Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Virender Singh

DRT22 Sept 2023OA/1241/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the applicants Original Application for recovery of an agricultural loan of Rs. 52,08,330.86/- along with simple interest at 8% per annum w.e.f. filing date, dismissing the case against absent defendants.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 52,08,330.86/- with simple interest at 8% p.a. w.e.f. 24.06.2022 till realization, with liberty to attach/sell mortgaged and personal assets.

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Virender Singh — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1241/2022

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 24.06.2022

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 22^nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶5

HDFC Bank Limited, a Banking Company, carrying on the banking business under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, Registered Office at HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013, and having its Branch at Sirsa, Haryana, also at Plot No. 28, HDFC Bank House, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh, through its Authorised representative, Sh. Jatinder Mishra

¶6

…..Applicant Bank

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Virender Singh s/o Sh. Leelu Ram r/o Hous No. 614, Village Suchan-Kotli, Near Petrol Pump, Sirsa, Haryana-125005

¶9

Sh. Surender Kumar s/o Sh. Ram Murti r/o Village Kanwarpura, Kusambi(50), Sirsa, Haryana-1250053

¶10

Sh. Om Parkash s/o Sh. Ram Singh r/o Village Kanwarpura, Sirsa, Haryana-1250053

¶11

…..Defendants

¶12

Argued by: Sh. Jatinder Mishra, Deputy Manager for the applicant bank Defendants ex parte vide order dated 01.08.2023

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

OA/1241/2022 HDFC BANK VS VIRENDER SINGH AND OTHERS 2

¶15

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.52,08,330.86/- (Rupees Fifty Two Lac Eight Thousand Three Hundred Thirty and Eighty Six Paise Only) . The OA has been filed through Sh. Jatinder Mishra, Authorised Representative of the applicant bank, stated to be competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 16.12.2020, Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶16

The brief facts of the case of the applicant as per the Original Application are that the defendants had approached the applicant bank for grant of loan facilities of Rs. 60,00,000/- against CC Limit and Rs. 10,13,000/- against CC-I vide application dated 20.08.2015 for retail agricultural loan, Annexure-A2 (copy).

¶17

The applicant bank sanctioned the credit facilities of Rs. 8,45,000/- in CC-I and Rs. 40,00,000/- in CC to the defendants vide sanction letters dated 08.09.2015, Annexures-A3 (colly) (copy) as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶18

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facilities, the defendants executed various loan and security documents, i.e. agreement for dropline overdraft-cum-hypothecation-cum-guarantee dated 29.09.2015, Annexure-A4 (copy) and agreement for overdraft cash credit-cum-hypothecation-cum-guarantee dated 29.09.2015, Annexure-A5 (copy).

¶19

OA/1241/2022 HDFC BANK VS VIRENDER SINGH AND OTHERS 3

¶20

The aforesaid loans were further secured by creation of registered mortgage by the defendant in respect agricultural land measuring 82 Kanals 1 Marla situated in the revenue estate of Suchan, Tehsil and District Sirsa, Haryana, fully detailed in para No. 5.8 of the OA.

¶21

The documents related to mortgage are as under:

¶22

i. Registered mortgage deed dated 11.09.2015, AnnexureA6 (copy).

¶23

ii. Title search report along with non-encumbrance certificate dated 10.09.2015, Annexure-A7 (colly) (copy).

¶24

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 and resultantly, the loan accounts became irregular and those were declared NPA. The applicant bank recalled entire outstanding amount vide legal notice dated 19.05.2022, along with original postal receipts, Annexure-A8 (colly) (copy), but to no avail.

¶25

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan accounts, a sum of Rs.52,08,330.86/- (Rupees Fifty Two Lac Eight Thousand Three Hundred Thirty and Eighty Six Paise Only), is recoverable against the defendants as per statements of accounts, certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891, Annexures-A9 and A10 (copy).

¶26

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

¶27

OA/1241/2022 HDFC BANK VS VIRENDER SINGH AND OTHERS 4

¶28

Notices of the Original Application were duly served upon the defendants, but since none appeared on behalf of the defendants despite service, thus, the defendants were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 01.08.2023

¶29

In support of contents of the OA, affidavit of evidence of Sh. Jatinder Mishra, Deputy Manager Legal of the applicant bank was filed.

¶30

This Tribunal has heard ex-parte arguments advanced by Sh. Jatinder Mishra, Deputy Manager of the applicant bank and gone through the record carefully.

¶31

It was argued by Sh. Jatinder Mishra, Deputy Manager of 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 A10, it is clear that the defendants had approached the applicant bank for availing of the loan facilities which were granted to them after they had executed all the relevant 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.52,08,330.86/- (Rupees Fifty Two Lac Eight Thousand Three Hundred Thirty and Eighty Six Paise Only) from the defendants.

¶32

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank has claimed @15.50% per annum in CC and @12% per

¶33

OA/1241/2022 HDFC BANK VS VIRENDER SINGH AND OTHERS 5

¶34

annum in CC-I in relief clause. In sanction letters dated 08.09.2015, Annexures-A3 (colly) (copy), the rate of interest had been mentioned @15.50% per annum for CC and @12% per annum for CCI respectively.

¶35

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, nature of the mortgaged property, purpose of loan, i.e. agricultural, present conditions of economy based on agriculture, 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 final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶36

In the result, the Original Application is allowed with costs holding that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum of Rs.52,08,330.86/- (Rupees Fifty Two Lac Eight Thousand Three Hundred Thirty and Eighty Six Paise Only) with current and future simple interest @8% per annum , w.e.f. 24.06.2022 , 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 properties of the defendants in execution proceedings, if not sold earlier under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement

¶37

OA/1241/2022 HDFC BANK VS VIRENDER SINGH AND OTHERS 6

¶38

of Security Interest Act, 2002 or otherwise. If the dues of the bank still remain unsatisfied, applicant bank shall be at liberty to recover the same by attachment and sale of personal assets/property of the defendants. However, the applicant bank is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶39

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶40

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 26.10.2023

¶41

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

¶42

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

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Virender Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Virender Singh

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

Canara Bank versus Messers Hoque Supary Chips Unit

Ms Manglam Automobiles versus Uco Bank

State Bank of India versus Mr Shivavtar Pritvipal Kaythal

M/S Rajindera Auto Services versus Indusind Bank Limited

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Labh Singh

Yes Bank versus Hafijul Purkait and Anr.