Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Sahab Singh

DRT25 May 2023OA/348/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for Rs.23.40 lakhs plus interest. The Tribunal orders uniform simple interest at 7% p.a. instead of contract rates due to pandemic and agricultural context, granting a recovery certificate and liberty to enforce via SRS Act or asset attachment.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.23,40,765/- with simple interest @7% per annum w.e.f. 07.12.2021. Recovery Certificate issued; liberty to enforce via sale of secured or personal assets.

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

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 348 of 2022 DATE OF INSTITUTION: 07.12.2021

¶3

DATE OF DECISION: 25^th DAY OF MAY, 2023

¶4

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 and Branch amongst other places one at Assandh, through Sh. Jatinder Mishra, Assistant Manager and holder of an attorney

¶5

.......Applicant Bank

¶6

Versus

¶7

Sh. Sahab Singh S/o Sh. Nishaber Singh R/o Village Khizarabad, Tehsil Assandh, District Karnal, Haryana-132039

¶8

Smt. Balvir Kaur W/o Sh. Nishaber Singh R/o Village Khizarabad, Tehsil Assandh, District Karnal, Haryana-132039

¶9

.......Defendants

¶10

Argued by: Sh. Sumeet Sehgal proxy counsel for Sh. J.S. Sehgal counsel for the applicant bank Defendants ex parte vide order dated 14.02.2023

¶11

FINAL ORDER

¶12

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 defendants for recovery of Rs.23,40,765/-

¶13

(Rupees Twenty Three lacs Forty Thousand Seven Hundred and

¶14

Sixty Five Only) . The OA has been filed through Sh. Jatinder Mishra, Assistant Manager of the applicant bank, stated to be competent to

¶15

OA/348/2022 HDFC BANK Vs SAHAB SINGH AND ANOTHER 2

¶16

institute the Original Application vide 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 the defendants approached the applicant bank for grant of cash credit facility of Rs. 12 lacs and term loan facility of Rs. 4 lacs vide loan application dated 25.06.2015, Annexure-A2 (copy).

¶18

The applicant bank sanctioned cash credit facility of Rs. 11.50 lacs and term loan facility of Rs. 3.30 lacs vide sanction letters dated 30.06.2015, Annexures-A3 and A4 (copy) as per terms and conditions duly accepted by the defendants.

¶19

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facilities, the defendants executed various loan and security documents, i.e. dropline overdraft-cum-hypothecation-cum-guarantee agreement dated 23.07.2015, Annexure-A5 (copy), overdraft-cum-hypothecation-cumguarantee agreement dated 23.07.2015, Annexure-A6 (copy), demand promissory note dated 23.07.2015, Annexure-A7 (copy) and letter dated 23.07.2015 regarding continuity of demand promissory note, Annexure-A8 (copy).

¶20

The aforesaid loans were further secured by creation of mortgage by the defendants in respect of agricultural land measuring 48 Kanals situated in the revenue estate of Khizarabad, Tehsil Assandh, District, Karnal, Haryana fully detailed in para No. 5 (v) of the Original Application.

¶21

The documents relating to mortgage are as under:

¶22

i. Registered mortgage deed dated 10.07.2015, Annexure-A9 (copy).

¶23

OA/348/2022 HDFC BANK Vs SAHAB SINGH AND ANOTHER 3

¶24

ii. Request letter dated 10.07.2015 to the Tehsildar, Assandh for entry/mutation of mortgaged property, Annexure-A10 (copy).

¶25

It is further the case of the 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. The applicant bank recalled the entire outstanding amount vide legal notice dated 11.10.2021, Annexure-A11 (copy) and its original postal receipts, Annexures-A12 and A13 , but to no avail.

¶26

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan accounts a sum of Rs.23,40,765/(Rupees Twenty Three lacs Forty Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty Five Only) is recoverable against defendants as per statements of accounts dated 29.07.2021 and 13.08.2021, Annexures-A14 and A15 (copy), certified under Bankers’ Book Evidence Act.

¶27

Since the defendants did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant bank preferred the present Original Application for issuance of Recovery Certificate. 7. Notice of the Original Application was duly served upon the defendants, but since none appeared on behalf of the defendants despite service, thus, defendants were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 14.02.2023.

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

OA/348/2022 HDFC BANK Vs SAHAB SINGH AND ANOTHER 4

¶31

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 defendants for recovery of the amount sought. From perusal of Annexures-A1 to A15 , 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 cleared 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.23,40,765/- (Rupees Twenty Three lacs Forty Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty Five 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 interest @12% per annum in cash credit facility with half yearly rests and @14% per annum in term loan facility. In sanction letters dated 30.06.2015, AnnexuresA3 and A4 (copy), rate of interest has been mentioned @12% in cash credit facility with half yearly rests and @14% in term loan facility with half yearly rests, respectively.

¶33

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 mortgage 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

¶34

OA/348/2022 HDFC BANK Vs SAHAB SINGH AND ANOTHER 5

¶35

drastically downhill in yesteryears and defendant No.2 being a lady, 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.23,40,765/- (Rupees Twenty Three lacs Forty Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty Five Only) with current and future simple interest @7% per annum w.e.f. 07.12.2021 , till the date of realization 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 properties 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 personal assets of the defendants. 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 26.07.2023.

¶38

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.

¶39

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

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Sahab Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Sahab 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

Mohammed Ali M K versus Federal Bank

Shafi Adattil versus Can Fin Homes Ltd.

Prabir Kumar Roy versus Union Bank of India

Idbi Bank versus Sahasr Home Appliances

Union Bank of India versus Sona Fashions

Idbi Bank versus Sawant Namdeo Pandurang