Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Manoj Kumar and Ors.

DRT11 Jan 2023OA/461/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application by HDFC Bank for recovery of an outstanding loan of Rs. 48.98 lakhs secured by an equitable mortgage against the respondents. The Tribunal directed recovery with simple interest at 8% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Declaration of liability to pay Rs. 48,98,156.61 with simple interest at 8% per annum from 06.12.2021; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Hdfc Bank versus Manoj Kumar and Ors. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 461/2022

¶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, and its Branch at Palwal, Haryana, also at HDFC Bank House, Plot No. 28, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh, through its Authorised Representative, Sh. Jatinder Mishra

¶6

…..Applicant Bank

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. Sh. Manoj Kumar S/o Sh. Chatar Pal Singh R/o House No. 56/2, Near Shiv Mandir, Village Fattupura, Tigaon (95), Faridabad, Haryana121101

¶9

2. Sh. Satish S/o Sh. Chatar Pal Singh R/o House No. 56/2, Near Shiv Mandir, Village Fattupura, Tigaon (95), Faridabad, Haryana-121101

¶10

Sh. Subhash Chand S/o Sh. Bhopal Singh R/o House No. 49, Village Fattupura, Tigaon (101), Faridabad, Haryana-121101

¶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

¶15

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.48,98,156.61p (Rupees Forty Eight lacs Ninety Eight Thousand One Hundred Fifty Six and Sixty One Paise only) . It has been filed through, Sh. Jatinder Mishra, Authorised Representative vide Power of Attorney dated 16.12.2020, Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶16

The brief facts as per Original Application are that defendant Nos.1 and 2 had approached the applicant bank for grant of CC limit under KCC

¶17

OA NO.461/2022 HDFC BANK VS M/S SH. MANOK KUMAR AND OTHERS 2

¶18

of Rs. 19,50,000/- and term loan under DOD of Rs. 8,13,000/- vide loan application dated 15.10.2015, Annexure-A2 (copy). Defendant No.3 stood as a guarantor for repayment of the loan.

¶19

The applicant bank sanctioned the above said loan facilities to the defendants vide sanction letter dated 03.11.2015, Annexure-A3 (colly) (copy), as per the terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶20

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facilities, defendants executed loan and security documents, i.e. agreement for cash credit dated 12.11.2015, Annexure-A4 (copy), agreement for term loan dated 12.11.2015, Annexure-A5 (copy), demand promissory note dated 12.11.2015, Annexure-A6 (colly) (copy) and letter dated 12.11.2015 regarding continuity for demand promissory note, Annexure-A6 (colly) (copy).

¶21

The aforesaid limits were further secured by creation of equitable mortgage of land in respect of defendant No. 1 measuring 130 Kanals 18 Marlas situated in the revenue estate of Fattupura, Tehsil and District Faridabad, Haryana, fully described in para No. 5.8 of the Original Application.

¶22

Documents related to mortgage are as under:

¶23

i. Registered mortgage deed dated 04.11.2015, Annexure-A7 (copy).

¶24

ii. Title search report dated 04.11.2015 of agricultural land, AnnexureA8 (copy)

¶25

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 account was declared NPA because it became irregular. The applicant bank recalled

¶26

OA NO.461/2022 HDFC BANK VS M/S SH. MANOK KUMAR AND OTHERS 3

¶27

the entire outstanding amount vide recall notice dated 11.10.2021, along with its 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.48,98,156.61p (Rupees Forty Eight lacs Ninety Eight Thousand One Hundred Fifty Six and Sixty One Paise only) is recoverable against the defendants as per statement of accounts duly certified under Banker’s Books Evidence Act, Annexures-A10 and A11 (copy).

¶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 despite service, thus, the defendants were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 12.10.2022 .

¶31

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

¶32

This Tribunal has heard ex-parte arguments advanced by the learned counsel and gone through the record carefully. 10. It was argued by the learned counsel that in view of unrebutted documentary evidence brought on record, the applicant bank had proved its case for recovery of the amount sought against the defendants. 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 after they had executed all the relevant documents as stated above in favour of the 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

¶33

OA NO.461/2022 HDFC BANK VS M/S SH. MANOK KUMAR AND OTHERS 4

¶34

brought on record, it is proved that applicant bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.48,98,156.61p (Rupees Forty Eight lacs Ninety Eight Thousand

¶35

One Hundred Fifty Six and Sixty One Paise only) from the defendants.

¶36

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has claimed interest @12% per annum plus @16% per annum penal interest for CC and @14% per annum plus @16% per annum penal interest for TL with half yearly rests. In sanction letter dated 03.11.2015, Annexure-A3 (colly) (copy), the rate of interest has been mentioned @12% per annum for CC and @14% per annum for TL.

¶37

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, 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 final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶38

In the result, the Original Application is allowed with costs declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum of Rs.48,98,156.61p (Rupees Forty Eight lacs Ninety Eight Thousand One Hundred Fifty Six and Sixty One Paise only) with current and future simple interest @8%per annum , w.e.f. 06.12.2021 , 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 property of defendants in execution proceedings, if not sold earlier under the

¶39

OA NO.461/2022 HDFC BANK VS M/S SH. MANOK KUMAR AND OTHERS 5

¶40

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, applicant bank shall be at liberty to recover the same by attachment and sale of personal assets/properties of the defendants. The applicant bank is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶41

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶42

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 08.03.2023.

¶43

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

¶44

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

Hdfc Bank v. Manoj Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Manoj Kumar 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