Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. John Mansour

DRT26 Jun 2023OA/1734/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte proceeding, the Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application for recovery of Rs. 39,31,301.05 plus interest from a defaulting credit card debtor, granting uniform simple interest at 9% per annum from the filing date.

What did the court decide?

Recovered sum of Rs. 39,31,301.05 with simple interest at 9% p.a. from 19.09.2022; Recovery Certificate issued; Execution proceedings authorized against mortgaged/hypothecated and personal assets.

Hdfc Bank versus John Mansour — Money Laundering | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1734/2022

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 19.09.2022

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 26^th DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶5

HDFC Bank Limited, having its 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 Representative, Sh. Kabir Chopra

¶6

…..Applicant Bank

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. John Mansour Hasrouni S/o Sh. Mansour Hanna Hasrouni R/o House No. B 074, The Belaire, Golf Course Road, DLF PH-V, Sector-54, Chakarpur (74), Gurgaon, Haryana-122002

¶9

Also at:

¶10

Larsen & Turbo Limited C/o Vatika Mindscape Building, Tower-A, 9^th Floor, 12/3 Mathura Road, Faridabad, Haryana-121003

¶11

…..Defendant

¶12

Argued by: Ms Khushpreet Bains, Legal Manager (GPA holder) for the applicant bank Defendant ex parte vide order dated 06.02.2023

¶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 defendant for recovery of

¶16

Rs.39,31,301.05/- (Rupees Thirty Nine lacs Thirty One Thousand Three Hundred One and Five Paisa Only) . It has

¶17

OA/1734/2022 HDFC BANK Vs JOHN MANSOUR HASROUNI 2

¶18

been filed through Sh. Kabir Chopra, Authorised Representative of the applicant bank stated to be competent to institute the Original Application vide Board Resolution dated 03.11.2021, Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶19

The brief facts of the case of the applicant as per Original Application are that the defendant had approached the applicant bank for grant of credit card facility vide application dated 09.11.2017, Annexure-A2 (copy).

¶20

The applicant bank sanctioned abovementioned facility to the defendant as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendant.

¶21

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facility, the defendant executed most important terms and conditions dated 09.11.2017, Annexure-A3 (copy) and schedule of charges dated 09.11.2017, Annexure-A4 (copy).

¶22

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 the entire outstanding amount vide demand notice dated 27.10.2021 along with original postal receipts, Annexure-A5 (colly) (copy), but to no avail.

¶23

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account, a sum of Rs.39,31,301.05/- (Rupees Thirty Nine lacs Thirty One Thousand Three Hundred One and Five Paisa Only) is recoverable against the defendant as per statement of account dated

¶24

OA/1734/2022 HDFC BANK Vs JOHN MANSOUR HASROUNI 3

¶25

24.05.2022, Annexure-A6 (copy), duly certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act.

¶26

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

¶27

Notice of the Original Application was 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 06.02.2023 .

¶28

In support of the contents of the OA, affidavit of evidence of Sh. Kabir Chopra, Senior Manager of the applicant bank was filed.

¶29

This Tribunal has heard ex-parte arguments advanced by Ms Khuspreet Bains, Legal Manager of the applicant bank and gone through the record carefully.

¶30

It was argued by Ms Khuspreet Bains, Legal Manager of the applicant bank 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 A6 , 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

¶31

terms and conditions of the agreement executed between the parties. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is

¶32

OA/1734/2022 HDFC BANK Vs JOHN MANSOUR HASROUNI 4

¶33

proved that applicant bank is entitled to recover a sum of

¶34

Rs.39,31,301.05/- (Rupees Thirty Nine lacs Thirty One Thousand Three Hundred One and Five Paisa Only) from the defendant.

¶35

In so far as pendent lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has not claimed any particular rate of interest.

¶36

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. personal, 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 @9% per annum from the date of filing of the OA till realisation of the amount ordered vide this order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶37

In the result, the Original Application is allowed with costs declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum of Rs.39,31,301.05/- (Rupees Thirty Nine lacs Thirty One Thousand Three Hundred One and Five Paisa Only) with current and future simple interest @9% per annum w.e.f. 19.09.2022 , till the date of realisation of the amount. Accordingly, the applicant bank shall be at liberty to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of mortgaged/hypothecated property of the defendant in execution proceedings, if not sold earlier under the provisions of

¶38

OA/1734/2022 HDFC BANK Vs JOHN MANSOUR HASROUNI

¶39

¶40

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, 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.

¶41

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶42

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 28.08.2023.

¶43

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.

¶44

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

Hdfc Bank v. John Mansour

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. John Mansour

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 Ahmed Rinku

Punjab National Bank versus Ms Joyram Bricks Industry

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Rishi Ram

Hdfc Bank versus Saish Karan

State Bank of India versus Dharampal and Others

Punjab National Bank versus Ms Priyajuri Gold Tea