Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Vijay Baburao Gujar

DRT8 Dec 2023OA/209/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by HDFC Bank Limited for recovery of dues against two borrower-defendants who defaulted on multiple loan accounts. The defendant was adjudged to pay the principal and future interest.

What did the court decide?

Ordered Defendant No. 1 to pay Rs. 2,68,823/- and Defendants No. 1 & 2 to pay Rs. 19,74,048/- with future interest; directed sale of hypothecated vehicle and issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Hdfc Bank versus Vijay Baburao Gujar — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

Presented on: 21.12.2021 Registered on: 28.03.2022 Decided on: 08.12.2023 Duration: Y M D 1 11 17

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.209/2022

¶3

HDFC Bank Limited Banking Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its Branch Office inter alia at 21/6, Ground Floor, MIT Marathon, Bund Garden, Pune-411 001.

¶4

Versus

¶5

Mr. Vijay Baburao Gujar, Age-Adult, Occ: Business, At Post-Ambheri, Tal-Khatav, Near Z.P. School, Satara-415 527

¶6

Mrs. Jayashri Baburao Gujar, Age-Adult, Occ: Business, At Post-Ambheri, Tal-Khatav, Near Z.P. School, Satara-415 527

… Applicant

… Defendants

APPEARANCES

For the Applicant Mr. Pradip Yadav - Advocate For Defendants Ex parte

¶11

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.23,00,789.50Ps.

(OA No.209/2022)

Page 1 of 7

[ npb ]

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 08^th December, 2023)

¶16

The Applicant Bank has filed the present Application for recovery of Rs.23,00,789.50Ps. i.e. Rs.2,79,030/- in respect of WCTL Loan account together with future interest @8.25% p.a. thereon from 19^th December, 2021 from defendant No.1 and Rs.20,21,759.95Ps. comprising of two loan accounts i.e. 1) Auto Loan account No.53051689 and 2) Business Loan account No.66283283 together with future interest @8.25% p.a. from 19^th December, 2021 from defendant Nos.1 & 2, till full repayment/realization of entire dues.

¶17

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶18

The defendant No.1 is a borrower who applied for Auto Loan of Rs.9,85,761/- on 28^th November, 2017 which was sanctioned and disbursed on 30^th November, 2017 with interest @9.52% p.a. fixed repayable in 84 monthly installment of Rs.16,122/- towards purchase of Maruti Swift Dzire VDI bearing RTO Registration No. MH-11-CG-5212, Chassis No. MA3CZF03SHK208828; Engine No.D13A3171532.

¶19

To secure the repayment, the defendant hypothecated

(OA No.209/2022)

Page 2 of 7

[ npb ]

the said Vehicle, more particularly mentioned in Loan and Guarantee Agreement dated 15^th March, 2019.

¶24

The applicant contended that defendant Nos.1 and 2. approached it under Emergency Credit Line Guarantee Scheme (ECLGS) and the applicant sanctioned on 09^th July, 2020 the WCTL (Loan-II under Account No.8336988) of Rs.2,62,868/-. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 signed and executed Loan Agreement and agreed to pay fixed rate of interest @8.25% p.a. The WCTL was repayable in 48 monthly installments.

¶25

The applicant Bank contended that the guarantee for this loan was backed from the National Credit Guarantee Trustee Company (NCGTC) to the applicant Bank. Therefore, the applicant Bank is supposed to remit the balance recoveries after adjusting recoveries towards default amount relating to the said Loan and the legal costs incurred for recovery of the due amount, to NCGTC, under this Scheme.

¶26

The applicant Bank further contended that on 15^th March, 2019 it has financed to defendant No.1 another Business Loan of Rs.15,90,000/(Loan Account

(OA No.209/2022)

Page 3 of 7

[ npb ]

No.66283283), which was to be repaid in total 63 EMIs of Rs.43,325/- with interest @17.80% p.a.

