Decided on April 11,2018

Sultana Rahman W/O Late Nazibur Rahman Appellant
Canara Bank And 2 Others Respondents


AM BUJOR BARUA,J. - (1.) Heard Mr. KN Choudhury, learned Senior counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. R Dey, learned counsel for the respondent Canara Bank.
(2.) The petitioner being one of the Directors of the respondent No.2 company stood as a guarantor for a loan availed by the said company for a financial assistance amounting to Rs. 3.50 crores from the respondent Canara Bank as per the sanction letter dated 28.03.2008. The financial assistance was further extended for an additional amount of Rs. 57 Lacs and, as a result, the total loan obtained was Rs. 4.07 crores. The loan was secured by creating an equitable mortgage, amongst others, of 1katha 10 lechas of land of Dag No.29(old), 12(new) of KP No.166(old), 385(new) at Sahar Ulubari second part of Mouza Ulubari in the district of Kamrup(Metro), which was registered in the name of the petitioner.
(3.) But, in course of time, the respondent No.2 company could not repay the loan in the required manner, resulting in the original application No.75/2010 being filed by the respondent Canara Bank before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati (in short, DRT, Guwahati). The petitioner being a guarantor was arrayed as a defendant in the said original application. The DRT, Guwahati gave a final consideration to the OA No.75/2010 by its judgment and order dated 23.02.2012. By the judgment and order of 23.02.2012, a recovery certificate for an amount of Rs. 5,43,60,738/- was ordered to be issued, jointly and severely against all the defendants therein which also included the present petitioner. It was also ordered that the respondent Canara Bank would provide the recovery officer with the contractual rate of interest for further calculation of interest pendente lite and future interest and that the charge of the amount under the certificate be kept alive on the mortgaged property shown in the schedule to the original application, which admittedly also includes the land of the petitioner indicated hereinabove. The said judgment and order is stated to have been passed ex-parte against the defendants therein and the petitioner upon being aware of the said order had taken steps for filing appropriate application for a stay of the order passed by the DRT in the original application, but such applications stood rejected.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.