Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Jaspinder Singh and Ors.

DRT11 Jan 2023OA/459/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed HDFC Bank's application for recovery of approximately Rs. 48 lakhs owed by respondents. Despite full documentary evidence and ex parte hearing, the Tribunal exercised discretion to grant a uniform simple interest rate of 7% p.a. instead of claimed higher rates, claiming amounts with costs and liberty for execution. The Original Application was allowed.

What did the court decide?

Declaration of liability to pay Rs. 12,30,398.73 plus 7% simple interest p.a.; issuance of Recovery Certificate; liberty for execution via sale of mortgaged or personal assets.

Hdfc Bank versus Jaspinder Singh and Ors. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.459/2022

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 06.12.2021

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 11^th DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

HDFC Bank Limited , having its registered office at Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013, its Branch at Assandh, Karnal, Haryana, also at HDFC Bank House, Plot No. 28, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh, through its Authorised Representative Mr. Jatinder Mishra, Assistant Manager

¶6

....Applicant Bank

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Jaspinder Singh S/o Sh. Kartar Singh R/o Ward No. 1, Village Assandh, Near Dera Salwan Road, Near Gurudwara, Tehsil Assandh, District Karnal, Haryana-132039

¶9

Smt. Gurnam Kaur W/o Sh. Kartar Singh R/o Ward No. 1, Village Assandh, Near Dera Salwan Road, Near Gurudwara, Tehsil Assandh, District Karnal, Haryana-132039

¶10

Sh. Kuldip Singh S/o Sh. Dalbir Singh R/o Dera Gama, Village Assandh, Tehsil Assandh, District Karnal, Haryana

¶11

.....Defendants

¶12

Argued by: Sh. Amit Rishi, counsel for the applicant bank Defendants ex parte vide order dated 12.10.2022

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

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.48,03,116.72p (Rupees Forty Eight lacs Three Thousand One Hundred Sixteen and Seventy Two Paisa Only) . It has been filed through Mr. Jatinder Mishra, Assistant Manager of the applicant bank stated to be competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 16.12.2020, Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶15

OA/459/2022 HDFC BANK Vs JASPINDER SINGH AND ORS

¶16

¶17

The brief facts as per the Original Application are that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had approached the applicant bank for grant of KCC facility of Rs. 32.80 lacs and term loan facility of Rs. 6.50 lacs vide loan application dated 12.03.2014, Annexure-A2 (copy). Defendant No. 3 stood as a guarantor for repayment of the loan.

¶18

The applicant bank sanctioned aforesaid KCC facility of Rs. 31.00 lacs and term loan facility of Rs. 6.50 lacs to the defendants vide sanction letter dated 01.04.2014, Annexure-A3 (colly) (copy), as per the terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶19

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facilities, the defendants executed various loan and security documents, i.e. agreement for cash credit dated 17.04.2014, Annexure-A4 (copy), agreement for term loan dated 17.04.2014, Annexure-A5 (copy), demand promissory note and letter of continuity dated 17.04.2014, Annexure-A6 (colly) (copy).

¶20

The aforesaid loans were further secured by creation of mortgage by defendant No.1 in respect of land measuring 48 Kanals situated in the revenue estate of Assandh, Tehsil Assandh, District Karnal, Haryana, fully detailed in para No. 5.8 of the Original Application.

¶21

The documents relating to the mortgage are as under:

¶22

i. Registered mortgage deed dated 15.04.2014, Annexure-A7 (copy).

¶23

ii. Non-Encumbrance Certificate dated 16.04.2014 and report dated 15.04.2014 by advocate regarding title search of mortgaged property, Annexure-A8 (colly) (copy).

¶24

It is further the case of the applicant bank 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 were declared NPA because it became irregular. The applicant bank recalled entire outstanding amount vide demand notice dated 11.10.2021

¶25

OA/459/2022 HDFC BANK Vs JASPINDER SINGH AND ORS

¶26

¶27

along with its original postal receipts, Annexure-A9 (colly) (copy), but to no avail.

¶28

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan accounts, a sum of Rs.48,03,116.72p (Rupees Forty Eight lacs Three Thousand One Hundred Sixteen and Seventy Two Paisa Only) is recoverable against the defendants as per statement of accounts dated 28.07.2021 and 13.08.2021, Annexures-A10 and A11 (copy), along certificate under Banker’s Books Evidence Act, 2000.

¶29

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

¶30

Notices of the Original Application were duly served upon the defendants, but since none appeared on behalf of the defendants, thus, the defendants were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 12.10.2022 .

¶31

In support of the contents of the OA, affidavit of evidence of Mr. Jatinder Mishra, Assistant Manager of the applicant bank was filed.

¶32

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

¶33

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 A11 , it is clear that the defendants had approached the applicant bank for availing of the loan facilities which were granted to them and for repayment of that defendant No.3 stood as a guarantor. It is further clear that the defendants had executed all the relevant documents as stated above in favour of the

¶34

OA/459/2022 HDFC BANK Vs JASPINDER SINGH AND ORS

¶35

¶36

applicant bank. Unfortunately, the defendants 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.48,03,116.72p (Rupees Forty Eight lacs Three Thousand One Hundred Sixteen and Seventy Two Paisa Only) from the defendants.

¶37

In so far as pendent elite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank, in relief clause, has claimed rate of interest @12% per annum with half yearly rests in KCC facility plus @16% per annum penal interest and @13% per annum with half yearly rests in term loan facility plus @24% per annum penal interest. In sanction letter, Annexures-A3 (colly) (copy), rate of interest has been mentioned @12% per annum in KCC facility with half yearly rests and @13% per annum in term loan facility with half yearly rests.

¶38

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, prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yesteryears, 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 realisation of the amount ordered vide this order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶39

In the result, the Original Application is allowed with costs declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum Rs. 12,30,398.73p (Rupees Twelve lacs Thirty Thousand Three

¶40

OA/459/2022 HDFC BANK Vs JASPINDER SINGH AND ORS

¶41

¶42

Hundred Ninety Eight and Seventy Three Paisa Only) with current and future simple interest @7% per annum w.e.f. 06.12.2021 , till the date of realisation of the amount. The liability of 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 the defendants in execution proceedings, if not sold earlier under the provisions of the Securitisation 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.

¶43

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶44

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 20.02.2023.

¶45

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.

¶46

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

Hdfc Bank v. Jaspinder Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Jaspinder Singh and Ors.

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 Vedere Laxmi Vamsheedhar Reddy

Idbi Bank versus Sahab Singh Yadav and Others

Idbi Bank versus M/S Ambey Constructions

Bank of Baroda versus Ms Shivam Confectionery

Smt Ranjana Devi versus the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited

Bhavna Patial versus the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited