Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. M/S Vintage Machine

DRT8 Aug 2022OA/26/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex parte application for recovery, the Debts Recovery Tribunal affirmed the bank's claim for Rs.23.23 Lakhs based on loan documents executed by defendants who failed to repay the merchant overdraft facility.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs.23,23,518; direction to pay dues within 2 months; injunction against transferring assets; interest at 10% p.a. from date of application.

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Vintage Machine — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2022)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT LUCKNOW

¶2

Present: A.H. Khan, Presiding Officer

¶3

Case No. Original Application No.26 of 2022 Dared: 08.08.2022 I^{HDFC Bank Limited, a body corporare} I^{Constitured under rhe companiesAcr, 1956} having its Regisrered Office ar HDFC bank House, Senapari Bapat Marg, Lower Parel(West),Mumbai-400051, through other branches all over India includirg or" at 38, Pranay Tower, Near Vidhan Sabha Darbari Lal SharmaMarg, Lucknow -22600I U.P. through Sri Suyaash Naaraayan ........Applicant Bank Manager and dulv constituted attorney Versus 1. M/S Vintage Machtne- tfrrou[E- irs proprietor Manas Tripathi Registered Office: 3/11, Vinay Khand, parrakarpuram Gomtinagar, Lucknow U.^p.-226010 2. Manas Tripathi, Proprieror, S/o Bdjesh Kumar Tripathi No ,21172, Viram Khand, GomtiNagar, Lucknow U. p.-226010 J. Tripathi, R/o, 21t72, Viram Khand, GomtiNagar, Lucknow U.p.-226010 .....defendants Counsel for applicant-ban Counsel for rhe defendancs : None

¶4

JUDGMENT

¶5

I' This original Application has been filed by the applicant Bank under SecEion 19 of the Recovery of Debrs [o Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendanrs for the recovery of Rs.23,23,51g.00 (Rupees Twenty Three Lac, Twenty Three Thousand, Five Hundred and Eighteen only) togflrer with pendentelite and luture inrcrcsr, cosrs and (/ other reliefs etc. A .:

¶6

2 O.A. No.26 of 2022

¶7

^J D

¶8

The brief facts of case are rhat the defendant No.l is proprietorship firm through the defendant No.2 sole proprietor of defendant No.l firm, the defendanr Nos.I{q2 approached through Request letter on 12.09.2017 to applicanr bank for Merchanr overdraft loan (MEoD)faciliry of amounr of Rs.20.00 Lac for the business promotion, which was duly sanctioned on 02.11.2017 on certain terms and conditions(Exhibir No.A-2 ro Exhibit No.A-3) ro rhis Original application.

¶9

To secure the Merchant Overdraft (MEOD) Ioan Facility of Rs.20.00 Lac, the defendanr Nos.l&2 signed and executed. various necessary security documents like Demand promissory Note for Rs.20.00 Lac, Amendmenr Agreement, Overdraft Agreement, Deed of hypothecacion, Irrevocable power of Artomey on 0g.r.20r7 in favor of the applicant bank and the defendant No.3 signed and executed the letter of Guaranree on 08.IL2017 in favor of applicant bank, by acknowledging and confirmed her liabilities Jointly, severally and coextensive as same as equal to the principal borrowers in respect of availed credir facfiry(Exhibir No.A-4 to Exhibit No.A-9) Upon availing the credit faciliry, rhe defendanr Nos.I&2 again approached rhe applicant bank through letter dared 24.09.2019, ro renew rhe said credit facility of Rs.20.00 Lac considering the requesrs rhe applicant bank renewed by vide irs renewavsancrion letter dared 24.r2.20rg and, further approached rhe applicant Bank ro again renew rhe said credit [) facility through lemer dared 27.r2.2olgand on the request of d.f"nd^nt. tr / /

¶10

O.A. No.26 of 2022

¶11

the applicanr bank again renew rhe cash credir faciliry of Rs.20.00 Lac vide its sanction letter dated 30.12.2019 to availed the renewed credir facility the defendanr Nos.t&2 signed and execured Addendum deed daced 24.02.2020 in favour of applicanr bank(Exhibit No.A-10 to Exhibit No.A-I4) in this original application.

¶12

To avail the Repaymenr of Merchant Overdraft loan facility, the applicant-bank opened a loan accounr in the name of the defendant No.l maintain the Credir and debir of Sanctioned faciliry.

¶13

After avafing rhe Overdrafr loan faciliry from the applicanr-bank, the defendants failed ro mainrain financial discipline and also faired ro comply with the terms and conditions of loan agreement as required in the matter, The defendants were reminded many times through several applicarions by the applicant-bank as defaulted in repaymenr rhe loan account of defendants remained irregular and un liquidared, therefore, the applicant bank issued and senr a Legal recalVdemand Notice on 01.09.2021 (Exhibir No.A-I5) ro rhe defendants as the defendanrs deliberarely violared requesr for repayments and did nor paid heed to the same, hence, this Original Application has been insrirured.

¶14

As per books of the bank maintained in rhe usual and ordinary course of banking business, an oursranding of Rs.23,23,518.00 (Rupees Twenty Three Lac, Twenty Three Thousand, Five Hundred and Eighteen only) including inreresr as on 01.09.202I, was lying due for payment, for which rhe defendanrs are jointly and severally liable to repay the same, which rhey did not pay despite repeated requests and_

¶15

and_ ( -'''''-"*'t

¶16

o.A. No.26 0f 2022

¶17

demand. The applicanr bank filed rhe Sraremenr of loan Accounts.( Exhibit No.A-16) ro rhis origrnal applicarion.

