Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Sukhjeet Singh and Others

DRT19 May 2023OA/1669/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Tribunal allowed an application for recovery of dues amounting to Rs.31,41,305/- alleging loan irregularities. Despite claimed agricultural purpose, the court granted uniform simple interest at 8% p.a. instead of the claimed rates and issued a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs.31,41,305/plus simple interest at 8% per annum; parties directed to appear before Recovery Officer.

Hdfc Bank versus Sukhjeet Singh and Others — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 1669/2022

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 06.09.2022

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 19^th DAY OF MAY, 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, whereas Branch amongst other places at “Cheeka Branch, District Kaithal, Haryana” through Sh. Jatinder Mishra, Assistant Manager (Agriculture Legal), HDFC Bank Limited, Regional Office, Plot No. 28, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh being Power of Attorney holder of the applicant Bank

¶6

…..Applicant Bank

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Sukhjeet Singh S/o Sh. Meva Singh R/o Village KamheriBaupur, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal, Haryana-136034

¶9

Sh. Mewa Singh S/o Sh. Dalip Singh R/o Village Kamheri-Baupur, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal, Haryana-136034

¶10

Sh. Amarjeet Singh S/o Sh. Rao Singh R/o Village Kamheri-Baupur, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal, Haryana-136034

¶11

…..Defendants

¶12

Argued by: Sh. Saurabh Bhardwaj counsel for the applicant bank Defendants ex parte vide order dated 03.02.2023

¶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

¶16

and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity) , against the defendants for recovery of

¶17

OA 1669/2022 HDFC BANK V/S SH. SUKHJEET SINGH AND OTHERS 2

¶18

Rs.31,41,305/- (Rupees Thirty One lacs Forty One Thousand Three Hundred Five only) . The OA has been filed through Sh. Jatinder Mishra, Assistant Manager (Agriculture 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).

¶19

The brief facts of the case of the applicant as per the Original Application are that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had approached the applicant bank for grant of cash credit facility 1 of Rs. 18.70 lacs, cash credit facility 2 of Rs. 6.60 lacs and dropline overdraft facility (cash credit facility 3) of Rs. 4.85 lacs vide loan applications dated 12.12.2019 and 17.02.2021, Annexures-A2 and A14 (copy). Defendant No.3 stood as a guarantor for repayment of the loan.

¶20

The applicant bank sanctioned the above said loan facilities of cash credit facility 1 of Rs. 16.90 lacs, cash credit facility 2 of Rs. 1.20 lacs, dropline overdraft facility (cash credit facility 3) of Rs. 4.40 lacs and term loan facility of Rs. 3.60 lacs to the defendants vide sanction letters dated 15.01.2020 and 17.03.2021, Annexures-A3 to A6 and A15 (copy) as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶21

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facilities, the defendants executed loan and security documents, i.e. demand promissory notes dated 16.01.2020 and 05.04.2021, Annexure-A7 and A16 (copy), continuity letter dated 16.01.2020 and 05.04.2021 of demand promissory note, Annexure-A8 and A17 (copy),

¶22

agreements dated 16.01.2020 and 05.04.2021 for secured overdraft/cash credit-cum-guarantee-cum-hypothecation deed,

¶23

OA 1669/2022 HDFC BANK V/S SH. SUKHJEET SINGH AND OTHERS 3

¶24

Annexure-A9, A10 and A18 (copy), agreement dated 16.01.2020 for dropline overdraft-cum-guarantee-cum-hypothecation deed, Annexure-A11 (copy), agreement dated 16.01.2020 for term loancum-guarantee-cum-hypothecation deed, Annexure-A12 (copy).

¶25

The aforesaid loans were further secured by creation of simple mortgage by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of agricultural land measuring 86 Kanals situated in the revenue estate of Kamheri, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal, Haryana, fully described in para No. 5(v) of the OA. Mortgage deed 16.01.2020 is Annexure-A13 (copy).

¶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 on 03.12.2021. The applicant bank recalled the entire outstanding amount vide legal notice dated 01.06.2022 along with its original postal receipts, Annexure-A19 (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 accounts, a sum of Rs.31,41,305/- (Rupees Thirty One lacs Forty One Thousand Three Hundred Five only) is recoverable against the defendants as per statements of accounts certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, Annexures-A20 to A23 (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

OA 1669/2022 HDFC BANK V/S SH. SUKHJEET SINGH AND OTHERS 4

¶30

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 03.02.2023 .

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶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 A23 , 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.31,41,305/(Rupees Thirty One lacs Forty One Thousand Three Hundred Five 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 @13% per annum plus @2% per annum penal interest in all loan accounts. In sanction letters dated 15.01.2020 and 17.03.2021, Annexures-A3 to

¶35

OA 1669/2022 HDFC BANK V/S SH. SUKHJEET SINGH AND OTHERS 5

¶36

A6 and A15 (copy), the rates of interest have been mentioned @13% per annum in CC-1 and CC-2 and @16% per annum in term loan and CC-3, respectively.

¶37

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 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.31,41,305/- (Rupees Thirty One lacs Forty One Thousand Three Hundred Five only) with current and future simple interest @8% per annum , w.e.f. 06.09.2022 , 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

¶39

OA 1669/2022 HDFC BANK V/S SH. SUKHJEET SINGH AND OTHERS

¶40

¶41

assets/property of the defendants. The applicant bank is at liberty to

¶42

enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶43

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶44

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 26.07.2023.

¶45

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.

¶46

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

¶47

DRT-2, Chandigarh

Hdfc Bank v. Sukhjeet Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Sukhjeet Singh and Others

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

Uco Bank versus B Subba Reddy

State Bank of India versus Awadh Kishore

Smt Sharada Bai M versus Mahila Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Punjab National Bank versus Satyawan and Ors.

Hdfc Bank versus Jai Parkash and Others

Punjab National Bank (Oriental Bank of Commerce) versus M/S Anshu Brick Field