Ved Prakash Rekhan vs PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

THERE is delay of 56 days in filing this revision petition. An application for condonation of delay has been moved. The delay has been explained in paras 2,3 and 4 of the application, which are reproduced as under: "2. Copy of the order dated 10.10.2014 was delivered to the petitioner on 14.11.2014. Limitation for filing the present complaint expired on 12.02.2015.

That the case file of the present petition was misplaced in the office of the counsel for the petitioner. Said file was recovered only on 08.04.2014 and immediately thereafter counsel for the petitioner has filed the present revision petition.

That there is delay of 53 days in filing the present petition. However, delay is inadvertent and unintentional and same has taken place in view of the fact that the case file was misplaced in the counsel''s office. Affidavit of the counsel for the petitioner is also attached herewith stating the abovementioned fact."

This application is supported by an affidavit of the counsel, Ms. Himanshi Saini.

WE do not attach any value to such like excuse. This is no lucid explanation for such delay. It is not understood why the case was delayed and why the file was misplaced for such a long time. It shows negligence, inaction and passivity on the part of the advocate. The delay has not been explained satisfactorily.

THE Apex Court in a recent case i.e. Sanjay Sidgonda Patil vs. Branch Manager, National Insu. Co. Ltd. and Anr., Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 37183 of 2013 decided on 17.12.2013, confirmed the order passed by three judges Bench of this Commission and refused to condone the delay of 13 days. We are bound by the ratio explained in the judgment. The case is hopelessly barred by time. The same is liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation. Let us turn to the merits of this case. Even on merits, the case of the petitioner is, too, weak. Shri Ved Prakash Rekhan, the complainant took term loan in the sum of Rs.90 lakh to purchase plot No. W -9, Industrial Area, Yamuna Nagar. Punjab National Bank, Yamuna Nagar advanced the loan against the mortgage of the property. The said property was already mortgaged with Allahabad Bank and a case of recovery was pending before the DRT at Chandigarh. Consequently, the petitioner was asked to give additional security regarding repayment. The petitioner deposited the additional security, FDR, in the sum of Rs.99,99,500/ - in the name of another person named, Satpal Narang. The complainant was informed that the rate of interest in the FDR was 5% per annum at that time and the bank would charge interest on the term loan @ 7% per annum.

SUBSEQUENTLY , it transpired that the bank was charging higher rate of interest. The loan amount was paid and the FDR of Satpal was released. It transpired that Punjab National Bank has levied DOC charges and un -front charges to the tune of Rs.1,56,070/ -. This is an indisputable fact that if the loan is advanced against the FDR than the processing charges etc. cannot be levied as per the circular but if the loan is advanced against the mortgage of property than the complainant has no bone to pluck.

THE case of the complainant is that the loan was sanctioned against the FDR and it was not against the mortgage of the property. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that since another loan was obtained from Allahabad Bank against the same property, therefore, unless or until that property is released, the second loan cannot be given on the said mortgage deed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that unless or until the property is released in his name and its transfer is made in his name, he cannot mortgage it and for that reason the loan was sanctioned on FDR and that is why, it necessitated for the complainant to file the additional security in the shape of the FDR.

LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has also invited our attention towards the finding given by the District Forum: " .. the present complaint is hereby partly allowed and the complainant is entitled for the refund of unfront fees, documents charges, CIBIL charges and Service Tax of Rs.1,56,071 -32681 (already credited in the account of complainant) = 1,23,390 and process fees alongwith service tax Rs.7400/ - i.e. total Rs.1,31,190/ - alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of debit i.e. 12.7.2012 till its actual realization."

It was further argued that it clearly depicts that this loan was not sanctioned against the mortgage deed but against the FDR and had it been refunded against the mortgage, they would not have refunded the amount.

WE are not impressed by the arguments by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is rudimentary principle of law that documentary evidence will always get preponderance over the oral evidence because it is well known axiom of law that, "Men may tell lies but the documents cannot".

A bare look on the judgment of the State Commission clearly goes to show that he has placed reliance on document Ex. R -1 wherein he has given the details but we take out extract from it as under: "2. Interest BR+4.00 presently 14.50 % as applicable BB rated units with monthly rests and as amended from time to time. And para 9 primary security i) EM of the land and building to be constructed thereon as per detail below. Mortgage of plot No. W 9 situated at Industrial area, Yamuna Nagar, after registration of sale letter in the name of Sh. Ved Prakash Rekhan issued by Allahabad Bank. IV) Personal guarantee of Sh. Satpal Narang and lien over FDR (DP 10909 dated 11.07.2012 for 12 months of Rs.99,99,500/ -. The FDR will be released after proper mortgage of IP on which showroom is to be constructed/built in favour of bank."

IT is thus clear that the petitioner must have signed the documents with open eyes. He cannot go behind the agreement. He is bound by the agreement. There lies no rub in mortgaging the same property with two banks or three banks but there should not be suppression of facts.

CONSEQUENTLY , the revision petition is dismissed as barred by limitation as well as on merits.