Allowed

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Sh. Sansar Singh

DRT14 Jul 2023OA/2232/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte proceeding, the Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of Rs. 33.94 lacs and granted uniform simple interest at 7% per annum instead of the claimed rates, considering the pandemic and agricultural nature of the loan.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 33,94,890 plus uniform simple interest @7% per annum from 05.12.2022, realisable from mortgaged property or personal assets.

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sh. Sansar Singh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 2232 of 2022

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 05.12.2022

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 14^th DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

H.D.F.C. 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 one at Kalayat Branch, District Kaithal, Haryana, through Sh. Jatinder Mishra, Assistant Manager (Agriculture Legal), HDFC Bank Limited, Regional Office, Chandigarh (UT) being Power of Attorney holder of applicant bank

¶6

.......Applicant Bank

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Sansar Singh S/o Sh. Inder Singh R/o Village Badsikri-Khurd, Tehsil Kalayat, District Kaithal, Haryana-136117

¶9

Sh. Krishan Kumar S/o Sh. Sansar Singh R/o Village BadsikriKhurd, Tehsil Kalayat, District Kaithal, Haryana-136117

¶10

Sh. Sataywan S/o Sh. Dharambir R/o Village Badsikri-Khurd, Tehsil Kalayat, District Kaithal,Haryana-136117

¶11

Sh. Subhash S/o Sh. Inder Singh R/o Village Badsikri-Khurd, Tehsil Kalayat, District Kaithal, Haryana-136117

¶12

Smt. Angrejo Devi W/o Sh. Subhash R/o Village Badsikri-Khurd, Tehsil Kalayat, District Kaithal, Haryana-136117

¶13

......Defendants

¶14

OA/2232/2022 HDFC BANK Vs SANSAR SINGH AND OTHERS 2

¶15

Argued by: Sh. Jatinder Mishra, Deputy Manager for the applicant bank Defendants ex parte vide order dated 04.03.2023

¶16

FINAL ORDER

¶17

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.33,94,890/(Rupees Thirty Three Lacs Ninety Four Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety Only) . The OA has been filed through Sh. Jatinder Mishra, Assistant Manager (Agriculture Legal) of the applicant bank, stated to be competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 16.12.2020, Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶18

The brief facts of the case of the applicant as per Original Application are that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had approached the applicant bank for grant of cash credit facility of Rs. 20.60 lacs and dropline overdraft facility of Rs. 4.20 lacs vide loan application dated 18.09.2018, Annexure-A2 (copy). Defendant Nos. 3, 4 and 5 stood as guarantors for repayment of the loan.

¶19

The applicant bank sanctioned cash credit facility of Rs. 20.25 lacs and dropline overdraft facility of Rs. 4.20 lacs vide sanction letters dated 22.10.2018, 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 various loans and security documents, i.e. agreement dated 26.10.2018 for secured overdraft/cash credit-cumguarantee-cum-hypothecation deed, Annexure-A5 (copy) and

¶20

OA/2232/2022 HDFC BANK Vs SANSAR SINGH AND OTHERS 3

¶21

agreement dated 26.10.2018 for dropline overdraft-cum-guaranteecum-hypothecation deed, Annexure-A6 (copy).

¶22

The aforesaid loans were further secured by creation of mortgage by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of agricultural land measuring 77 Kanals 19 Marlas situated in the revenue estate of Badisikari-Khurd, Tehsil Kalayat, Haryana, fully detailed in para No. 5(v) of the Original Application. Registered mortgage deed dated 25.10.2018, Annexure-A7 (copy).

¶23

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 account became irregular and it was declared NPA on 03.04.2021. The applicant bank recalled the entire outstanding amount vide legal notice dated 11.11.2022 along with original postal receipts, Annexure-A8 (colly) (copy), but to no avail.

¶24

It is further the case of applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan accounts, a sum of Rs.33,94,890/(Rupees Thirty Three Lacs Ninety Four Thousand Eight Hundred

¶25

and Ninety Only) is recoverable against defendants as per statements of accounts dated 16.07.2022, certified under Bankers’ Book Evidence Act and memorandums of interest, Annexures-A9 and A10 (copy).

¶26

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

¶27

OA/2232/2022 HDFC BANK Vs SANSAR SINGH AND OTHERS 4

¶28

despite service, thus, defendants were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 04.03.2023 .

¶29

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.

¶30

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

¶31

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.33,94,890/(Rupees Thirty Three Lacs Ninety Four Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety Only) from the defendants, from the date of filing the present Original Application, till realization of the amount.

¶32

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has claimed rate of interest @13% per annum plus penal interest @2% per annum in both facilities. In sanction letters dated 22.10.2018, Annexures-A3 and A4 (copy), rates of interest have been mentioned @13% in cash credit facility with

¶33

OA/2232/2022 HDFC BANK Vs SANSAR SINGH AND OTHERS 5

¶34

half yearly rests and @16% per annum in dropline overdraft facility with half yearly rests, respectively.

¶35

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. agricultural, present conditions of economy based on agriculture, quantum of loan, prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yesteryears and defendant No. 5 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. 12. 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.33,94,890/(Rupees Thirty Three Lacs Ninety Four Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety 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

¶36

OA/2232/2022 HDFC BANK Vs SANSAR SINGH AND OTHERS 6

¶37

personal assets of the defendants. The applicant bank is at liberty to

¶38

enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶39

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶40

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 14.09.2023.

¶41

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.

¶42

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

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Sh. Sansar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Sh. Sansar Singh

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

Shafi Adattil versus Can Fin Homes Ltd.

Idbi Bank versus M/s Maa Vindhyavashini Industries and others

Uco Bank versus M/s V1 Veriety Mall and Others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S R R Enterprises and Others

Ashoutosh Prabhakar versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

Idbi Bank versus Mohan Kumar Rai and Ors.