Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Kaman Cargo Movers

DRT12 Aug 2022OA/116/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an Originating Application filed by HDFC Bank for recovery of money and interest against borrowers and co-borrowers who failed to service commercial vehicle loans and GECL, permitting the sale of hypothecated properties.

What did the court decide?

Ordered payment of total dues, interest, and costs. Granted liberty to sell hypothecated properties and proceed against other assets if full realization fails.

Hdfc Bank versus Kaman Cargo Movers — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2022)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL^. I, KARNAIAKA AT BENGATURU

¶2

Dated this the LZt*l. hy of August,2022

¶3

Present: Sri IMTIAZ ALI

Presiding Officer

oAtt6/202,2

BETWEEN:

HDFC BANK LTD.,

OH Airport Road

Kodihalli

Bangabre-560 017

(Represented by its Manager and Authorized Representative Sri Niranjan B)

¶12

APPLICANT

¶13

AND:

¶14

t. Sri l(aman Cargo^Movers

¶15

Represented bY its Partners Bharat Ganatra & Sunil^Natwarlal |oshi B 78, Devarajurs Truck^Termical

¶16

2nd Stage, Off Kanterava Studio

¶17

Yeshwanthpur, Bangalor e-560⁰²²

¶18

2. Sri Bharat Ganatra

¶19

S/o. Sri PrataP Ganatra

¶20

Aged about 64 Years

¶21

1302,13n Floor,^Casa Serene

¶22

SM Road, falahalli^Cross

T. Dasarahalli

Bangalore-S60 057

Also at:

I I V t

Bharat Ganatra

g -T,Devaraj Urs Truck Terminal

¶29

}nd Stage, Off Kanteerava^Studio

¶30

YeshwanthPur Bangalor e-560 022

¶31

DEFENDANTS

¶32

OA.No.116/2022

¶33

Counsel on record/appeared^for: Applicant : S.A Associates Defendants i Ex'Parte

¶34

FINAL ORDER

¶35

The present OA has been fihd by the Applicant^Bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of DebE and^Bankruptry Act, 1993, seeking recovery of money of Rs.22,87,304/(Rupees Twenty Two Lakh Eighty One Thousand Three Hundred Four onlyJ together with cosb, interest, etc.

¶36

¶37

The case of the Applicant Bank is that the Defendant No.1 is a Partrership Firm under the name and styb of "Kaman Cargo Movers" as borrower represented by ib ParbrersDefendant No.2 as Co-borrower had approached the Applicant Bank for grant of Light Commercial Vehicb Loan and Used Commercial Vehicb Loan and GECL. The Applicant Bank considered the request and sanctioned Light Commercial Vehicb Loan of Rs.13,25,000 /- on 31.12.2016 for purchasing vehicle TATA LPT 1109-48 CABIN, Light Commercial Vehicb Loan of Rs.13,25,000 /- on 37.72.2016 for purchasing vehicb TATA LPT 1109-48 CABIN , Light Commercial Vehicb Loan of

¶38

OA.No.116/2022

¶39

Rs.13,25,000/- on37.12.2015 for purchasing vehicle TATA LpT 1109-48 CABIN, Used Commercial Vehicle Loan of Rs.8,18,000/- on 22.10.2020 for purchasing of LPT 1709/42 Full HIDECK Used Commercial Vehicle Loan of Rs.7,50,000/on 22.10.2020 for purchasing of LPT 1109142 Full HIDECK, GECL Loan under the scheme working capital Term Loan inuoduced by Government of India of Rs.2,88,000/- on 27.08.2020 for working Capital purpose, in terms of the ban agreemenE. In order to secure the bans, the Defendants have executed documents, viz., Agreement for Loan and Guarantee, GECL Sanction Lettel Facility Cum Hypothecation Agreemen! Declaration Cum Hypothecation Agreement, Declaration Cum Undertaking,'B' Register Exfact etc.

¶40

¶41

Furthel the Defendanb have agreed to repay the above bans with variabb rate of interest, as applicable from time to time as per the directions of the Head Office / Central Office of the Applicant Bank and penal interest in case of default and keep the accounb regular by paying installrnents as and when due to the satisfaction of the Applicant Bank, as deaibd in the OA by the Applicant Bank.

¶42

oA.No.u612022

¶43

The Defendants after utilising the said bans^havefaibd

¶44

and neglected to make the repayment of the^{loans dueas} agreed and Defendanb have^{not servicedthe interest thereon} as per the terms and condition agreed by the^DefendanB.In view of the continued default, the Ioan accounts^{wereclassified}

¶45

as Non-Performing Asset. The Applicant Bank has sent^Legal Notice on 20.1L.2027 to the DefendanB. In spite of receipt of Legal Notice, the Defendanb have faibd to^pay the outstanding dues and hence the recovery^process is initiated to recover the dues.

