UCO BANK vs HARI CHAND MONDAL AND ANR on 20 July 2020

-6.

'//

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III KOLKATA

PRESENT: -SRI ANIL KUIV]AR CHATURVEDI,

PRESIDING OFFICER.

T.A. No.662 OF 20t4.

DATE OF DELIVERY OF ORDER . AO\,''T7 AOI*

UCO Ban k,

Badu Bra nch,

Lokenath lv'la rket (1st Floor),

Badu Bazar, P.O. : Badu,

Dist. 24 Parqanas (N),

Barasat (W), PIN-700 128.

...

Applica nt Ban k.

-Versus-

1.

Shri Hari Chand Mondal,

S/o. Late Nirode lvlonda l,

Vill. Doharia-Methopara,

P.O.:Ganganagar,

Dist.24 Pgs (N), PIN-700 132.

AND

Vill. Doltala, Ga n9a nagar

Co o^y, P.O. : Ganganagar,

Dist.24 Pgs (N), PIN 700 132.

2.

Shri Gour Dhara,

Vill.Gustia, P.O. : Badu,

Dist. 24 Pgs (N), PIN-700 128.

...

Defendants.

Counsel for the Applicant Bank: -

.

lvlulla & Co.

Counsel for the Defendants:-

... Set ex-parte on

20.12.2019

]UDGE[lENT

1.

This is an Transfer Application under Secton 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 initiated by the applicant against the defendants praying for lssuance of Recovery Certificate to the tune of Rs.10,73,089.00 together with interest, cost and other usual reliefs.

2.

The brief facts of the case as made out in the Transfer Application by the applicant bank is that the defendant no.1 had approached the d\-

3.

4.

applicant bank for grant of financial assistance for his business wherein the defendant no.2 had stood as guarantor. The applicant bank after examining the feasibility of the said proposal had sanctioned for the first time to the limit of Rs.1.80 takhs on 20.05.2003 which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.3.50 lakhs on 17.L2.2005 in Favour of defendant no.1 with certain terms and conditions, which was accepted by the defendants. It was also stipulated in the sanction letter that the first loan limit shall be payable in 60 equal monthly installments @

Rs.4,000.00 per month w.e.f. luty, 2003. To avail the above loan facilities, the defendants had executed various loan documents on 20.05.2003 and 23.12.2005 in favour of the applicant bank. To secure the above loan amount, the defendant no.1 had created equitable mortgage of his immovable property in favour of the applicant bank by depositing the original title deed in the Bank on 20.12.2005.

After availing the loan, the defendant no.1 had utilized the said loan amount in his 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.10,73,089.00

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 applicant bank had filed this Transfer Application for the recovery of the aforesaid amount and for the issuance of Recovery Certificate against 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- pafte on 20.72.2019. The Tribunal had no other option but to hear ex- parte against the defendants.

a\-

5.

6.

7.

9.

I have heard the learned Counsel

perused the relevant docu ments.

The defendants had not contested

Thus, the point for determination in

of the applicant bank is within t:me

utilized the loan facilities granted

defendants are liable to the amount

for the applcant 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.

The applicant bank by oral and docunrentary evidence has established its case. The documentary evidence comprises from Annexure/Exhibit- A to Annexure/Exhibit-L, 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 I'iled as Annexure/Exhibit-A

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

The oral testimony comprises of an affidavit of Shri Arup Kumar r0.

Dewan, S/o. Late Rajendralal De$l working as Senior Manager of the averments in the application and the facts stated applicant in his affidavit are unrebutted'

the Stat(lment of Account which is

total outstanding comes to Rs.10,73,089 00

is entitled to recover from the defendants'

11. 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 10,73,089 00 from the defendants who are liable for the sanle- The applicant bank shall also Applicant Bank. The by the witness of the From the Perusal of An nex u relExh ib it- L, the which the applicant bank O\- !

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

l2o/o per annum with simple from the date of filing of the Original Application till the date of realization.