Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Sandeep Saharan

DRT10 Jan 2023OA/464/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the application filed by HDFC Bank against Sandeep Saharan for recovery of a term loan outstanding. Following an ex parte hearing, the Tribunal directed the release of a recovery certificate for the principal amount along with simple interest at 10% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued for principal amount with simple interest at 10% per annum; liberty to attach and sell assets.

Hdfc Bank versus Sandeep Saharan — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.464/2022

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 09.12.2021

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 10^th DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

HDFC Bank, is a body incorporated under the name and title as HDFC Bank Limited under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is having its registered office at Senapati Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013, and one of its Branches at Retail Assets, S.CO.15, 3^rd Floor, Sector-14, Gurgaon, Haryana, and one of its Local Controlling Offices at Plot No.28, HDFC Bank House, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh, through its Principal Officer and Constituted Attorney, Ms. Samandeep Kaur Sekhon, Legal Manager, Posted at HDFC Bank, Industrial Area, Phase 1, Chandigarh

¶6

....Applicant Bank

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Sandeep Saharan S/o Sh. Kanwar Saharan R/o House No. 11/11, 2^nd Floor, Sector 82, Gurgaon, Haryana

¶9

2^nd Address: C/o House No. 1505/1508, Signature Tower, South City-1, Gurgaon, Haryana

¶10

3^rd Address: House No. 983, Urban Estate-II, Hissar, Haryana

¶11

....Defendant

¶12

Argued by: Sh. K.P.S. Dhillon, counsel for the applicant bank Defendant ex parte vide order dated 12.10.2022

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank under

¶15

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.26,53,306.62p (Rupees Twenty Six lacs Fifty Three Thousand Three Hundred Six

¶16

and Sixty Two Paisa Only) . It has been filed through Ms. Samandeep Kaur Sekhon, Legal Manager of the applicant bank stated to be

¶17

OA/464/2022 HDFC BANK Vs SANDEEP SAHARAN

¶18

¶19

competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 19.11.2020, Annexure-P/A (copy).

¶20

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. 22,25,164/- vide online loan application dated 14.01.2020, AnnexureA1 (copy).

¶21

The applicant bank sanctioned the aforesaid facility to the defendant vide loan agreement dated 14.01.2020, Annexure-A2 (copy), as per the terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendant.

¶22

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facility, the defendant executed loan and security document, i.e. loan agreement dated 14.01.2020, Annexure-A2 (copy).

¶23

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 demand-cum-recall notice dated 12.10.2021, Annexure-A4 (copy) and legal notice dated 12.10.2021, Annexure-A5 (copy), along with its postal receipts, but to no avail.

¶24

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account, a sum of Rs.26,53,306.62p

¶25

(Rupees Twenty Six lacs Fifty Three Thousand Three Hundred Six

¶26

and Sixty Two Paisa Only) is recoverable against the defendant as per statement of account dated 12.10.2021, Annexure-A3 (copy) Certified under Banker’s Books Evidence Act, 2000.

¶27

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

¶28

OA/464/2022 HDFC BANK Vs SANDEEP SAHARAN

¶29

¶30

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 12.10.2022.

¶31

In support of the contents of the OA, affidavit of evidence of Ms. Samandeep Kaur Sekhon, Legal 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 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 A5 , 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.26,53,306.62p (Rupees Twenty Six

¶34

lacs Fifty Three Thousand Three Hundred Six and Sixty Two Paisa

¶35

Only) from the defendant.

¶36

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank, in relief clause, has claimed rate of interest @10.75% per annum plus @2% per annum penal interest with monthly rests. In loan agreement, Annexure-A2 (copy), rate of interest has been mentioned @10.75% per annum with monthly rests.

¶37

This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that sometimes in appropriate cases the prerogatives of mercy and magnanimity are the

¶38

OA/464/2022 HDFC BANK Vs SANDEEP SAHARAN

¶39

¶40

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, purpose of loan, i.e. business, quantum of loan, 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 @10% per annum from the date of filing of the OA till realisation of the amount ordered vide this order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶41

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.26,53,306.62p (Rupees Twenty Six lacs Fifty Three Thousand Three Hundred Six and Sixty Two Paisa Only) with current and future simple interest @10% per annum w.e.f. 09.12.2021 , 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.

¶42

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶43

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 07.03.2023.

¶44

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.

¶45

Announced in the open Tribunal (M.M. Dhonchak)

¶46

Presiding Officer DRT-2,Chandigarh

Hdfc Bank v. Sandeep Saharan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Sandeep Saharan

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 Prudvi Raj

State Bank of India versus Madhu

State Bank of India versus Anjaiah

Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank versus Sanjay Kumar Singh

State Bank of India versus Vedere Laxmi Vamsheedhar Reddy

Idbi Bank versus Sahab Singh Yadav and Others