Allowed

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Smt. Supriya Sarkar

DRT10 Jul 2023OA/1835/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HDFC Bank approached DRT for recovery of Rs. 33,13,293.78 outstanding from arespondent who defaulted on a personal loan. The court observed that despite lack of personal appearance, documentary evidence was sufficient. It granted the application, allowing uniform simple interest at 8% per annum and authorizing issuance of a Recovery Certificate for execution.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 33,13,293.78 with simple interest at 8% per annum from 22.09.2022; issue of Recovery Certificate; liberty to enforce against mortgaged or personal assets.

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Smt. Supriya Sarkar — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1835/2022

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 22.09.2022

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 10^th DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

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 amongst others at Retail Loan Service Centre HDFC Bank Limited, Gurgaon 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 Ms Samandeep Sekhon, Legal Manager, Posted at HDFC Bank, Industrial Area, Phase 1, Chandigarh

¶6

…..Applicant Bank

¶7

Versus

¶8

Smt Supriya Sarkar W/o Sh. Dilip Sarkar R/o House No. 801, Bestech Park View, Spa Next, Gurgaon, Haryana

¶9

2^nd Address: UG 26, 1^st Floor, Vasant Square Mall, Vasant Kunj, Near Main Road, New Delhi

¶10

…..Defendant

¶11

Argued by: Ms Khushpreet Bains, Legal Manager for the applicant bank Defendant ex parte vide order dated 09.02.2023

¶12

FINAL ORDER

¶13

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant

¶14

bank under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks

¶15

OA/1835/2022 HDFC BANK Vs SUPRIYA SARKAR 2

¶16

and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity), against the defendant for recovery of Rs.33,13,293.78/(Rupees Thirty Three lacs Thirteen Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Three and Seventy Eight Paisa Only) . It has been filed through Ms Samandeep Kaur Sekhon, Authorised Representative of the applicant bank stated to be competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 03.11.2021, Annexure-P/A (copy).

¶17

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 personal loan facility of Rs.32 lacs vide personal loan application form dated 28.01.2020, Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶18

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

¶19

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facility, the defendant executed loan agreement No. 98853454 dated

¶20

31.01.2020, Annexure-A2 (copy).

¶21

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 notice dated 05.08.2022 and legal notice dated 06.08.2022 along with postal receipts, Annexure-A4 (colly) (copy), but to no avail.

¶22

OA/1835/2022 HDFC BANK Vs SUPRIYA SARKAR 3

¶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.33,13,293.78/(Rupees Thirty Three lacs Thirteen Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Three and Seventy Eight Paisa Only) is recoverable against the defendant as per statement of account dated 05.08.2022, Annexure-A3 (copy), duly certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act.

¶24

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

¶25

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 09.02.2023 .

¶26

In support of contents of the OA, affidavit of evidence of Ms Khushpreet Bains, Legal Manager of the applicant bank was filed.

¶27

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

¶28

It was argued by Ms Khushpreet Bains, Legal Manager for 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

¶29

Annexures-P/A, A1 to A4 , it is clear that the defendant had approached the applicant bank for availing of the loan facility which was granted to her. It is further clear that the defendant had

¶30

OA/1835/2022 HDFC BANK Vs SUPRIYA SARKAR 4

¶31

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 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.33,13,293.78/- (Rupees Thirty Three lacs Thirteen Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Three and Seventy Eight Paisa Only) from the defendant.

¶32

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has claimed rate of interest @10.75% per annum plus penal interest @2% per annum. In loan agreement No. 98853454 dated 31.01.2020, Annexure-A2 (copy), rate of interest has been mentioned @10.75% per annum.

¶33

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 use (marriage), quantum of loan and prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yesteryears and defendant being a female, 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 order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶34

In the result, the Original Application is allowed with costs declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant bank a

¶35

OA/1835/2022 HDFC BANK Vs SUPRIYA SARKAR 5 sum of Rs.33,13,293.78/- (Rupees Thirty Three lacs Thirteen Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Three and Seventy Eight Paisa Only) with current and future simple interest @8% per annum w.e.f. 22.09.2022 , 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 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.

¶36

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶37

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 08.09.2023.

¶38

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.

¶39

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

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Smt. Supriya Sarkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Smt. Supriya Sarkar

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

Vinod Kumar Arora versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

Punjab National Bank versus M/s Vaishnavi Poultry Feeds and others

Uco Bank versus M/s Tanish Enterprises and Others

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sh. Randhir Singh S/O

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Romi Singh

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Virender Singh