At, Debts Recovery Tribunal Chandigarh
By, THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: HARCHARN SINGH
By, PRESIDING OFFICER
For Petitioner: Nitin Jain And For Respondents: Aalok Jagga
1. The Applicant Bank filed this OA for the recovery of a total sum of Rs. 3,30,02,737/- (Rupees Three Crore Thirty Lakh Two Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty Seven only) from the Defendants jointly and severally with costs, current and future interest @ 15.25% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of filing of the OA till the date of realization.
2. It is stated that the Defendant No. 1 had availed Cash Credit facility of Rs. 3 crore from the Applicant Bank. It has been averred that the facilities are secured by way of mortgage of immoveable properties by Defendants No. 3 and 4 besides guarantee of Def. Nos. 2 to 4 in favour of the bank. It has been averred that all documents were signed and executed by the Defendants on their own.
Since the Defendants have failed to maintain financial discipline, the account became irregular and declared NPA. Since the defendants have failed to pay the outstanding amount, the Bank has filed the present case to recover it dues.
3. The averments of the Applicant are set out in detail in its Application and therefore they are not being stated here afresh to avoid a repetition of facts.
4. In its Written Statement, Defendants have alleged that the Application is not filed by competent person and that the documents when got signed were blank besides pointing out towards column left blank at some pages and the change in date of deposit of title deed made by the officers of the Bank.
5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The points that arise for consideration are:
1. Whether the Application has been filed by the Competent Person?
2. Whether the documents were duly executed by the Defendants or whether the signatures of the defendants were taken on blank document?
3. Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled to the claim as prayed for?
Point No. 1:
The instant suit has been filed by Sh. Anil Kumar Asija, Sr. Manager of the Applicant Bank who is duly authorized by the Applicant Bank as is evident from Exh. A1 to institute this application, engage counsel, to take all steps for the conduct of this case. The counsel for the Defendants has failed to convince through any cogent evidence that the suit has not been filed by a duly authorized and competent person. Hence, I hold that Sh. Anil Kumar Asija is duly competent and Authorised person to file the OA on behalf of the Applicant Bank. Thus, this issue is decided in favour the Applicant Bank.
Point No. 2
The defendants have alleged that their signatures were taken on blank documents but failed to prove on record as to under what compelling circumstances there did so and why they did not take appropriate remedy against the same.
The defendants have also pointed out towards columns left blank on certain pages of different documents and have also pointed out that the Bank officers had changed the date of deposit of title deed/date of mortgage of property with the Bank. I do not see any ground which can provide any relief to the defendants. The moot point is that they have executed the documents on their own and if some columns are left blank and the date of deposit of title deeds/mortgage of property has been changed that can be typographical mistake or an error on the part of that officer at the most but that do not dissolve of the defendants from their liability. Hence, this point goes against the defendants.
Point No. 3
The Applicant Bank has established its case on oath through Affidavit of Sh. Anil Kumar Asija of the Applicant Bank through Exh. A1 to Exh. A14 on its side. The Defendants though have contested the same in their written statement yet were unable to prove through any document or otherwise that the Application filed by the Applicant is not maintainable. Since there is no rebuttal of the evidence adduced by the Applicant Bank, therefore there is no valid reason available on record to disbelieve the statement of the Applicant Bank on the other hand the documentary evidence produced by the Bank is sufficient to prove the same.
Hence, this point is proved in favour of the Applicant.
7. In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the Defendants No. 1 to 4 are liable to pay a total sum of Rs. 3,30,02,737/- (Rupees Three Crore Thirty Lakh Two Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty Seven only) to the Applicant jointly and severally with costs, current and future interest @ 15.25% p.a. with m
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
onthly rests from the date of filing of the OA, i.e., 13.01.2015 till the date of realization and the Applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law. 8. Any other application pending stands disposed of. 9. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 10. The parties are directed to appear before the concerned Recovery Officer on 20.03.2018. 11. A copy of Order be sent to the parties as per Law and the file be consigned to record thereafter.