Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. M/S Babulal Ramesh Chand

DRT3 Nov 2023OA/1009/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Original application filed by HDFC Bank Limited under Section 19 of RDB Act for recovery of dues amounting to Rs. 26,37,546.57 against borrowers and guarantors. Court granted temporary injunction and Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to jointly and severally pay Rs. 26,37,546.57 with interest @12% simple p.a., costs and restraint order issued against properties.

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Babulal Ramesh Chand — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL : JABALPUR

¶2

(for the States of lvladhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh)

¶3

(Presiding Officer - Hon'bte Shri Ram Niwas Patel)

¶4

Originol Applicotion No. - 1009122

¶5

HDFC Bank Limited, Savitri, GCF Road, Civil Lines, Jabatpur (M.P.) Appticant

¶6

Versus

¶7

01 ) M/s Babutal Rameshchand, Through its ProprietorMr. Babutal Ramesh Chand Jain, Gatta lvlandi, Tyonda Road, Ganj Basoda (M.P.)

¶8

Mr. Babutat Ramesh Chand Jain, Galla Mandi, Tyonda Road, Ganj Basoda (M.P.);

¶9

Also at:40, Tyonda Road, Basouda, Tehsit-Ganj Basoda, Distt.-Vidisha (M.P.)

¶10

Mrs. Prem Bai,

¶11

W/o Babutat Jain,

¶12

lvtakan No.-101278, Gaushala Harijan Cotony, Ward No.-10, Ambedkar Nagar Patika Basoda, Tehsit-Ganj Basoda, District-Vidisha (M.P.); Also at: 40, Tyonda Road, Basouda,

¶13

Tehsit-Ganj Basoda, Distt.-Vidisha (M.P.)

¶14

M/s Digamber Traders, Galla Mandi, Tyonda Road, Ganj Basoda (M.P.)

¶15

..... Defendants

¶16

Counsel for the Appticant : Shri Sanjeev Dubey, Advocate Defendants : Ex-parte

¶17

JUDGME

¶18

(Dated : 03 November, 2023)

¶19

The Appticant-Bank has fited the Present Originat^Apptication u/s 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act on^{18l08lZZagainst the} Defendants for recovery of Rs. 26,37,546.57^{(RuPees TwentySix Lac, Thirty} Seven Thousand, Five Hundred Fourty Six and Paisa Fifty^{Seven only)atong} with interest and other reliefs as stated.

¶20

The brief facts of the case are that on the^{request of} Defendant No.-1 through its Proprietor Defendant^{No.'2, the Appticant Bank}

¶21

¶22

oAr009t22

¶23

sanctioned Cash Credit timit of Rs. 15 Lac on 30104113 which was subsequently renewed lastly on 15l05l17.ln consideration of the sanction of cash credit facility, the Defendant No.-1 & 2 as borrower and Defendant No.3 & 4 as guarantors in addition to execution of loan and guarantee documents have also created equitable mortgage over the immovable property, i.e., Double Storied Buitding Pakka Makan No.-101278, situated at Gaushala Harijan Colony, at present Ward No.-10, Ambedkar Ward, Nagar Palika Basoda, Tehsi[-Basoda, Distt.-Vidisha (M.P.); betonging to Defendant No.-3. The Defendants availed the credit facitities but the account became irregular. The Defendants faited to tiquidate the outstanding dues despite issuance of Recall Notice on 27102119 and initiation of action under the Securitisation Act by the Applicant Bank. The Applicant-Bank has relied upon the documents at Ex. A-1 to A-22 which were proved by Shri Ashish Rawat, Deputy Manager.

¶24

Despite service of notice, the Defendants neither appeared nor filed written statement. They were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 29102123. There is therefore, no reason to disbelieve the contentions of the Bank. Considering the facts of the case, I opine that the Defendants are jointty and severalty tiabte to pay the claim amount together with interest and costs. The Appticant-Bank in its application has ctaimed interest at contractual rate. However, I feet it fair and reasonabte to grant interest @12%^p.a. simple^pendentelite and future till reatization of the dues. The mortgaged property is tiabte to be sotd for recovery of amount due atong with the personal properties and assets of the Defendants.

¶25

The Originat Apptication is allowed and it is ordered as underi) The Defendants do pay^jointty and severalty Rs.26,37,546.57 (Rupees Twenty Six Lac, Thirty Seven Thousand, Five Hundred Fourty Six and Paisa Fifty Seven only) together with^pendentetite and future interest @12% per annum simple from the date of filing of the OA, i.e., 18/08/22, with costs till its reatization.

¶26

ii) The Appticant Bank is entitled to sett the mortgaged as well as personal properties and assets of the Defendants for reatization of its dues. The Defendants are hereby restrained by means of injunction from depleting, transferring, encumbering, alienating or in any way deating with their properties/assets without first paying the claim of the Appticant Bank.

¶27

¶28

oAr009n2

¶29

iii) A Recovery Certificate be issued uls 19(22) of Recovery^of Debts and Bankruptcy Act. The appticant bank may file a^memo of^cost within 7 days for preparing Recovery Certificate.

¶30

Judgment pronounced in the open court on^{this Day of 03'dNovember,} 2023.

¶31

9
. l)'
2
(Ram Niwas Patet)
Presid ins Officer

Hdfc Bank v. M/S Babulal Ramesh Chand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. M/S Babulal Ramesh Chand

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

State Bank of India versus M/S Bharat Kumar Deepak Kumar

Shri Vivek Malik versus Icici Bank Limited

Harish Mehra versus Gruh Finance Limited

Punjab National Bank versus R K Trading Co.

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Fandom Industries

Icici Bank Limited versus Chandrama