Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
State Bank of India vs Sri Jugal Chandra Paul & Anr. on 17 January 2020
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, SILIGURI
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI D.S.MAHRA
T. A. No. 266/2017 arising out of O.A. No. 1251/2011
State Bank of India, Buniadpur Branch, Buniadpur, Pin 733121, Police Station Bansihari, District Dakshin Dinajpur, West Bengal.
.....Applicant
Vs.
1. 1) Shri Jugal Chandra Paul, Village Barali, Buniadpur Court More, P.O. Buniadpur, Police Station Bansihari, District Dakshin Dinajpur, West Bengal.
2. 2) Smt.Golapi Paul, Village Barali, Buniadpur Court More, P.O. Buniadpur, Police Station Bansihari, District Dakshin Dinajpur, West Bengal.
.....Defendants
Presence of the Counsel
For the Applicant : Mrs. Puja Bhupal, Advocate For the defendants : Ex-parte
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered on 17<sup>th</sup> January 2020)
The Applicant is a body corporate constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 and carries on banking business through various branches and one of such branch being State Bank of India, Buniadpur Branch, Buniadpur, Pin 733121, Police Station Bansihari, District Dakshin Dinajpur, West Bengal.
The facts in brief, giving rise to the present application as pleaded are as under.
The defendant No.1 is the borrower and the defendant No.2 is the guarantor of the defendant No.1.
The defendant No.1 requested the applicant bank to grant credit facility for the purpose of his business in dealing with jute, against mortgage of his immovable property and in consideration of the request of the defendant No.1 the applicant bank granted a credit facility to the tune of Rs. 10.00 lakhs on 24/8/2005, vide Sanction Letter dated 24/8/2005.
Siliguri
(Contd...)
defendants to the Applicant Bank altogether a sum of Rs. 20,26, 144.47 with interest calculated upto 31/08/2011.
The defendants neither appeared nor filed any written statement against the claim of the applicant bank despite the service of summons upon the defendants through paper publication. Hence, the defendants were ordered to be proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 10/6/2019.
The Applicant Bank in support of its case has filed evidence by way of affidavit as affirmed by Sri. Sudip Prasad Mandal, the Branch Manager of the applicant bank and also relied upon the following documents:- <table border="1"> <thead> <tr> <th>Sl. No.</th> <th>Name of the documents</th> <th>Exhibit No.</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>1.</td> <td>Loan application</td> <td>A</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2.</td> <td>Sanction Letter dated 24/8/2005, Demand Promissory Note for Rs.10.00 lakhs dated 24/8/2015, D.P. Note Delivery Letter for Rs. 10.00 lakhs dated 24/8/2015,</td> <td>A-1</td> </tr> <tr> <td>3.</td> <td>Agreement for hypothecation and Guarantee dated 24/8/2015</td> <td>B</td> </tr> <tr> <td>4.</td> <td>Title deed bearing No.3747 of 1996 and Confirmation Letter</td> <td>C</td> </tr> <tr> <td>5.</td> <td>Sanction Letter dated 28/9/2005</td> <td>D</td> </tr> <tr> <td>6.</td> <td>Agreement of loan for overall limit</td> <td>E</td> </tr> <tr> <td>7.</td> <td>Agreement of Hypothecation of goods and assets</td> <td>E/1</td> </tr> <tr> <td>8.</td> <td>Agreement of pledge of goods and assets</td> <td>E/2</td> </tr> <tr> <td>9.</td> <td>Guarantee Agreement dated 28<sup>th</sup> September, 2005</td> <td>F</td> </tr> <tr> <td>10.</td> <td>Letter for extension of mortgage</td> <td>G</td> </tr> <tr> <td>11.</td> <td>Letter of Demand</td> <td>H</td> </tr> <tr> <td>12.</td> <td>Revival Letter dated 18/9/2008</td> <td>I</td> </tr> <tr> <td>13.</td> <td>Demand Notice u/s 13(2) dated 15/12/2008</td> <td>J</td> </tr> <tr> <td>14.</td> <td>Statement of account</td> <td>K</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>
I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant bank and perused the documents and Evidence filed by applicant bank. By the said evidence on affidavit, the Applicant bank has proved its claim. It is settled law that an averment which is not denied by the opposite party i.e. defendants in the present matter, by way of filing written (Contd...)
Siliguri statement or by producing evidence must be taken by the Tribunal/ Court to have admitted by the defendants. In the present matter the defendants have neither filed the written statement nor produced any evidence in his support to challenge the claim of applicant bank.
The claim of the Applicant bank is within the limitation and within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The applicant has sufficient cause of action for filing the instant application due to disbursement/availment of loan to/by the defendants and on default in repayment of the loan by the defendants, in spite of demands made, as per exhibited documents filed by the applicant bank.
In the above circumstances, it is ordered:
ORDER
T.A. No. 266/2017 arising out of O.A. No. 1251/2011 filed by the Applicant Bank is allowed against the defendants No. 1 & 2 jointly and severally and it is hereby ordered that the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover from the above said defendants the total debt amount for Rs. 20,26,144.47p (Rupees twenty lakhs twenty six thousand one hundred forty four and paise forty seven) only with further interest thereon @11.25%.p.a. with quarterly rests from the date of filing of the application till realization of entire balance.
Amount, if any, paid by the defendants in the loan accounts or amount recovered by the applicant bank, if any, made towards the loan accounts after filing of the O.A be taken into account while arriving at the exact amount of outstanding payable by the defendants.
The hypothecated properties and the mortgaged properties, [Deed No. I-3747 for the year 1996] being all that the land measuring 18 decimals be the same a little more or less comprised in R.S. Dag No. 541, J.L. No. 255, Khatian No. 449 in Mouza Barail, Sub-Registrar Office Bunaidpur, Police Station Bansihari, District – Dakshin Dinajpur, (out of the aforesaid land Sri. Jugal Chandra Paul sold and transferred land measuring 9 decimals to Golapi Rani Paul vide Deed No. 4027 for the year 1997), shall remain charged to the Applicant Bank and the Applicant Bank shall have paramount charge thereon.
Siliguri (Contd...)
The defendants are debarred from transferring; alienating, encumbering or disposing of the hypothecated/mortgaged properties or any other property and assets belonging to the defendants till the aforesaid adjudicated debt amount is recovered from the defendants.
The defendants are given a time of thirty days from the date of this judgment/final order for repayment of the above mentioned dues, so initiated to them. In case of failure of said defendants to pay the dues within the time as aforesaid, the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover its dues by sale of the hypothecated/mortgaged property and is also entitled to proceed against the said defendants personally and/or personal properties to recover the dues in accordance with law.
Let the certificate of Recovery be drawn up by Learned Registrar forthwith in terms of judgment for issuance of the same against the defendants in favour of Applicant Bank under Sub-Section 7 and 22 of Section-19 of The Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 and put up the same for signature for issuance.
This judgment is signed and pronounced in the open Tribunal on this day the 17<sup>th</sup> day of January, 2020.
Copy of the judgment/final order be given/sent to the parties.
(D.S. MAHRA)
DRT, Siliguri.
Siliguri