Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Pankaj Puri

DRT3 Jun 2023OA/748/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by HDFC Bank Limited against Pankaj Puri for the recovery of a loan along with interest, noting the defendant's absence. The Tribunal exercised discretion to adjust the interest rate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.33,40,966.46 with simple interest @10% per annum from 11.03.2022 till realization; liberty to recover via sale of mortgaged/hypothecated or personal assets; Recovery Certificate issued.

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Pankaj Puri — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.748/2022

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 11.03.2022

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 3^rd DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶5

HDFC Bank Limited, having its Registered Office at Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013, having its Branch at Plot No. 28, HDFC Bank House, Industrial Area, Phase 1, Chandigarh, through its Authorised Representative, Ms Samandeep Kaur Sekhon

¶6

…..Applicant Bank

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Pankaj Puri S/o Sh. Surender Puri, The Last Box, B-54, Golf Course Road, Suncity, Sector-54, Haiderpur, Gurgaon-122011

¶9

Also at: WZ 3411, Gali No. 10, Krishna Puri, Tilak Nagar SO, West Delhi-110018

¶10

Also at: The Ark, Level 2, Baani Address, One Golf Course Road, Sector-56, Gurugram-122011

¶11

…..Defendant

¶12

Argued by: Ms Dipti Toni proxy counsel for Sh. Gagandeep Toni counsel for the applicant bank Defendant ex parte vide order dated 01.06.2023

¶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

¶15

and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity), against the defendant for recovery of Rs.33,40,966.46/- (Rupees Thirty Three lacs Forty Thousand

¶16

Nine Hundred Sixty Six and Forty Six Paisa Only) . It has been filed through Ms Samandeep Kaur Sekhon, Authorised

¶17

OA/748/2022 HDFC BANK Vs PANKAJ PURI 2

¶18

Representative of the applicant bank stated to be competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 16.10.2021, Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶19

The brief facts of the case of the applicant as per Original Application are that the defendant had approached the applicant bank for grant of term loan facility of Rs.30 lacs vide loan application dated 19.08.2019, Annexure-A2 (copy).

¶20

The applicant bank sanctioned term loan facility of Rs.27.50 lacs to the defendant vide loan agreement dated 31.08.2019, Annexure-A3 (copy) as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendant.

¶21

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facility, the defendant executed loan agreement dated 31.08.2019, AnnexureA3 (copy).

¶22

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 the entire outstanding amount vide legal notice dated 22.02.2022, Annexure-A5 (copy) and original postal receipts dated 23.02.2022, Annexure-A6 (colly) (copy), but to no avail.

¶23

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account, a sum of Rs.33,40,966.46/- (Rupees Thirty Three lacs Forty Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Six and Forty Six Paisa Only) is recoverable against the defendant as per statement of account dated

¶24

OA/748/2022 HDFC BANK Vs PANKAJ PURI 3

¶25

09.03.2022, Annexure-A4 (copy), duly certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act.

¶26

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

¶27

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 01.06.2023 .

¶28

In support of the contents of the OA, affidavit of evidence of Ms Samandeep Kaur Sekhon, Manager legal 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

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 defendant for recovery of the amount sought. From perusal of Annexures-A1 to A6 , 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.33,40,966.46/- (Rupees Thirty Three lacs

¶31

OA/748/2022 HDFC BANK Vs PANKAJ PURI 4

¶32

Forty Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Six and Forty Six Paisa

¶33

Only) from the defendant.

¶34

In so far as pendent lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has claimed rate of interest @15.30% per annum. In loan agreement dated 31.08.2019, Annexure-A3 (copy), rate of interest has been mentioned @15.30% per annum.

¶35

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 and 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.

¶36

In the result, the Original Application is allowed with costs declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum of Rs.33,40,966.46/- (Rupees Thirty Three lacs Forty Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Six and Forty Six Paisa Only) with current and future simple interest @10% per annum w.e.f. 11.03.2022 , till the date of realisation of the amount. Accordingly, the applicant bank shall be at liberty to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of mortgaged/hypothecated property of the defendant in execution proceedings, if not sold earlier under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

¶37

OA/748/2022 HDFC BANK Vs PANKAJ PURI 5

¶38

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 defendant. The applicant bank is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶39

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶40

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 03.08.2023.

¶41

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.

¶42

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

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Pankaj Puri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Pankaj Puri

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

M/S Him Fresh Products Private Limited versus State Bank of India

Karur Vysya Bank Limited versus M/S. Rainbow Marketing (Borrower)

Ms Sai Trinity Organisation versus Union Bank of India

Union Bank of India versus M/S Kitchen World

Canara Bank versus M/s. Extreme Motors

Joginder Singh versus Punjab National Bank