Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Samyak Mishra

DRT20 Dec 2023OA/1066/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HDFC Bank applied for issuance of a recovery certificate for Rs.27 lakhs from Sh. Samyak Mishra for a defaulted personal loan. The tribunal allowed the application, reduced the interest rate to 9% per annum, and authorized recovery from mortgaged or personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate; recovery of Rs.27,21,859 with simple interest @9% p.a. from filing date, enforceable via sale of properties or attachment of personal assets.

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Samyak Mishra — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, CHANDIGARH, PRESIDED OVER BY M.M. DHONCHAK

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 1066/2022 DATE OF INSTITUTION: 10.05.2022

¶3

DATE OF DECISION: 20^th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

Hdfc Bank Limited , having its registered office at Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai -400013, having its Branch at: Plot No. 28, Hdfc Bank House, Industrial Area Phase 1, Chandigarh, through its Authorised Representative, Ms Samandeep Kaur Sekhon

¶5

…..Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Sh. Samyak Mishra s/o Sh. Ramachandra Mishra r/o House No. 227, Second Floor, 227, Sector 27, Near Hanuman Mandir, Gurgaon, Haryana

¶8

....Defendant

¶9

Argued by: Ms Dipti Toni proxy counsel for Sh. Gagandeep Toni counsel for the applicant bank Defendant ex parte vide order dated 08.09.2023

¶10

FINAL ORDER

¶11

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity), against the defendant for recovery of Rs.27,21,859/(Rupees Twenty Seven Lac Twenty One Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Nine Only) . It has been filed through Ms Samandeep Kaur Sekhon, Authorised Representative of the applicant bank stated to be competent to institute the Original Application vide Resolution of Board dated 16.10.2021, Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶12

OA/1066/2022 HDFC BANK VS SH. SAMYAK MISHRA 2

¶13

The brief facts of the case of the applicant as per Original Application are that the defendant had approached the applicant bank for grant of personal loan of Rs. 30 lac vide loan application dated 05.07.2019, Annexure-A2 (copy).

¶14

The applicant bank sanctioned aforesaid facility to the defendant as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendant.

¶15

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facility, the defendant executed loan agreement dated 23.07.2019, Annexure-A3 (copy).

¶16

It is further the case of the applicant bank that the loan facility was duly availed of by the defendant but he failed to maintain the financial discipline of the applicant bank leading to the loan account becoming irregular and it being classified as NPA. The applicant bank recalled entire outstanding amount vide demand notice dated 22.04.2022, Annexure-A5 (copy), but to no avail.

¶17

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account, a sum of Rs.27,21,859/(Rupees Twenty Seven Lac Twenty One Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Nine Only) , is recoverable against the defendant as per statement of account, duly certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891, Annexure-A4 (copy).

¶18

Since the defendant did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant bank preferred the present Original Application for issuance of Recovery Certificate.

¶19

Notice of the Original Application was duly served upon the defendant, but since none appeared on behalf of the defendant, thus,

¶20

OA/1066/2022 HDFC BANK VS SH. SAMYAK MISHRA 3

¶21

the defendant was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 08.09.2023 .

¶22

In support of contents of the OA, affidavit of evidence of Ms Samandeep Kaur Sekhon, Manager Legal of the applicant bank was filed.

¶23

This Tribunal has heard ex-parte arguments advanced by the learned proxy counsel and gone through the record carefully.

¶24

It was argued by the learned proxy counsel that in view of unrebutted documentary evidence brought on record, the applicant bank had proved its case against the defendant for recovery of the amount sought. From perusal of Annexures-A1 to A5 , it is clear that the defendant had approached the applicant bank for availing of the loan facility which was granted to him. It is further clear that the defendant had executed all the relevant documents as stated above in favour of the applicant bank. Unfortunately, the defendant failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement executed between the parties. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant bank is entitled to recover a sum of

¶25

Rs.27,21,859/(Rupees Twenty Seven Lac Twenty One Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Nine Only) from the defendant. 10. In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause, has claimed rate of interest @11.1% per annum. In loan agreement dated 23.07.2019, Annexure-A3 (copy), the rate of interest has been mentioned @11.10% per annum.

¶26

This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that sometimes in appropriate cases the prerogatives of mercy and magnanimity are the brightest jewels in the crown of the Judge. Keeping in view the facts

¶27

OA/1066/2022 HDFC BANK VS SH. SAMYAK MISHRA 4

¶28

and circumstances of the instant case including the Pandemic Covid-19 affecting businesses, purpose of loan, i.e. personal , quantum of loan and prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yesteryears, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the OA till realisation of the amount ordered vide this order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶29

In the result, the Original Application is allowed with costs holding that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum of Rs.27,21,859/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lac Twenty One Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Nine Only) with current and future simple interest @9% per annum w.e.f. 10.05.2022 , till the date of realisation of the amount. Accordingly, the applicant bank shall be at liberty to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of mortgaged/hypothecated property of the defendant in execution proceedings, if not sold earlier under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 or otherwise. If the dues of the bank still remain unsatisfied, the applicant bank shall be at liberty to recover the same by attachment and sale of personal assets of the defendant. However, the applicant bank is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶30

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶31

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 12.02.2024.

¶32

OA/1066/2022 HDFC BANK VS SH. SAMYAK MISHRA 5

¶33

Copy of this order be sent to the applicant bank and the defendant through registered/speed post. This order be uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal.

¶34

Pronounced in the open Tribunal (M.M. Dhonchak) Presiding Officer DRT-2, Chandigarh

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Samyak Mishra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Samyak Mishra

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

Sainulabdeen versus Authorized Officer

Joy Abraham versus South Indian Bank

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Shree Ram Industries

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Avinash Chandrasekar

Icici Bank Limited versus Sri. Narayanaswamy H.V.

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Sri Raghavendra Technologies