Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Satish Kumar

DRT16 Aug 2023OA/2227/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte hearing, the Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's Original Application for recovery of Rs. 29,10,658/- owed by respondents. It discharged the question as to the rate of interest, granting uniform simple interest at 7% per annum from the date of filing instead of the claimed compound rate.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondents to pay Rs. 29,10,658/- with simple interest @7% per annum w.e.f. 05.12.2022 and authorizing recovery through sale of mortgaged or personal assets.

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Satish Kumar — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2023)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, CHANDIGARH,

¶2

PRESIDED OVER BY M.M. DHONCHAK

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 2227 of 2022

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 05.12.2022

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 16^th DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶6

HDFC Bank Limited , a Banking Company, carrying on the Banking business under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and having its Registered Office at HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013, whereas Branch amongst other places on at Narwana Branch, District Jind, Haryana, through Sh. Jatinder Mishra, Assistant Manager (Agri Legal) HDFC Bank Limited, Regional Office, Chandigarh, being Power of Attorney holder of applicant bank

¶7

…..Applicant Bank

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Satish Kumar s/o Sh. Rameshwar R/o Village Mangalpur, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind, Haryana-126152

¶10

Sh. Mahipal s/o Sh. Rameshwar R/o Village Mangalpur, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind, Haryana-126152

¶11

Smt. Ramrati w/o Sh. Rameshwar R/o Village Mangalpur, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind, Haryana-126152

¶12

Sh. Parveen Kumar s/o Sh. Gaje Singh R/o Village Mangalpur, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind, Haryana-126152

¶13

.…..Defendants

¶14

Argued by: Sh. Jatinder Mishra, Deputy Manager for the applicant bank Defendants ex parte vide order dated 18.02.2023

¶15

OA/2227/2022 HDFC BANK Vs SATISH KUMAR AND OTHERS 2 FINAL ORDER

¶16

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant 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 defendants for recovery of Rs.29,10,658/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lacs Ten Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty Eight Only) . The OA has been filed through Sh. Jatinder Mishra, Assistant Manager (Agri Legal) of the applicant bank, stated to be competent to institute the Original Application vide General Power of Attorney dated 16.12.2020, Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶17

The brief facts of the case of the applicant as per Original Application are that defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 had approached the applicant bank for grant of cash credit facility of Rs. 12.30 lacs and dropline overdraft facility of Rs. 4.20 lacs vide loan application dated 16.03.2017, Annexure-A2 (copy). Defendant No. 4 stood as a guarantor for repayment of the loan.

¶18

The applicant bank sanctioned cash credit facility of Rs. 11.30 lacs and dropline overdraft facility of Rs. 3.95 lacs to the defendants vide sanction letters dated 22.03.2017, Annexures-A3 and A4 (copy) as per terms and conditions duly accepted by the defendants. 4. In order to secure the aforementioned credit facilities, the defendants executed agreement dated 10.04.2017 for secured overdraft/cash credit-cum-guarantee-cum-hypothecation deed, Annexure-A5 (copy) and agreement dated 10.04.2017 for dropline overdraft-cum-guarantee-cum-hypothecation deed, Annexure-A6 (copy).

¶19

OA/2227/2022 HDFC BANK Vs SATISH KUMAR AND OTHERS 3 5. The aforesaid loans were further secured by creation of mortgage by defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in respect of agricultural land measuring 75 Kanals 8 Marlas situated in the revenue estate of Mangalpur, Tehsil Narwana, and District Jind, Haryana, fully detailed in para No. 5(v) of the Original Application. Declaration dated 07.04.2017 under section 4(1) of the Haryana Agriculture Credit Operations and Miscellaneous Provisions (Bank) Act, 1973, Annexure-A7 (copy).

¶20

It is further the case of applicant that the loan facilities were duly availed of by the defendants but they failed to maintain the financial discipline of the applicant bank and resultantly, the loan accounts became irregular and those were declared as NPA on 01.10.2018. The applicant bank recalled the entire outstanding amount vide legal notice dated 11.11.2022 along with its original postal receipts, Annexure-A8 (colly) , but to no avail.

¶21

It is further the case of applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan accounts, a sum of Rs.29,10,658/(Rupees Twenty Nine Lacs Ten Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty Eight Only) is recoverable against defendants as per statements of accounts certified under Bankers’ Book Evidence Act, Annexures-A9 and A10 (copy).

¶22

Since the defendants did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant bank preferred the present Original Application for issuance of Recovery Certificate. 7. Notices of the Original Application were duly served upon the defendants, but since none appeared on behalf of the defendants

¶23

OA/2227/2022 HDFC BANK Vs SATISH KUMAR AND OTHERS 4 despite service, thus, defendants were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 18.02.2023 .

¶24

In support of contents of the Original Application, affidavit of evidence of Sh. Jatinder Mishra, Assistant Manager (Agriculture Legal) of the applicant bank was filed.

¶25

This Tribunal has heard ex parte arguments advanced by Sh. Jatinder Mishra, Deputy Manager of the applicant bank and gone through the record carefully.

¶26

It was argued Sh. Jatinder Mishra, Deputy Manager of the applicant bank that in view of unrebutted documentary evidence brought on record, the applicant bank had proved its case against the defendants for recovery of the amount sought. From perusal of Annexures-A1 to A10 , it comes out that the defendants had approached the applicant bank for availing of the loan facilities which were granted to them. It is further clear that the defendants had executed all the relevant documents as stated above in favour of the applicant bank. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.29,10,658/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lacs Ten Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty Eight Only) from the defendants, from the date of filing the present Original Application, till realization of the amount.

¶27

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has claimed rate of interest @12% per annum plus penal interest @2% per annum. In sanction letters dated 22.03.2017, Annexures-A3 and A4 (copy), rate of interest has been

¶28

OA/2227/2022 HDFC BANK Vs SATISH KUMAR AND OTHERS 5 mentioned @12% per annum in cash credit facility and @15% per annum in dropline overdraft facility, respectively.

¶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, nature of the mortgaged property, purpose of loan, i.e. agriculture, present conditions of economy based on agriculture, quantum of loan and prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yesteryears and defendant No. 3 being a female, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @7% per annum from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶30

In the result, the Original Application is allowed with cost declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum Rs.29,10,658/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lacs Ten Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty Eight Only) with current and future simple interest @7% per annum w.e.f. 05.12.2022 , till the date of realisation of the amount. The liability of the defendants shall be joint as well as several. Accordingly, the applicant bank shall be at liberty to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of mortgaged/hypothecated property of defendants in execution proceedings, if not sold earlier under the provisions of the Securitization 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

¶31

OA/2227/2022 HDFC BANK Vs SATISH KUMAR AND OTHERS 6 personal assets of the defendants. The applicant bank is at liberty to

¶32

enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶33

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶34

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 05.10.2023.

¶35

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

¶36

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

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Satish Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Satish Kumar

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

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Langei International

Uco Bank versus Smt Anju Rani Ghosh

Jagranath Chaudhary and Another versus Punjab National Bank

Paramjeet Singh versus Idbi Bank

Punjab National Bank versus Dilip Kumar Singh & Anr.

Canara Bank versus P Sudha