¶46

In the light of these factors, it is contended by the Applicant Bank that Defendant is liabh to pay a total sum of Rs.22,81,304/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakh Eighty One Thousand Three Hundred Four only).

¶47

After filing this 0A, Summons were sent and served to all the Defendants through RPAD. When Defendanb were calbd out, Defendanb remained absent and placed as ex parte.

¶48

To prove the case of the Applicant Banh its Manager, Sri Niranjan B, has filed his affidavit by way of evidence and same

¶49

¶50

OA.No.LL6/2022

¶51

was considered as evidence of AW.1 and marked at Ex.A1 and

¶52

List of Documents came to be marked at Ex.AZ and Lg

¶53

documents came to be marked at Ex.A3 to 2L.

¶54

No evidence on behalf of the Defendanb.

¶55

Arguments of Learned Counsel for the plaintiff /

¶56

Applicant Bank heard and perused the records of the case.

¶57

Following points arise for my consideration:

¶58

1. Whether Plaintiff / Applicant Bank proves ib case as contended in the plaint / application?

¶59

What Or&r?

¶60

LL. For the following reasons, I answer the above-referred poinB in the following manner:

¶61

REASONS

¶62

L2. The Manager of the Applicant Bank came to be

¶63

examined as AW.1. His affidavit by way of evidence reiterated the facts pleaded in the plaint and his affidavit is also

¶64

corroborated by the above-refemed Ex.A3 to AZL which clearly establish the case of the Applicant Bank to allow the present

¶65

¶66

OA. Added to this, the Defendants have remained absent, hence

¶67

OA.No.116/2022

¶68

it is to be construed that Defendants^{have admitted the entire}

¶69

case pleaded by the Applicant Bankⁱⁿ the^{present OA.}

¶70

Therefore, for these reasons,^present OA is to^be

¶71

allowed with costs as sought by the^{ApplicantBank.}

¶72

ORDER

¶73

Present OA stands allowed as^prayed for with interest

¶74

and costs.

¶75

In the event of failure of the Defendants to^{pay the said} OA amoun! the Applicant Bank is at liberty to sell^the [Hypothecated)^{Scheduleproperties in accordance with law as} sought by the Applicant Bank in the^OA.

¶76

In spite of sale of the^{(Hypothecated) schedule} properties, if the OA amount is not fully realised, then the Applicant Bank is at liberty to^proceed against the^{person and} other property of the Defendants in accordance with^law.

¶77

' \t V '

¶78

Applicant Bank shall file latest Memo of Calculation of OA amount together with interest, costs etc., to be^paid by ,"f"ndants duly taking into account the amount/s, if any,^paid

¶79

OA.No.tL6/2022

¶80

by the Defendants and/or amount realised by sale of assets, etc., during the intervening period after filing the oA, to enable

¶81

the office to prepare Recovery certificate for the amount to be

¶82

paid by the Defendants to the Applicant Bank.

¶83

office is directed to issue Recovery certificate as sought by the Applicant Bank in the oA and do the needful as required under the law forthwith.

¶84

The office is directed to issue, as far as possible, free

¶85

copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶86

(Dictated to the Stenographer, after its transcription and necessary corrections, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the llth day of Augu st,2022)

¶87

\vt llrr,IrLz^ALr) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, Bengaluru

¶88

OA.No.116/2022

¶89

ANNEXURES

¶90

Witness Examined for the Applicant Bank:

¶91

AW-1 : Sri Niranjan B

¶92

Manager of Applicant Bank

¶93

List of Documents Exhibited for the Applicant Bank:

¶94

Ex.A-1 : Affidavit of AW-1

¶95

Ex.A-2 : List of Documents

¶96

Ex.A-3 to A-21 : 19 documents

¶97

Witness Examined for the Defendantsl

¶98

Nil-

¶99

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants:

¶100

Nil-

¶101

;^u" 0Mrr.AvArD PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, Bengaluru

¶102

Hdfc Bank v. Kaman Cargo Movers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Kaman Cargo Movers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hdfc Bank versus Anil H B

Ms Guru Kripa Rice Mills versus Punjab National Bank

Ms Sai Trinity Organisation and Another versus Union Bank of India

Mrs v Jayshree versus Canara Bank

Canara Bank versus Sh Kartar Singh

Axis Bank versus Jagjeet Singh