CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA vs SUNITA HARIBHAU on 3 May 2019

Dyh'*l

Central Bank of India,

a body corporate under The Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act 1970

having its Head Office at Chander Mukhi, Point, Mumbai, Pin : 400 021 and one of its situated at Malegaon Branch, Taluk Dist: Nashik. Pin :423 203 through Chief

1. Mrs. Surtita Haribhau Gite, %

R/o New Holi Chauk,

Tal: Malegaon, Dt: Nashik

Presented on : 04/03/20L5

Registered on : 06/05/20'1,6

Transferred on : 03/10/20L6

Decided on:03/05/20L9

Durati on : 27 (D) [Ll.(M)/ 02(Y)

Defendant No. 1

Defendant No. 2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - III AT MUMBAI

DATED THIS 3'dDAY OF MAY 2019

PRESENT : SHRI. T S ASOKRAJ

PRESIDING OFFICER

T O A No.1644 of 20L6

-PgEv

)

2. Mrs. Karuna W

R/o House No.

Tal: Malegaon,

Hire Galli,

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Mr

R/

J.

- 423 203

De{endant No. 3

K Naik, Advocate, Counsel for Applicant Bank remained ex-parte This Original Application (OA) is filed by Applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 ("RDDB Act'')

(since changed to "Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993") against the Defendants for the recovery of a surn aggregating to Rs. 21,82,224/- (Rupees Twenty One lacs Eighty Two thousand Two hundred and Twenty Four only) in respect of )

)

x

the credit facility mentioned in the OA alongwith cost, charges, pendente lite fldtrure interest as stated therein from the date of filing of this oA till its realisation'

Parties

Applicant is a Bank within sec. 2(d) of the RDDB Act and lender of credit facility to Defendant No. 1 for which Defendant No. 2 and 3 stood personal guarantee'

Factual matrix:

1.(a) As per OA, Applicant provided Rupee Term Loan of Rs' 1

Defendant No. 1 for the PurPose of

of poultry

on

the documentation and security creation by the additional security of to

3. The RTL was also

personal guarantee Provided bY

secured by mortgage securitY bY

Defendant No. 1 in resPect of

Taluk Malegaon in District N

'%.

o.

Malegaon - I.

(b) As the Defendant No. 1

RTL in spite

calling upon

RTL and, on

2.(")

(b)

Deed executed bY

same registered with SRO,

to pay the dues in resPect of the

Applicant got Recall Notice issued

repay the entire outstanding amount of the the OA has been filed.

of

all

itself of the OA being within limitation and falling jurisdiction as Per RDDB Act, ordered issue of Summons to to the Defendants were sent by Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due. Postal covers ad"dressed to Defendant No. 1 and 3

returned undelivered with postal endorsement "Refused to take RPAD"' As per Regulation 19 of. The Regulations of Practice 2010 (framed pursuant to power conferred under sub-Section(1) of Section 22 of RDDB Act), the Summons are deemed to have been served. Postal covel addressed to Defendant No' 2 also did not get served with postal cover returning with postal endorsement "Left located at Ajang in J

Address". Hence, on the application of the Applican! Tribunal allowed substituted service through newspaper publication, which was carried out by the Applicant. Applicant filed Service Affidavit.

(c) As Defendants did not appear either in person or through advocate and file Written Statements, the Defendants wete set ex-parte on 12/12/2018 by an Order of the Tribunal.

Proceedings:

3. As directed by

Galib, Branch

the Tribunaf Applicant filed, through Shri.

bu

AS

Manager, Claim Affidavit

Annexures (which have been taken on

the Tribunal and marked as

'Exhibits") and also filed Certified

together with the

Certificate issued under Information

'w

and Certificates

under Bankers Books of E

(which are marked

as Exhibit "19" , "20' , "21" & "23

filed as Exhibits and gone

&

through by the Tribunal, thsB

relevant for the Tribunal to

consider and dispose of

Observation on Evidences provided& Claim made:

4. The Statement of Account filed by the Applicant, certified as per Bankers Books of Evid.ence Act, 1891., talTied with claim in OA. Further, the case of the varr.ous Exhibit Document |

il&

,

E&q

I-- "S

S. No.

FaCili

"-L4"

Sanction Letter (Office CoPY)

If,

Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement

(Original)

"L6"

Personal Guarantee of Def2&3

(Original)

,r17r,

Mortgage Deed by Def 1 (Regd

SRO, Malegaon-I) (Original)

with

,r18r,

Recall Notice (Office CoPY)

Rupee

1.

Applicant is based on various Documents (including the above referred Exhibits) filed alongwith Claim Affidavit, which is a sworn Statement, which has gone unchallenged as Defendants remained ex-parte. In my view, there is no question of d.isbelieving the Exhibits and Claim Affidavit and other evid.ences let in by the Applicant and the Applicant has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt to the extent of sanctioning the RTL, completing Documentation and disbursement of the RTL'

5. The Applicant has claimed interest at the rate of \3.00% p.a.

from the date of filing of the OA till its realisation. Having regards Te(20)

of the RDDB Act (which is analogous to Sec.

Civil Proied.ure Code, 1908)

the contract between the Applicant and

comes to an end on the

filing of the OA.Thus the Tribunal

In

pendentelite and

future interest. Considering the

by banks for similar

faciTrty,I am of the opinion

will be served if the rate

interest is awarded at the ra$b

simple interest basis.

6. In the light of a

Application is being allowed and

Order passed on