¶31

The applicant Bank further contended that on 18^th July, 2020 it has financed to defendant No.1 another Auto LoanGECL of Rs.2,62,868/- (Loan Account No.8336988), which was to be repaid in total 48 EMIs of Rs.8,268/- with interest @8.25% p.a.

¶32

After availing the aforesaid credit facilities, defendants No.1 committed regular defaults in repayment. Therefore, the applicant Bank issued Demand Legal Noticed dated 27^th November, 2021 recalling the outstanding amount. Despite Notice, defendants failed to repay the amount.

¶33

Hence, this applicant is filed.

¶34

Defendants failed to appear despite service of summons.

¶35

Hence, the application proceeded ex parte against them vide Order dated 07^th February, 2023 below the Application (Exhibit-1).

¶36

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Shri Rohan Edake, Power of Attorney Holder, which supports the case of the applicant Bank elucidated in the application.

(OA No.209/2022)

Page 4 of 7

[ npb ]

The applicant Bank has produced on record the original loan transaction documents (Sr.Nos.AW-1/1 to AW-1/9) which corroborate the case of the applicant Bank.

¶41

I have heard arguments of the learned Advocate for the applicant Bank.

¶42

Since the defendants failed to appear and contest the application, I find no reason to disbelieve evidence of the applicant Bank. Therefore, the applicant Bank has proved its case and is entitled for reliefs as claimed.

¶43

The applicant Bank has claimed Prepayment Charges of Rs.24,872/-; Cheque Bouncing Charges of Rs.21,363/- and Others Charges of Rs.11,682/- in all three accounts which cannot be granted. Therefore, these amounts are deducted from the respective total claim amounts. Thus, total claim amount is reduced from Rs.23,00,789.95Ps. to Rs. 22,42,871/- .

¶44

Hence, I pass the following order:-

¶45

ORDER

¶46

(A) Original Application No.209/2022 is allowed with costs.

(OA No.209/2022)

Page 5 of 7

[ npb ]

(B) Defendant No.1 shall pay to the applicant Bank towards WCTL account the sum of Rs.2,68,823/(Rupees Two Lakhs Sixty-Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty-Three only) with future interest @8.25% p.a. from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 21^st December, 2021 till full realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶51

(C) Defendant Nos.1 and 2 shall either jointly or severally pay to the applicant Bank the aggregate sum of Rs.19,74,048/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Seventy-Four Thousand and Forty-Eight only) i.e. towards Auto Loan (Rs.7,46,592/-) and Business Loan (Rs.12,27,456/-) with future interest @8.25% p.a. from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 21^st December, 2021 till full realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶52

(D) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the hypothecation of Maruti Swift Dzire VDI bearing RTO Registration No. MH-11-CG-5212, Chassis No.

(OA No.209/2022)

Page 6 of 7

[ npb ]

MA3CZF03SHK208828; Engine No.D13A3171532, more particularly mentioned in Agreement for Loan and Guarantee dated 15.03.2019.

¶57

(A) The applicant is entitled to sell the hypothecated vehicle to recover its dues.

¶58

(B) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶59

(C) The Registrar is directed to send the copy of Judgment and Recovery Certificate to the applicant Bank and defendants.

¶60

Sd/- (Dilip G Murumkar) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date : 08.12.2023 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune

¶61

(OA No.209/2022)

¶62

Page 7 of 7

¶63

[ npb ]

Hdfc Bank v. Vijay Baburao Gujar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Vijay Baburao Gujar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bank of Baroda versus Abhishek Patil

Hdfc Bank versus Mr. Rakesh Rajpal Prop M/S Rajpal Auto Lounge

State Bank of India versus M/S Kfc Sofas and Furniture Prop Mrs. Renuka Gaurav Kokane Alias Miss. Renuka Balasaheb Rahane

Bank of Maharashtra versus Vikram

Canara Bank versus Abhinav Matsya Vyavasay Vikas Va Prakirya Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit

State Bank of India versus Harsha Somnath Avhad