Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Chander Mohan Singh

DRT20 Jul 2023OA/1249/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by HDFC Bank Limited against three respondents for recovery of Rs. 87,58,519 along with interest. The bank secured the loan via hypothecation and mortgages which became irregular and were declared NPA.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 87,58,519 with simple interest @8% per annum; Enforcement of security and issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Chander Mohan Singh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 1249 of 2022

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 30.05.2022

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 20^th DAY OF JULY, 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 and having its Registered Office at HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013, whereas Branch amongst the other places one at Fatehabad Branch, District Fatehabad, Haryana, through Sh. Jatinder Mishra, Assistant Manager (Legal), Regional Office, HDFC Bank Ltd, Regional Office, Bank House, Chandigarh, being Power of Attorney holder of the bank

¶6

.......Applicant Bank

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Chander Mohan Singh S/o Sh. Sajjan Singh R/o House No. 203, Village Dhand, Tehsil and District, Fatehabad, Haryana125050

¶9

Sh. Lakhmi Chand S/o Sh. Ramjas R/o House No. 203, Village Dhand, Tehsil and District, Fatehabad, Haryana-125050

¶10

Sh. Rajbir S/o Sh. Budhram R/o Village Dhand, Tehsil and District, Fatehabad, Haryana-125050

¶11

......Defendants

¶12

Argued by: Sh. Jatinder Mishra, Deputy Manager for the applicant bank Defendants ex parte vide order dated 11.05.2023

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

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

¶15

OA/1249/2022 HDFC BANK Vs CHANDER MOHAN SINGH AND OTHERS 2

¶16

Rs.87,58,519/- (Rupees Eighty Seven Lacs Fifty Eight Thousand

¶17

Five Hundred and Nineteen Only) . The OA has been filed through Sh. Jatinder Mishra, Assistant Manager (Legal) of the applicant bank, stated to be competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 16.12.2020, Annexure-A1 (copy). 2. The brief facts of the case of the applicant as per Original Application are that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had approached the applicant bank for enhancement of cash credit facility to Rs. 65 lacs and fresh term loan facility of Rs. 25 lacs vide loan application dated 15.01.2016, Annexure-A2 (copy). Defendant No. 3 stood as a guarantor for repayment of the loan.

¶18

The applicant bank sanctioned enhancement of cash credit facility to Rs. 64 lacs and fresh term loan facility of Rs. 16 lacs vide sanction letters dated 02.02.2016, Annexures-A3 and A4 (copy) as per terms and conditions duly accepted by the defendants.

¶19

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facilities, the defendants executed various loans and security documents, i.e. demand promissory note dated 06.02.2016, Annexure-A5 (copy), letter dated 06.02.2016 of continuity of demand promissory note, Annexure-A6 (copy), agreement dated 06.02.2016 for term loancum-guarantee-cum-hypothecation, Annexure-A7 (copy) and agreement dated 06.02.2016 for secured overdraft/ cash credit-cumguarantee-cum-hypothecation deed dated 06.02.2016, Annexure-A8 (copy).

¶20

The aforesaid loans were further secured by creation of mortgage of two parcels of land by the defendants as follows:

¶21

OA/1249/2022 HDFC BANK Vs CHANDER MOHAN SINGH AND OTHERS 3

¶22

i. Agricultural land measuring 333 Kanals 11 Marlas situated in the revenue estate of Dhand, Sub-Tehsil Bhattu-Kalan, Tehsil and District Fatehabad, Haryana.

¶23

ii. Agricultural land measuring 21 Kanals 15 Marlas situated in the revenue estate of Hasinga, Tehsil Ratia, District Fatehabad, Haryana.

¶24

fully detailed in para No. 5(v) of the Original Application.

¶25

The documents relating to the mortgage are as under:

¶26

i. Registered mortgage deeds dated 04.02.2016 and 03.02.2016, Annexures-A9 and A10 (copy).

¶27

ii. Request letters dated 05.02.2016 and 03.02.2016 to the Tehsildar, Bhattu-Kalan, for entry/mutation of mortgaged properties, Annexures-A11 and A12 (copy).

¶28

It is further the case of applicant 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 on 01.10.2021. The applicant bank recalled the entire outstanding amount vide legal notice dated 01.05.2022 along with its original postal receipts, Annexure-A13 (colly) (copy), but to no avail.

¶29

It is further the case of applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan accounts, a sum of Rs.87,58,519/(Rupees Eighty Seven Lacs Fifty Eight Thousand Five Hundred

¶30

and Nineteen Only) is recoverable against defendants as per statements of accounts dated 08.04.2022, certified under Bankers’

¶31

OA/1249/2022 HDFC BANK Vs CHANDER MOHAN SINGH AND OTHERS 4

¶32

Book Evidence Act and memorandums of interest, Annexures-A14 and A15 (copy).

¶33

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

¶34

Notices of the Original Application were duly served upon the defendants, but since none appeared on behalf of the defendants despite service, thus, defendants were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 11.05.2023 .

¶35

In support of contents of the Original Application, affidavit of evidence of Sh. Jatinder Mishra, Assistant Manager (Legal) of the applicant bank was filed.

¶36

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

¶37

It was argued 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 A15 , it comes out 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 documents as stated above in favour of the applicant bank. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant bank is entitled to recover a sum of

¶38

Rs.87,58,519/- (Rupees Eighty Seven Lacs Fifty Eight Thousand Five Hundred and Nineteen Only) from the defendants, from the

¶39

OA/1249/2022 HDFC BANK Vs CHANDER MOHAN SINGH AND OTHERS 5

¶40

date of filing the present Original Application, till realization of the amount.

¶41

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has claimed rate of interest @11% per annum plus penal interest @2% per annum. In sanction letters dated 02.02.2016, Annexures-A3 and A4 (copy), rates of interest have been mentioned @12% per annum in cash credit facility wth half yearly rests and @15.50% per annum in term loan facility with half yearly rests, respectively.

¶42

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 realization of the amount ordered vide this order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶43

In the result, the Original Application is allowed with cost declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum Rs.87,58,519/- (Rupees Eighty Seven Lacs Fifty Eight Thousand Five Hundred and Nineteen Only) with current and future simple interest @8% per annum w.e.f. 30.05.2022 , till the date of realisation of the amount. The liability of the defendants shall

¶44

OA/1249/2022 HDFC BANK Vs CHANDER MOHAN SINGH AND OTHERS 6

¶45

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 defendants in execution proceedings, if not sold earlier under the provisions of the Securitization 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. The applicant bank is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶46

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶47

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 20.09.2023.

¶48

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.

¶49

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

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Chander Mohan Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Chander Mohan 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

Central Bank of India versus Sri Mukul Gogoi

Dr Satish Sarupchand Bardia versus Hdfc Bank

Ms Maruti Infrastructure versus Punjab National Bank

State Bank of India versus M/S R Devi Construction

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Shri Bala Sundri Rice Mills

State Bank of India versus Shambhu Sah