¶18

The cause of action for ffing rhe presenr application arose firstly on 02.II.2017 when rhe aforesaid overdraft Loan facility was sancrioned by the applicant Bank and the same were availed by the defendanrs and on the execution of necessary security documents The cause of action finally arose on when RecalVDemand Notice dared 0I.09.202I sent ro the defendants, recalling rhe enrire oursranding dues and they failed to pay the same.

¶19

I The summons was served upon the defendants through registered posts as well as paper publicarions but the defendanrs opred nor ro contesr the case before this Tribunal, hence the ma[ter proceeded ex parte against the defendanrs

¶20

From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the defendants provided wirh fair opportunities to conresr the claim of rhe bank. As the defendants opted not to contest the case, so only point of consideration before rhis Tribunal is as ro whether bank is legally entitled to rhe amount as claimed in original Applicarion on rhe basis of documents and pleading submitred by it.

¶21

In support of the case Shri Suyaash Naaraayan, Manager of the applicant bank has filed an affidavit.

¶22

lI. on a careful scrutiny of the evidence on affidavir and Exhibits marked as Exhibit No.A-l ro Exhibit No.A-16, it is proved rhat defendants availed rhe overdraft loan facility from rhe applicant-bank^o

¶23

¶24

o.A. No.26 0f 2022

¶25

by executing loan and security documents detailed as above in favor of the applicant-Bank, A perusal of the application, evidence, documenrs relied upon clearly shows that defendants utilized the above loan facfities as granred ro rhem. The applicant-bank had maintained rhe Books of accounr in the ordinary course of banking business showing disbursal ofthe loan amounr. The Bank had also charged inreresr from time to rime and the enrries are relevant through certification U/s 2A(b)&(c) of the Banker Books of Evidence Act, I89r, Ic is proved rhat the applicanr bank's claim is within limitarion againsr rhe defendanrs therefore the defendant Nos.r to 3 arejointly and severallyliable to pay the bank dues.

¶26

Accordingly, rhe defendant Nos.l ro 3 are directed to pay the balance dues to the applicant bank within a period of 2 months from the date of ludgment failing, which the appricant bank will be entirled to recover from the secured assets, personal movable assets, immovable assets of the defendancs and to sell the hypothecated assets and as well as personal assets/properties of the defendants.

¶27

The applicant bank has claimed rare of pendenrelite and furure rate of interest @18.00o/o per annum with monthly rest in overdrafr loan accounr wirh eflecc from 02.09.2021, rill the dare of realizarion and costs, the contests between applicant bank and the defendants comes to an end afrer filing the o.A., as per rhe provision of section I9(2) of the recovery of the debts and bankruprcy Acr, 1993(as amended from dme to time) which is analogous ro secrion 34 to the CpC, the-

¶28

O.A. No.26 of 2022

¶29

Tribunaucourt has discrerion in awarding pendenrelire and fuEure interest, I am supported in my view by the Hon'ble supreme court in a case cided central Bank of India u/s Rauindra AIR 2ool sc 3095 pages. on the Basis of forgoing discussion, Interesr of justice will be served if pendenrelite and furure inreresr is granred @10.000/o per annum monthly rests on reducing Balance from rhe dare of filing of the O.A., till the date of real.ization with cosrs.

¶30

In the result, the Original Applicacion succeeds ex parEe against the defendant Nos.l to 3 with cosrs, The bank has proved the loan execurion of security loan documenrs and avairmenc of credit faciriry, as the defendants are liable ro repay the dues Jointly, severally and Hypothecated assets as welr as the personal properties/assets are liable to be sold.

¶31

It is, therefore, ordered

¶32

(, That the originai Applicarion No.26 of 2022 of rhe applicant bank for issuance of Recovery Certificate to rhe Eune of along Rs.23,23,518.00 (Rupees Twenty Three I-ac, Twenty Three Thousand, Five Hundred and Eighteen Only) together with pendentelite and furure inferest @10.00o/o per annum with monthly rest from the dare of filing of the Original Applicarion i.e.27.10-202r ril rhe aforesaid Loan amounc fuly riquidared and cosEs succeeds ex pafte against the defendant Nos.L to 3.

¶33

(ii) The applicant-bank is entitred ro recover aforesaid amounr by /- sale of hyporhecated assets (if nor soid earlier u.d.. th. l, ^

¶34

.,^,

¶35

o.A. No.26 0f 2022

¶36

provision of the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act 2002). If rhe dues of the applicant bank srill remain unsarisfied, rhe same shall be recovered by attachment and sale of the personal movable and immovable assets of the defendants jointly and severally.

¶37

(iii) The defendants are here by restrained by means of injunction from depleting, transferring, encumbering, alienating or in any way dealing with their properries/esrates without first paying the claim of the applicanr-bank.

¶38

(iv) Let Recovery Certificate be issued immediarely u/s 19(22) of the Recovery of Debts 6c Bankruptcy Act, 1993 by fixing 08.11.2022 before Recovery Officer, DRT, Lucknow.

¶39

Judgment^{is pronounced in the open court.}

¶40

Dated: 08.08.2022

Hdfc Bank v. M/S Vintage Machine

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. M/S Vintage Machine

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

Ashok Sharma versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Canara Bank versus Ms Sun Shine Trading Co.

M S Shikhar Integrated Cold Chain Pvt. Ltd. versus Punjab National Bank

Union Bank of India versus Mr Azaj Ahmad Ansari

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Needa Textiles

M S Neel Kanth Sweets Pvt. Ltd. versus Bank of Baroda