Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Sh.Yugesh Garg and Another

DRT28 Dec 2023OA/183/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application for recovery of Rs.22,64,363.16p outstanding due from the respondents on a vehicle loan. The bank proved its prima facie case regarding the loan agreement and defaults. The court issued a Recovery Certificate and directed the sale of hypothecated properties or attachment of personal assets if dues remained unsatisfied.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued; Declaration of liability to pay Rs.22,64,363.16p jointly and severally with interest.

Hdfc Bank versus Sh.Yugesh Garg and Another — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.183/2022

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 23.12.2021

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 28.12.2023

¶6

HDFC Bank is a body incorporated under the name and title as HDFC Bank Ltd. under the provisions of the Companies Act 1956 and is having its Registered Office at Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013 and one of its branches at Retail Loan Service Centre HDFC Bank Ltd., Third Floor, B-21-14570, GT Road, Dholewal Chowk, adjoining Gulzar M, Ludhiana (Punjab) and one of its Local controlling office at Plot No.28, HDFC Bank House, Industrial Area, Phase 1, Chandigarh through its Principal Officer and Constituted Attorney, Sh. Rajendra Prasad, Legal Manager posted at HDFC Bank, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh

¶7

……..Applicant Versus

¶8

Sh. Yugesh Garg S/o Sh. Rakesh Garg, R/o H.No.1157, Basant Avenue, Ludhiana

¶9

2^nd Address : - M/s Kairavi Alloys, through its Proprietor, Sh. Yugesh Garg, Second Floor, 1005 Sun Arcade, VIP Road, Vesu, Surat (Gujarat)-395007

¶10

Smt. Suman Garg W/o Sh. Rakesh Garg, R/o H.No.1157, Basant Avenue, Ludhiana

¶11

………Defendants

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

Argued by Sh. K.P. S. Dhillon, counsel for the applicant Defendants are ex-parte

¶14

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.22,64,363.16p (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Sixty Four Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Three and Sixteen Paisa only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Rajendra Prasad, Legal Manager of the applicant bank, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Resolution dated 03.11.2021, which is Annexure P/A to this OA.

¶17

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendants had approached the applicant bank for the grant of Vehicle Loan of Rs.35.00 Lacs for the purchase of “Mercedes Benz C-250” vide Loan Application, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶18

The applicant Bank sanctioned the Vehicle Loan of Rs.35.00 Lacs for the purchase of “Mercedes Benz C-250” and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. 4. Defendants had hypothecated their movable property i.e. Vehicle namely “Mercedes Benz C-250 D” bearing Chassis No.WDD2050066L031411, Engine No.65192134324251 and Registration No.GJ05RF3933 vide Loan Agreement dated 21.07.2018, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶19

Documents executed: - Statement of account, which is Annexure A3 to this OA; Demand notice/recall notice dated 08.11.2021, which is Annexure A4 to this OA and Legal notice dated 10.11.2021, which is Annexure A5 to this OA.

¶20

The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan account there was a debit of Rs.22,64,363.16p, which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notices but they did not repay the outstanding

¶21

¶22

amount, therefore, the applicant bank requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶23

The defendants were served notices to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte on 27.07.2023.

¶24

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Rajendra Prasad, Legal Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd. has been filed.

¶25

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶26

It was argued by learned counsel that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant bank had proved its case. From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A5 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant bank for availing of the loan facility which was granted to them and for that they had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. The defendants failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, account of the defendants was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.22,64,363.16p (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Sixty Four Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Three and Sixteen Paisa only) along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the account.

¶27

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has claimed interest @9.26%p.a. along with @2.00% penal interest with monthly rests from 09.11.2021 till the realization.

¶28

The Tribunal is of the considered opinion that sometimes in appropriate cases the prerogative of mercy is the brightest jewel in the crown of the Judge. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case including nature of the mortgaged property, undertaking

¶29

¶30

of the defendants, quantum of loan and prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yester years, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @9.26%p.a. in the loan account from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly. 11. In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.22,64,363.16p (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Sixty Four Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Three and Sixteen Paisa only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @9.26%p.a. in the loan account from the date of filing of OA till the date of realization of the amount. Accordingly, the applicant bank shall be entitled to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of hypothecated/mortgaged properties of the defendants in execution proceedings if not sold earlier under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. If the dues of the bank still remain unsatisfied, it shall be entitled to recover the same by attachment and sale of personal assets of the defendants. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law. 12. Any other application pending stands disposed of. 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶31

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 12.01.2024.

¶32

Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant bank and be sent to defendants through registered/speed post and this order be also uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal and record be consigned. Pronounced by me in the Open Tribunal. Dated: 28.12.2023

¶33

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Hdfc Bank v. Sh.Yugesh Garg and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Sh.Yugesh Garg and Another

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 Shri Balaji Fasteners and Others

Union Bank of India, (Erstwhile Corporation Bank), versus Sh. Jasdev Singh and Another

Union Bank of India, versus Sh. Surinder Singh and Others

Idbi Bank Limited, versus Sh. Ram Singh and Other

Axis Bank Ltd., versus M/S Bhagirath Impex and Others

Uco Bank, versus Messrs a I Impex and Another