PRECISE SYNOPSIS in Written Notes of Arguments in Original application - DRT Siliguri

 

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL SILIGURI

PCM Tower, 2^nd Floor, 2 no.Mile, Sevoke Road, Siliguri - 734001.

 

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 15 OF 2024

{ Diary no. 396/2023 }

 

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

--- ---- APPLICANT

– VERSUS –

 

M/S. H. M. ENTERPRISE AND OTHERS

----- ---- RESPONDENTS

 

WRITTEN NOTES OF ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

 

PRECISE SYNOPSIS

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

O.A. No. 15 of 2024 — Punjab National Bank vs. M/s. H.M. Enterprise & Ors.

 

1. The Applicant Bank has filed the present O.A. under Section 19 of the RDB Act claiming Rs.95,63,554.87/- as on 30.11.2023, with further interest, in respect of four loan accounts—Car Loan, Housing/Term Loan, Cash Credit and GECL/COVID Loan.

 

2. The Defendants have denied the material allegations and disputed the Bank's entitlement to the amount claimed, particularly the correctness of the accounts, actual disbursement, repayments, adjustments, interest and final outstanding liability.

 

3. The Bank's claim involves four separate loan accounts. The Bank is therefore required to establish the liability and outstanding amount account-wise, including sanction, disbursement, repayment, default, NPA classification, interest and closing balance.

 

4. The Defendants have pointed out material discrepancies in the Bank's recovery demands, including different amounts reflected in the recovery notices. The Bank has not, according to the Defendants, satisfactorily reconciled such discrepancies.

 

5. The Defendants rely upon the judgment dated 29.07.2024 in S.A. Nos.26 and 27 of 2022, concerning the Bank's SARFAESI measures and service of the Section 13(2) demand notice. The said proceedings constitute a material circumstance requiring scrutiny of the Bank's subsequent recovery action.

 

6. Defendant No.2 has specifically pleaded repayment of EMIs through ECS up to May 2020 and relies upon bank statements. The Bank disputes the same by relying upon its own statement of account.

 

7. Defendant No.2 has also alleged payments/transactions involving Bank officials which were allegedly not credited or adjusted in the loan accounts. The Bank has denied the allegations and put her to strict proof.

 

8. The Defendants have relied upon the RBI COVID-19 moratorium/regulatory measures and disputed the manner of treatment of the accounts during the relevant period. The Bank claims compliance with the RBI directions.

 

9. The alleged partnership status and personal liability of Defendant Nos.2 and 3 have also been disputed. The Bank relies upon the loan documents; the Defendants contend that their respective legal liabilities must be independently established.

 

10. The Defendants further challenge the quantum of interest and charges. The Bank must prove the contractual rate, applicable interest calculations, penal interest and other charges before the same can form part of a recovery certificate.

 

11. The Bank's repeated description of the Defendants' allegations as "afterthought" does not constitute proof. The claim must stand or fall upon the documentary and oral evidence produced before the Tribunal.

 

12. The existence of mortgage/security does not by itself establish the quantum of debt. The underlying legally enforceable liability must first be proved.

 

13. The Defendants accordingly submit that the Bank has failed to establish the entire claim of Rs.95,63,554.87/- and is not entitled to a recovery certificate for the amount claimed.

 

The Defendants therefore pray that the O.A. be dismissed with costs; alternatively, the Bank be directed to furnish a complete account-wise reconciliation of all four loan accounts and that only the amount strictly proved to be legally recoverable, with legally permissible interest, be considered for recovery.