Punjab National Bank vs A. Manivannan on 28 March 2024

FINAL ORDER

1. This application is filed by the applicant bank under Section 19(1) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of an aggregate sum of Rs.44,11,241.32p together with interest at the rate of 11.1% per annum with monthly rests plus from the date of filing of the application till the date of realization in full along with costs of this application.

2. The above Original Application is filed before DRT-I Chennai and stood transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as above.

3. The case of the applicant can be summarized as follows: - (a) The 1st defendant had availed Gold Loan from time to time from the applicant pursuant to the gold certification report given by the 2nd defendant. The 3rd defendant executed a deed of guarantee on 2.2.2012 thereby guaranteeing due repayment of the entire loan availed by the 1st defendant.

(b) The 1st defendant approached the applicant bank for grant of jewel loan in order to meet out his urgent requirements for his agriculture operation. Pursuant to the said request the applicant sanction gold loan from time to time based on the gold certification report given by the 2nd defendant being the gold appraiser of the applicant bank.

(c) The details of the loan facility availed by the 1st defendant are as follows: - Date of Loan

Amount Date of execution of loan documents 06.06.2017 1,94,000/- 06.06.2017 11.10.2017 98,000/- 11.10.2017 08.11.2017 1,62,000/- 08.11.2017 04.01.2018 1,92,000/- 04.01.2018 21.03.2018 1,60,000/- 21.03.2018 10.04.2018 1,18,000/- 10.04.2018 08.05.2018 1,56,000/- 08.05.2018

15.05.2018 1,31,000/- 15.05.2018 24.05.2018 1,65,000/- 24.05.2018 12.06.2018 2,30,000/- 12.06.2018 20.06.2018 75,000/- 20.06.2018 27.06.2018 2,21,000/- 27.06.2018 04.07.2018 1,40,000/- 04.07.2018 10.08.2018 46,000/- 10.08.2018 14.08.2018 2,39,000/- 14.08.2018 04.09.2018 1,79,000/- 04.09.2018 27.09.2018 2,24,000/- 27.09.2018 17.10.2018 2,51,000/- 17.10.2018 30.10.2018 1,21,000/- 30.10.2018 14.11.2018 1,62,000/- 14.11.2018 27.11.2018 2,83,000/- 27.11.2018 18.12.2018 1,41,000/- 18.12.2018 27.12.2018 1,53,000/- 27.12.2018 03.01.2019 2,28,000/- 03.01.2019

(d) It is stated that on an enquiry the applicant came to know that the 1st defendant had availed the aforesaid loan amount based on false gold purity certificate given by the 2nd defendant. Therefore the applicant lodged a criminal complaint on 12.01.2019 before Gingee Polic Station and an FIR was registered on 12.01.2019 and the 2nd defendant was arrested.

4. It is further stated that even though the defendants were obliged to repay the amount promptly and regularly, they had failed to do so resulting in defaults in repayment and hence the account was classified as NPA on 16.02.2019.

5. It is contended by the applicant that the applicant’s officials had on many occasions approached the defendants requesting them to regularize the account and despite the same no effort was made by the defendants to get the account regularized or to pay back the amount. It is stated that as no repayment was forthcoming despite repeated requests, the applicant issued a demand notice on 7.3.2019 calling upon the defendants to clear the outstanding dues.

6. It is also the case of the applicant that despite repeated reminders and requests the defendant failed to make the repayment forcing the applicant to file this OA seeking recovery of the amount due in the account with further interest and costs.

7. The defendants 1 and 2 did not choose to file their reply statement and hence the chance was closed on 31.12.2019. The 3rd defendant filed his reply statement submitting that the OA is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The 3rd defendant while narrating the sequence of events submitted that he executed the guarantee deed on 2.2.2012 for appointment of temporary staff but not to secure the gold loan availed by the 1st defendant in collusion with the 2nd defendant. It is stated that the officials of the applicant bank are also involved in the sanction of jewel loan to the 1st defendant based on the spurious jewels. Therefore, it is only the defendants 1 and 2 and the officials of the applicant bank who are responsible for repayment and the claim against the 3rd defendant is liable to be dismissed.

8. The applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who had sworn to a Proof Affidavit in terms of the pleading in the OA and also produced Exhibits A-1 to A-126 and got the same marked in evidence. The defendants did not choose to file their counter proof affidavit and were set ex-parte on 4.3.2024

9. Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and considered the contentions as taken in the OA in the light of documentary evidence and proof affidavit.

10. The following issues arise for consideration in this matter: -

(i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA claim as against the defendants?

(ii) What orders are to be passed?

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

11. The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendants remained ex-parte. The evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed. The evidences put forth by the applicant were found admissible. From the statement of accounts as produced by the applicant, it is evident that the amount as claimed in the OA is outstanding in the account, which the applicant is entitled to get recovered from the defendants and their assets. The claim of the applicant is well within the period of limitation and there is no capitalization of penal interest.

12. In view of the fact that the subject loan is a gold loan availed by playing fraud on the applicant, this Tribunal is not inclined to interfere with the interest rates claimed by the applicant.

13. In view of the afore mentioned discussions, the only conclusion this Tribunal can draw is that the applicant had clearly proved the disbursement of the loan, which the applicant is entitled to realize and defaults committed by the defendants. Hence, TA is disposed off in the following manner: - (a) TA No.660 of 2023 stands allowed.

(b) Applicant is permitted to realize an aggregate amount of Rs.44,11,241.32p/- with future and pendentelite interest @11.1% p.a., with yearly rests from the defendants jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the OA till realization, after deducting all the amounts received by them during the pendency of OA, and also by selling the other assets of the defendants.

(c) It is made clear that the defendants are personally liable for all such amounts due under the Loan Accounts.

(d) Applicant is permitted to realize cost of the proceedings and shall file cost memo within 7 days from the date of the order.

(e) The Recovery Certificate shall be drawn up and issued to the Recovery Officer in terms of this final order.

14. Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993. (Dictated to PS, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 26th day of March, 2024) Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, CHENNAI