which are Annexures A19 and A20 to this OA and Statement of account duly certified, which is Annexure A23 to this OA.

¶20

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.21,26,242.00, 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.

¶21

¶22

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 19.10.2024.

¶23

In support of the OA, affidavit of Mr. Pateek Aggarwal, Branch Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank h as been filed. 8. Heard arguments and perused record. 9. It was argued by learned counsel through video conferencing 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 A23 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 bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.21,26,242.00 (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Twenty Six Thousand Two Hundred Forty Three 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.

¶24

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @13.25%p.a. with monthly rests from 01.04.2024 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

¶25

¶26

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.

¶27

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.21,26,242.00 (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Twenty Six Thousand Two Hundred Forty Three only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00%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 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. 12. Any other application pending stands disposed of. 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶28

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 16.04.2025. 15. Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant 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: 20.03.2025

¶29

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

Punjab & Sind Bank v. Sh. Mohinder Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab & Sind Bank v. Sh. Mohinder 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

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Hardev Singh

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Jaspreet Singh

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Girdhari Lal

M/S Anand Cranks versus Karnataka Bank Limited and Others

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Harminder Singh

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Kunal Rana