Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Pawan Kumar

DRT24 Mar 2023OA/1235/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an ex-parte order by the Debt Recovery Tribunal allowing HDFC Bank's application for a Recovery Certificate. The court found the defendant failed to repay a term loan and adjusted the interest rate from 11.49% to 10% per annum as a matter of discretion before ordering recovery.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 24,01,559.95p with 10% simple interest p.a. from filing date.

Hdfc Bank versus Pawan Kumar — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1235/2022

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 22.06.2022

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 24^th DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

HDFC Bank, 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 representativel, Ms Samandeep Kaur Sekhon

¶6

....Applicant Bank

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Pawan Kumar S/o Mahavir Parsad R/o House No. 436, NR old GG Bank, Sehlang District Mahendergarh-123027 Also at: Digamber Capfim Limited, Koshik Village Saraswari Vihar, Gali No.1, Kalaka Road, NR Daru Hera Chowki, Rewari

¶9

....Defendant

¶10

Argued by: Ms Deepti Toni proxy counsel for Sh. Gagandeep Toni counsel for the applicant bank Defendant ex parte vide order dated 22.12.2022

¶11

FINAL ORDER

¶12

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.24,01,559.95p

¶13

(Rupees Twenty Four lacs One Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Nine

¶14

and Ninety Five Paisa 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 Power of Attorney dated 16.10.2021, Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶15

OA/1235/2022 HDFC BANK Vs PAWAN KUMAR

¶16

¶17

The brief facts as per the Original Application are that the defendant had approached the applicant bank for grant of Term Loan facility of Rs. 20 lacs vide loan application dated 23.07.2019, Annexure-A2 (copy). 3. The applicant bank sanctioned the aforesaid facility to the defendant vide agreement for loan dated 05.08.2019, Annexure-A3 (copy), as per the terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendant.

¶18

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facility, the defendant executed agreement for loan and guarantee document dated 05.08.2019, Annexure-A3 (copy).

¶19

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 and resultantly, the loan account was declared as NPA because it became irregular. The applicant bank recalled entire outstanding amount vide notice dated 07.06.2022, Annexure-A5 (copy), and original postal receipts dated 08.06.2022, Anneuxres-A6 and A7 , but to no avail.

¶20

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account, a sum of Rs.24,01,559.95p (Rupees Twenty Four lacs One Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Nine

¶21

and Ninety Five Paisa Only) is recoverable against the defendant as per statement of account dated 07.06.2022, Annexure-A4 (copy) certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act.

¶22

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

¶23

Notice of the Original Application were duly served upon the defendant, but since none appeared on behalf of the defendant, thus, the defendant was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 22.12.2022 .

¶24

OA/1235/2022 HDFC BANK Vs PAWAN KUMAR

¶25

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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 A7 , 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 Rs.24,01,559.95p

¶29

(Rupees Twenty Four lacs One Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Nine and Ninety Five Paisa Only) from the defendant.

¶30

In so far as pendentelite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank, in relief clause, has claimed rate of interest @11.49% per annum. In agreement for loan and guarantee dated 05.08.2019, Annexure-A3 (copy), rate of interest has been mentioned @11.49% per annum.

¶31

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,

¶32

OA/1235/2022 HDFC BANK Vs PAWAN KUMAR

¶33

¶34

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 @10% per annum from the date of filing of the OA till realisation of the amount ordered vide this order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶35

In the result, the Original Application is allowed with costs declaring that the defendantis liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum Rs.24,01,559.95p (Rupees Twenty Four lacs One Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Nine and Ninety Five Paisa Only) with current and future simple interest @10% per annum w.e.f. 22.06.2022 , till the date of realisation of the amount. 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. 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 04.05.2023.

¶38

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

¶39

Announced in the open Tribunal (M.M. Dhonchak)

¶40

Presiding Officer DRT-2, Chandigarh

Hdfc Bank v. Pawan Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Pawan Kumar

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

Punjab National Bank versus Smt. Manjeet Kaur

Sham Sunder versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Amit Patney

Bank of India versus M/S S. Husain Enterprises

Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank) versus M/S Maa Shakti Garments

Icici Bank Limited versus Usha Kiran