Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. M/S Kalra Impex Private Limited

DRT12 Dec 2023OA/725/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the bank's application, holding the defendants jointly and severally liable to repay Rs.33,02,968.69 with adjusted simple interest at 9% p.a. The order issued a Recovery Certificate. Defendants were absent.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs.33,02,968.69 plus simple interest at 9% p.a. from 23.03.2022 until realisation. Sale of hypothecated assets allowed if due.

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Kalra Impex Private Limited — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.725/2022

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 23.03.2022

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 12^th DAY OF DECEMBER, 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, having its registered office at Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013 and one of its Branches at Retail Assets, S.C.O. 15, III^rd floor, Sector-14, Gurgaon, Haryana and one of its Local Controlling Offices at Plot No. 28, HDFC Bank House, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh, through its Principal Officer and Constituted Attorney, Ms Samandeep Kaur Sekhon, Legal Manager, Posted at HDFC Bank, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh

¶6

…..Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s Kalra Impex Private Limited, Plot No. 407, Phase-4, Udhyog Vihar, Gurgaon, through its Dirctors/Managing Director

¶9

Sh. Akash Deep Kalra s/o Sh. Varinder Singh Kalra r/o Tower No. 10, Flat No. 903, Valley View, Estate Gwal Pahari, Sector-45, Gurgaon (Director of M/s Kalra Impex Private Limited)

¶10

Ms. Swati Sadashiv Shety @Swati Kalra w/o Sh. Akashdeep Kalra r/o Tower No. 10, Flat No. 903, Valley View, Estate Gwal Pahari, Sector-45, Gurgaon (Director of M/s Kalra Impex Private Limited)

¶11

....Defendants

¶12

Argued by: Sh. K.P.S. Dhillon counsel for the applicant bank Defendants ex parte vide order dated 14.09.2023

¶13

OA/725/2022 HDFC BANK VS M/S KALRA IMPEX AND OTHERS 2

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity), against the defendants for recovery of Rs.33,02,968.69/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lac Two Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Eight and Sixty Nine Paisa Only) . It has been filed through Ms Samandeep Kaur Sekhon, Legal Manager of the applicant bank stated to be competent to institute the Original Application vide Resolution of Board dated 03.11.2021, AnnexureP/A (copy).

¶16

The brief facts of the case of the applicant as per Original Application are that defendant No. 1 through defendant Nos. 2 and 3 had approached the applicant bank for grant of business loan facility of Rs. 50 lac vide loan application dated 17.09.2018, Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶17

The applicant bank sanctioned aforesaid facility of Rs. 40 lac to the defendants, as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendants. 4. In order to secure the aforementioned credit facility, the defendants executed loan agreement No. 60935493 dated 28.09.2018, Annexure-A2 (copy).

¶18

It is further the case of the applicant bank that the loan facility was duly availed of by the defendants but they failed to maintain the financial discipline of the applicant bank leading to the loan account becoming irregular and it being classified as NPA. The applicant bank recalled entire outstanding amount vide notices dated

¶19

OA/725/2022 HDFC BANK VS M/S KALRA IMPEX AND OTHERS 3

¶20

22.02.2022 and 09.03.2022, Annexure-A4 (colly) (copy) and legal notice dated 24.02.2022 along with its postal receipts, AnnexureA5 (colly) (copy), but to no avail.

¶21

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account, a sum of Rs.33,02,968.69/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lac Two Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Eight and Sixty Nine Paisa Only) , is recoverable against the defendants as per statement of account, duly certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891, Annexure-A3 (colly) (copy).

¶22

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

¶23

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 14.09.2023 .

¶24

In support of contents of the OA, affidavit of evidence of Ms. Khushpreet Bains, Legal Manager of the applicant bank was filed.

¶25

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

¶26

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 defendants for recovery of the amount sought. From perusal of Annexures-P/A, A1 to A5 , it is

¶27

OA/725/2022 HDFC BANK VS M/S KALRA IMPEX AND OTHERS 4

¶28

clear that the defendants had approached the applicant bank for availing of the loan facility which was granted to them. It is further clear that the defendants 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 brought on record, it is proved that applicant bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.33,02,968.69/- (Rupees

¶29

Thirty Three Lac Two Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Eight and

¶30

Sixty Nine Paisa Only) from the defendants.

¶31

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned,

¶32

the applicant bank in relief clause, has claimed rate of interest @16% per annum plus penal interest @2% per annum. In loan agreement No. 60935493 dated 28.09.2018, Annexure-A2 (copy), the rate of interest has been mentioned @16% per annum.

¶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, purpose of loan, i.e. business , quantum of loan, prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yesteryears and defendant No. 3 being a female, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the OA till realisation of the amount ordered vide this order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶34

OA/725/2022 HDFC BANK VS M/S KALRA IMPEX AND OTHERS 5

¶35

In the result, the Original Application is allowed with costs holding that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum of Rs.33,02,968.69/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lac Two

¶36

Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Eight and Sixty Nine Paisa Only) with current and future simple interest @9% per annum w.e.f. 23.03.2022 , 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 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. However, the applicant bank is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶37

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶38

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 02.02.2024.

¶39

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

¶40

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

Hdfc Bank v. M/S Kalra Impex Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. M/S Kalra Impex Private Limited

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

Canara Bank versus Mr Bendanganshi

Uco Bank versus Jaarohi Lalhruaizela

Canara Bank versus Mr. Devdutt

Punjab National Bank versus Mr. Ramesh M. Kiresur

Manish Kumar Sahu versus Bank of Baroda

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Thumma Srinadh Babu