Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Manmohan Vats

DRT4 May 2023OA/2261/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bank applicant filed an application under RDBFI Act 1993 against defaulting borrower for recovery of Rs. 22.34 lacs. Tribunal allowed the application ex-parte, declared respondent liable to pay principal and uniform simple interest at 8% per annum, and directed issuance of Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 22,34,221.85 plus simple interest at 8% per annum w.e.f. 15.12.2022 by attachment and sale of assets; Recovery Certificate issued.

Hdfc Bank versus Manmohan Vats — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.2261/2022

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 15.12.2022

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 4^th DAY OF MAY, 2023

¶5

HDFC Bank Limited , having its Registered Office at Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013, having its Branch at Plot No. 28, H.D.F.C Bank House, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh, through its Authorised Representative, Ms Samandeep Kaur Sekhon

¶6

....Applicant Bank

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Manmohan Vats S/o Sh. Gian Chand Vats R/o House No. 1202, Tower5, Floor-12, Tata Primanti Sohna Road, Sector-72, P.O. Badshahpur, near Badshapur Chowk, Gurgaon-122001

¶9

Also at:- Evolve Entertainment and Marketing Solutions Private Limited, #528, JMD Megapolis Sohna Road, Sector-48, Gurgaon-122001

¶10

.....Defendant

¶11

Argued by: Ms Dipti Toni proxy counsel for Sh. Gagandeep Toni counsel for the applicant bank Defendant ex parte vide order dated 04.02.2023

¶12

FINAL ORDER

¶13

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank

¶14

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 defendant for recovery of Rs.22,34,221.85/- (Rupees Twenty Two lacs Thirty Four Thousand Two Hundred Twenty One and Eighty Five 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 16.10.2021, Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶15

OA/2261/2022 HDFC BANK LIMITED VS SH. MANMOHAN VATS

¶16

¶17

The brief facts as per the Original Application are that the defendant had approached the applicant bank for grant of term loan facility of Rs.21.92 lacs vide loan application dated 24.02.2020, Annexure-A2 (copy).

¶18

The applicant bank sanctioned aforesaid facility to the defendant vide sanction letter dated 24.02.2020, Annexure-A3 (copy) as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendant.

¶19

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facility, the defendant executed agreement for loan and guarantee dated 29.02.2020,

¶20

Annexure-A4 (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 entire outstanding amount vide notice dated 25.08.2022, Annexure-A6 (copy) along with its original postal receipt dated 25.08.2022, AnnexureA7 (copy), but to no avail.

¶22

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account, a sum of Rs.22,34,221.85/(Rupees Twenty Two lacs Thirty Four Thousand Two Hundred Twenty One and Eighty Five Paisa Only) is recoverable against the defendant as per statement of account dated 06.12.2022, Annexure-A5 (copy), duly certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act.

¶23

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

¶24

OA/2261/2022 HDFC BANK LIMITED VS SH. MANMOHAN VATS

¶25

¶26

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 04.02.2023 .

¶27

In support of the contents of the OA, affidavit of evidence of Ms Samandeep Kaur Sekhon, Authorised Representative of the applicant bank was filed.

¶28

This Tribunal has heard ex-parte arguments advanced by the learned proxy counsel and gone through the record carefully. 9. 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-A1 to A7 , 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.22,34,221.85/-

¶29

(Rupees Twenty Two lacs Thirty Four Thousand Two Hundred Twenty One and Eighty Five Paisa Only) from the defendant.

¶30

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has claimed, rate of interest @8.40% per annum. In sanction letter dated 24.02.2020, Annexure-A3 (copy), rate of interest has been mentioned @8.40% per annum.

¶31

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

¶32

OA/2261/2022 HDFC BANK LIMITED VS SH. MANMOHAN VATS

¶33

¶34

circumstances of the instant case including the Pandemic Covid-19 affecting businesses, purpose of loan, i.e. purchase of private vehicle, quantum of loan and 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 @8% per annum from the date of filing of the OA till realisation of the amount ordered vide this order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶35

In the result, the Original Application is allowed with costs declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum Rs.22,34,221.85/- (Rupees Twenty Two lacs Thirty Four Thousand Two Hundred Twenty One and Eighty Five Paisa Only) with current and future simple interest @8% per annum w.e.f. 15.12.2022 , till the date of realisation of the amount. 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 14.07.2023.

¶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 v. Manmohan Vats

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Manmohan Vats

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 Pritesh Jangade

Hdfc Bank versus Sukhvinder Kaur

Yesuratnam Venktepaaka versus Rbl Bank Limited

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sai Deethya Bikes India Pvt. Ltd.

Hdfc Bank versus Aditya Industries

Mosomat Sita Rani Sinha versus Bank of India