Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Shri Rajiv Kumar Singla

DRT13 Dec 2023OA/1837/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of a business loan default. The respondent was held liable to pay principal with simple interest at 10% p.a. from the filing date. The order authorized issuance of a Recovery Certificate. The respondent was absent.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for principal sum with simple interest at 10% p.a. from filing date.

Hdfc Bank versus Shri Rajiv Kumar Singla — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 1837/2022 DATE OF INSTITUTION: 22.09.2022

¶3

DATE OF DECISION: 13^th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

HDFC Bank , is a body incorporated under the name and title as HDFC Bank Limited under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai400013 and one of its Branches amongst others at Retail Loan Service Centre HDFC Bank Limited, Atrlaen Building, Agra Chowk, GT Road, NH2, Palwal, Haryana and one of its Local Controlling Offices at Plot No. 28, HDFC Bank House, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh, through its Principal Officer and Constituted Attorney, Ms Samandeep Sekhon, Legal Manager, posted at HDFC Bank, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh

¶5

…..Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Sh. Rajiv Kumar Singla s/o Sh. Gian Chand Singh r/o House No. 154, Mansa Residence, Palwal, Haryana

¶8

II^nd Address: c/o Sh. Ram Chemicals & Metals, NH-2, Dagar Bhawan, Jajroo Chowk, Sector 59, Jharsaintly, Near Vikas Filling Station, Faridabad

¶9

....Defendant

¶10

Argued by: Ms Neha proxy counsel for Sh. K.P.S. Dhillon counsel for the applicant bank Defendant ex parte vide order dated 05.09.2023

¶11

FINAL ORDER

¶12

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank

¶13

under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity), a gainst the

¶14

OA/1837/2022 HDFC BANK VS RAJIV 2

¶15

defendant for recovery of Rs.20,47,185.31/- (Rupees Twenty Lac Forty Seven Thousand One Hundred Eighty Five and Thirty One Paisa Only) . It has been filed through Ms Samandeep Sekhon, Legal Manager of the applicant bank stated to be competent to institute the Original Application vide Resolution of Board dated 03.11.2021, Annexure-P/A (copy).

¶16

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 business loan facility of Rs. 34,70,009/- vide loan application dated 08.12.2018, Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶17

The applicant bank sanctioned aforesaid facility to the defendant as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendant. 4. In order to secure the aforementioned credit facility, the defendant executed loan agreement No. 63447233 dated 15.12.2018, Annexure-A2 (copy). 5. 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 leading to the loan account becoming irregular and it being classified as NPA. The applicant bank recalled entire outstanding amount vide legal notice dated 05.08.2022 along with its postal receipts, Annexure-A4 (colly) (copy), but to no avail.

¶18

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account, a sum of Rs.20,47,185.31/- (Rupees Twenty Lac Forty Seven Thousand One Hundred Eighty Five and Thirty One Paisa Only), is recoverable against the defendant as per statement of account, duly

¶19

OA/1837/2022 HDFC BANK VS RAJIV 3

¶20

certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891, Annexure-A3 (colly) (copy).

¶21

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

¶22

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 05.09.2023 .

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

It was argued by the learned proxy counsel 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-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 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 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.20,47,185.31/- (Rupees Twenty Lac Forty Seven Thousand

¶26

One Hundred Eighty Five and Thirty One Paisa Only) from the defendant.

¶27

OA/1837/2022 HDFC BANK VS RAJIV 4

¶28

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause, has claimed rate of interest @15.50% per annum plus penal interest @2% per annum. In loan agreement No. 63447233 dated 15.12.2018, Annexure-A2 (copy), the rate of interest has been mentioned @15.5% per annum.

¶29

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. business , quantum of loan, 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 @10% per annum from the date of filing of the OA till realisation of the amount ordered vide this order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶30

In the result, the Original Application is allowed with costs holding that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum of Rs.20,47,185.31/- (Rupees Twenty Lac Forty Seven Thousand One Hundred Eighty Five and Thirty One Paisa Only) with current and future simple interest @10% 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 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

¶31

OA/1837/2022 HDFC BANK VS RAJIV 5

¶32

attachment and sale of personal assets of the defendant. However, the applicant bank is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶33

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶34

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 05.02.2024.

¶35

Copy of this order be sent to the applicant bank and the defendant through registered/speed post. This order be uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal.

¶36

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

Hdfc Bank v. Shri Rajiv Kumar Singla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Shri Rajiv Kumar Singla

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

State Bank of India versus Tagmaxx

Sanjay Jain versus Punjab National Bank

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Kumar Tiles and Sanitary Wares

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Pankaj Kumar Singh

Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank versus Sh. Baldev Kumar

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Surander Tanwar