Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Lekh Ram Yadav

DRT13 Dec 2023OA/1149/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by HDFC Bank against borrowers for recovery of outstanding loan dues. After noting the default and the claim for approximately Rs. 23 lakhs, the court granted a recovery certificate with a uniform simple interest rate of 8% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs. 22,97,779.32 with simple interest @8% p.a. from 19.03.2022 till realization.

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Lekh Ram Yadav — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1149/2022

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 19.03.2022

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 13^th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

HDFC Bank Limited , having its registered office at: Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai – 400013, also at: Plot No. 28, HDFC Bank House, Industrial Area, Phase 1, Chandigarh, through its Authorised Representative, Sh. Kabir Chopra

¶6

…..Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Lekh Ram Yadav s/O Hanuman Prasad Yadav VPO Wazirabad, Near Mata Chowk, Gurgaon-122003

¶9

Mahi Tour and Travels through its Proprietor, SH. Lek Raj Yadav, Plot NO. 20, 2nd Floor, Shop No. 202, Village Wazirabad, Near Good Luck Society, Sector-52, Gurugram-122003

¶10

....Defendants

¶11

Argued by: Ms Dipti Toni proxy counsel for Sh. Gagandeep Toni, Advocate for the applicant bank Defendants ex parte vide order dated 18.09.2023

¶12

FINAL ORDER

¶13

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 defendants for recovery of Rs.22,97,779.32/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lac Ninety Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Nine and Thirty Two Paisa Only) . It has been filed through Sh. Kabir Chopra, Authorised

¶14

OA/1149/2022 HDFC BANK VS SH. LEKH RAM YADAV AND ANOTHER 2

¶15

Representative of the applicant bank stated to be competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 16.10.2021, Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶16

The brief facts of the case of the applicant as per Original Application are that defendant No. 1 had approached the applicant bank for grant of auto loan of Rs. 8,89,440/-, business loan of Rs. 8,86,409/- and auto loan of Rs. 3,29,000/- under CV-GECL vide loan applications dated 13.08.2019 and 20.08.2019, Annexures-A2 and A4 (copy).

¶17

The applicant bank sanctioned aforesaid facilities to the defendants, as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendants. Sanction letter dated 30.06.2020 is Annexure-A6 (copy).

¶18

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facilities, the defendants executed various loan and security documents, i.e. loancum-hypothecation agreement dated 13.08.2019, Annexure-A3 (copy), agreement dated 31.08.2019 regarding terms and conditions, Annexure-A5 (copy), facility-cum-hypothecation agreement dated 30.06.2020, Annexure-A7 (copy) and declaration-cum-undertaking dated 01.05.2019 regarding partnership, Annexure-A8 (copy).

¶19

It is further the case of the applicant bank that the loan facilities were duly availed of by the defendants but they failed to maintain the financial discipline of the applicant bank leading to the loan accounts becoming irregular and those being classified as NPA. The applicant bank recalled entire outstanding amount vide legal notice dated 04.03.2022, Annexure-A12 (copy) and original postal receipt, Annexure-A13 (copy), but to no avail.

¶20

OA/1149/2022 HDFC BANK VS SH. LEKH RAM YADAV AND ANOTHER 3

¶21

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan accounts, a sum of Rs.22,97,779.32/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lac Ninety Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Nine and Thirty Two Paisa Only), is recoverable against the defendants as per statements of accounts duly certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891, Annexures-A9 to A11 (copy).

¶22

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

¶23

Notices of the Original Application were duly served upon the defendants, but since none appeared on behalf of the defendants, thus, the defendants were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 18.09.2023 .

¶24

In support of contents of the OA, affidavit of evidence of Sh. Kabir Chopra, Manager Legal of the applicant bank was filed.

¶25

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

¶26

It was argued by the learned proxy counsel for the applicant bank that in view of unrebutted documentary evidence brought on record, the applicant bank had proved its case against the defendants for recovery of the amount sought. From perusal of Annexures-A1 to A13 , it is clear that the defendants had approached the applicant bank for availing of the loan facilities which were granted to them. It is further clear that the defendants had executed all the relevant

¶27

OA/1149/2022 HDFC BANK VS SH. LEKH RAM YADAV AND ANOTHER 4

¶28

documents as stated above in favour of the applicant bank. Unfortunately, the defendants 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 Rs.22,97,779.32/(Rupees Twenty Two Lac Ninety Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Nine and Thirty Two Paisa Only) from the defendants.

¶29

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank has claimed rate of interest @9.35% per annum for auto loan, @17% per annum for business loan and @8.25% per annum for auto loan under GECL. In sanction letter dated 30.06.2020, Annexure-A6 (copy), the rate of interest has been mentioned @8.25% per annum.

¶30

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 and circumstances of the instant case including the Pandemic Covid-19 affecting businesses, purpose of loan, i.e. business , 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 @8% per annum from the date of filing of the OA till realisation of the amount ordered vide this order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶31

In the result, the Original Application is allowed with costs holding that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant bank a

¶32

OA/1149/2022 HDFC BANK VS SH. LEKH RAM YADAV AND ANOTHER 5

¶33

sum of Rs.22,97,779.32/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lac Ninety Seven

¶34

Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Nine and Thirty Two Paisa

¶35

Only) with current and future simple interest @8% per annum w.e.f. 19.03.2022 , till the date of realisation of the amount. The liability of the defendants shall be joint as well as several. Accordingly, the applicant bank shall be at liberty to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of mortgaged/hypothecated property of the defendants 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 defendants. However, the applicant bank is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶36

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶37

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 02.02.2024.

¶38

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

¶39

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

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Lekh Ram Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Lekh Ram Yadav

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 Tagmaxx

Sanjay Jain versus Punjab National Bank

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Kumar Tiles and Sanitary Wares

Hdfc Bank versus Shri Rajiv Kumar Singla

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Pankaj Kumar Singh

Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank versus Sh. Baldev Kumar