Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Rishi Pal and Ors.

DRT18 May 2023OA/1636/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the recovery application filed by HDFC Bank Limited against three defendants for an outstanding loan of Rs. 33,79,632.27. After hearing ex-parte arguments and noting documentary evidence, the court issued a Recovery Certificate and adjusted the interest rate.

What did the court decide?

Issued a Recovery Certificate for Rs. 33,79,632.27 plus simple interest at 8% p.a. from 12.09.2022 until realization.

Hdfc Bank versus Rishi Pal and Ors. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 1636/2022

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 12.09.2022

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 18^th DAY OF MAY, 2023

¶5

HDFC Bank Limited, having registered office at Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai and its Branch at Uklana Mandi, Hissar, Haryana, also at HDFC Bank House, Plot No.28, Industrial area, Phase 1, Chandigarh, through its Authorised Representative, Sh. Jatinder Mishra

¶6

…..Applicant Bank

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Rishi Pal S/o Sh. Ram Kumar R/o Gajuwala (76), Tehsil Tohana, District Fatehabad, Haryana

¶9

Sh. Suresh Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Kumar R/o Gajuwala (76), Tehsil Tohana, District Fatehabad, Haryana

¶10

Sh. Shishpal Singh S/o Sh. Hemraj R/o Gajuwala (76), Tehsil Tohana, District Fatehabad, Haryana

¶11

…..Defendants

¶12

Argued by: Sh. Amit Rishi counsel for the applicant bank Defendants ex parte vide order dated 02.02.2023

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant

¶15

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.33,79,632.27/- (Rupees Thirty Three lacs Seventy Nine Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Two and Twenty Seven Paisa only) . The OA has been filed through Sh. Jatinder Mishra, Authorised

¶16

OA 1636/2022 HDFC BANK V/S SH. RISHI PAL AND ANOTHER 2

¶17

Representative of the applicant bank, stated to be competent to institute the Original Application vide General Power of Attorney dated 16.12.2020, Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶18

The brief facts of the case of the applicant as per the Original Application are that defendants had approached the applicant bank for grant of cash credit facility of Rs. 20,80,000/- and cash credit facility-I of Rs. 5,93,000/- vide loan application dated 20.01.2016, Annexure-A2 (copy).

¶19

The applicant bank sanctioned the above said loan facilities to the defendants vide sanction letters dated 10.02.2016, AnnexureA3 (colly) (copy) as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶20

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facilities, the defendants executed loan and security documents, i.e. agreement dated 20.02.2016 for cash credit, Annexure-A4 (copy), agreement dated 20.02.2016 for cash credit-I, Annexure-A5 (copy) and demand promissory note dated 20.02.2016, Annexure-A6 (copy).

¶21

The aforesaid loans were further secured by creation of registered mortgage by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of agricultural land measuring 112 Kanals situated in the revenue estate of Gajuwala, Tehsil Tohana, District Fatehabad, fully described in para No. 5.8 of the OA.

¶22

The documents related to mortgage are as under:

¶23

i. Registered mortgage deed dated 16.02.2016, Annexure-A7 (copy).

¶24

ii. Title search report dated 11.02.2016 of property and nonencumbrance certificate, Annexure-A8 (colly) (copy).

¶25

OA 1636/2022 HDFC BANK V/S SH. RISHI PAL AND ANOTHER 3

¶26

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 as NPA. The applicant bank recalled the entire outstanding amount vide notice dated 09.08.2022 along with its postal receipts, Annexure-A9 (colly) (copy), but to no avail.

¶27

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account, a sum of Rs.33,79,632.27/- (Rupees Thirty Three lacs Seventy Nine Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Two and Twenty Seven Paisa only) is recoverable against the defendants as per statements of accounts certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, AnnexuresA10 and A11 (copy).

¶28

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

¶29

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 02.02.2023 .

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

OA 1636/2022 HDFC BANK V/S SH. RISHI PAL AND ANOTHER 4

¶33

It was argued by the learned counsel 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 A11 , 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.33,79,632.27/(Rupees Thirty Three lacs Seventy Nine Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Two and Twenty Seven Paisa only) from the defendants.

¶34

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank has claimed in relief sought, rate of interest @12% per annum plus in CC and @15.50% per annum in CC-I. In sanction letters dated 10.02.2016, Annexure-A3 (colly) (copy), the rates of interest have been mentioned @12% per annum in CC and @15.50% per annum in CC-I.

¶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, purpose of loan, i.e. agricultural, present conditions of economy based on agriculture and prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yesteryear, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal

¶36

OA 1636/2022 HDFC BANK V/S SH. RISHI PAL AND ANOTHER 5

¶37

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.

¶38

In the result, the Original Application is allowed with costs declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum of Rs.33,79,632.27/- (Rupees Thirty Three lacs Seventy Nine Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Two and Twenty Seven Paisa only) with current and future simple interest @8% per annum , w.e.f. 12.09.2022 , till the date of realisation of the amount. The liability of 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 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, applicant bank shall be at liberty to recover the same by attachment and sale of personal assets/property of the defendants. 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 25.07.2023.

¶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

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

¶43

DRT-2, Chandigarh

Hdfc Bank v. Rishi Pal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Rishi Pal and Ors.

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

Union Bank of India versus M/S .Sri Krishna Food Mill

M/S Rajindera Auto Services versus Indusind Bank Limited

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Sumer Sons Autotech Pvt. Ltd.

Bank of India versus M/S Sahil Industries

Hdfc Bank versus Hawa Singh Nd Others

Indian Overseas Bank versus Santosh Kumar