BANK OF INDIA vs M/S THE LINE AND ORS on 20 July 2020

'w

I

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III KOLKATA

PRESENT: .SRI ANIL KU[4AR CHATURVEDI.

PRESIDING OFFICER.

T.A. No.76 OF 2013.

DATE OF DELIVERY OF ORDER : O(OZ.ZOZO

t*on

Bank of India,

Sarat Bose Road Branch,

26, Sarat Bose Road,

Kolkata - 7O0 020.

...

Applica nt Bank.

-Versus-

1.

IVls. The Line,

351, Purbachat Ka lita la Main

Road, Kotkata - 700 07a.

2.

Smt. Subarna Banerjee,

W/o, Shri Aru nava Ganguly,

Flat 1Fl3'o Floor,351, purbacha.

Kalitala Main Road, Kolkata-7oo 078.

AND

At:4, Italgacha Road, Ward No.6,

Kolkata - 70O 079.

AND

At ; T M 5/59, Nishikanan (1't Fioor),

Teghoria, Kolkata - 700 059.

3.

Shr Arunava Ganguty,

S/o. Shrj Asit Baran Ganguly,

Flat tF/3'd Floor, 351, purbachal

Kalitala lYain Road, Kolkata-7oo 078. ...

Defendants.

Counsel for the Applicant Bank: -

... Shri Shyamal Ghatak.

Counsel for the Defendants:-

... Set ex_parte on

03.01.2020

]UDGEMENT

1.

This is an Transfer Application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial lnstitutions Act, 1993 initiated by the applicant against the defendants prayjng for issuance of Recovery Certificate to the tune of Rs.23,61,335.38 together with interest, cost and other usual reliefs.

a-

2.

3.

The bnef facts of the case as made out in the Transfer Application by the applicant bank is that the defendants no.2 for self and on behalf of defendant no.1 firm had approached the applicant bank for grant of credit facility for its business wherein the defendant no.3 had stood as guarantor. The applicant bank after examining the feasibility of the said proposal had sanctioned a cash credit limit of Rs.10.00 lakhs and Rs.5.00 lakhs aggregating to Rs.15.00 lakhs on 16.06.2006 in favour of defendant no.1 firm with certain terms and conditions, which was accepted by the defendants, To avail the above loan facilities, the defendants had executed various loan documents on 17.06.2006 in favour of the applicant bank. To secure the above loan amount, the defendant no.3 had created equitable mortgage of his immovable property in favour of the applicant bank by depositing the original title deed rn the Bank on 17.06.2006.

After availing the loan, the defendant no,1 had utilized the said loan amount in its business and operated the loan account at the initial stage but subsequently the defendants had failed to operate the said loan account in terms of the agreement between the parties as a result of which the loan account became irregular. A sum of Rs.23,61,335.38

is due against the defendants which the defendants had not paid despite repeated demands and request. Finding no other way to recover the dues of the bank, the appllcant bank had filed this Transfer Application for the recovery of the aforesajd amount and for the issuance of Recovery Certificate aqainst the defendants.

Notices were issued to the defendants to show cause as to why the relief prayed for by the applicant bank be not granted. After issuance of the notice, the defendants had neither appeared nor had filed their show cause reply. Consequently, the said defendants were set ex- parte on 03.01.2020. The Tribunal had no other option but to hear ex- parte aga inst the defendants.

4.

I have heard the learned Counsel

perused the releva nt documents.

The defendants had not contested

Thus, the point for determrnat on in

of the applicant Dank is withrn ti''t1e

utilized the loan facilities granted

defendants are liable to the amount

for the applicant bank and have

the case of the applicant bank.

this case is (i) Whether the claim

? (ii) whether the defendants had

by the bank ? (iii) Whether the

due to the applicant bank or not ?

B.

5,

6.

7.

9.

The applicant bank by oral and documentary evidence has established its case. The documentary evidence comprises from Annexure/Exhibit- A to Annexure/Exhibit-H, which are available in paper book filed by the applicant bank.

From the perusal of the documents referred above and the certified copy of the statement of account, which is filed as Annexure/Exhibit-A

to H, it is established that the defendants had availed the financial faciiities from the applicant bank and had withdrawn the amount through the account.

The oral testimony comprises of an affidavit of Shri Ranjit Kumar, S/o.

Shri Chandra Bhusan Poddar, working as Senior Branch tt4anager of the Applicant Bank. The averments in the application and the facts stated by the witness of the applicant in his affidavit are unrebutted.

From the perusal of the Statement of Account which is Annexu relExhibit- F, the total outstanding comes to Rs.23,61,335.38

which the applicant bank is entitled to recover from the defendants.

In view of the above discussion and after considering the entire evidence-on-affidavit of the applicant bank and the documents filed by the applicant bank, I have no hesitation to hold that the applicant bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.23,61,335.38 from the defendants who are liable for the same. The applicant bank shall also

10.

11.

o

be entitled to pendentelite and future interest on the said amount @

l7o/o per annum with simple from the date of filing of the Original Application till the date of realization.