Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Avinash Chandrasekar

DRT20 Dec 2023OA/772/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for a recovery certificate. The Tribunal ordered the defendant to pay the claimed principal amount with simple interest at 9% per annum from the filing date, deviating from the bank's higher claim.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued; Defendant ordered to pay Rs. 34,16,957.58 plus simple interest at 9% p.a. from 28.04.2023.

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Avinash Chandrasekar — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 772/2023

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 28.04.2023

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 20^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, is having its registered office at Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai400013 and one of its Branches amongst others at Retail Loan Service Centre, HDFC Bank Limited, Gurgaon, through its Principal Officer and Constituted Attorney, Ms Khushpreet Bains, Legal Manager, Posted at HDFC Bank, Plot No. 1 and 2-15, Sector 101, Alpha, IT City, Mohali, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, Punjab

¶6

…..Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Avinash Chandrasekar s/o Sh. Veeravanall ur Ganapathy Chandrasekar r/o A-161, Belvedere Towers, DLF, Phase-2, Gurgaon, Haryana

¶9

....Defendant

¶10

Argued by: Sh. K.P.S Dhillon counsel for the applicant bank Defendant ex parte vide order dated 15.09.2023

¶11

FINAL ORDER

¶12

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), a gainst the defendant for recovery of Rs.34,16,957.58/- (Rupees Thirty Four Lac Sixteen Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Seven and Fifty Eight

¶13

OA/772/2023 HDFC BANK VS AVINASH CHANDERSEKAR 2

¶14

Paisa Only) . It has been filed through Ms Khushpreet Bains, Legal Manager of the applicant bank stated to be competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 07.02.2023, Annexure-P/A (copy).

¶15

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 personal loan facility of Rs. 25 lac vide loan application dated 20.07.2021, Annexure-A1 (copy) and credit card facility of Rs. 12 lac vide loan application, Annexure- A3 (copy).

¶16

The applicant bank sanctioned aforesaid credit facilities to the defendant as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendant. 4. In order to secure the aforementioned credit facilities, the defendant executed loan agreement No. 120463549 dated 20.07.2021, Annexure-A2 (copy) and acceptance agreement dated 13.11.2015 regarding terms and conditions of credit card facilities, Annexure-A4 (copy).

¶17

It is further the case of the applicant bank that the loan facilities were duly availed of by the defendant but he failed to maintain the financial discipline of the applicant bank leading to the loan accounts becoming irregular and those were classified as NPA. The applicant bank recalled entire outstanding amount vide demand notice dated 17.02.2023 and legal notice dated 21.02.2023 along with its postal receipt, Annexure-A7 (colly) (copy), but to no avail.

¶18

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan accounts, a sum of Rs.34,16,957.58/- (Rupees Thirty Four Lac Sixteen Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Seven and Fifty Eight Paisa Only), is

¶19

OA/772/2023 HDFC BANK VS AVINASH CHANDERSEKAR 3

¶20

recoverable against the defendant as per statements of accounts, duly certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891, Annexures-A5 and A6 (copy).

¶21

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

¶22

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 15.09.2023 .

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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-P/A, A1 to A7 , it is clear that the defendant had approached the applicant bank for availing of the loan facilities which were 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

¶26

Rs.34,16,957.58/- (Rupees Thirty Four Lac Sixteen Thousand

¶27

OA/772/2023 HDFC BANK VS AVINASH CHANDERSEKAR 4

¶28

Nine Hundred Fifty Seven and Fifty Eight Paisa Only) from the defendant.

¶29

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause, has claimed rate of interest @18% per annum plus penal interest @2% per annum in both facilities. In application dated 20.07.2021, Annexure-A1 (copy), the rate of interest has been mentioned @10.50% per annum in personal loan facility.

¶30

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. personal , 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 @9% per annum from the date of filing of the OA till realisation of the amount ordered vide this order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶31

In the result, the Original Application is allowed with costs holding that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum of Rs.34,16,957.58/- (Rupees Thirty Four Lac Sixteen Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Seven and Fifty Eight Paisa Only) with current and future simple interest @9% per annum w.e.f. 28.04.2023 , till the date of realisation of the amount. Accordingly, the applicant bank shall be at liberty to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of hypothecated property of the defendant in execution proceedings, if not sold earlier under the provisions of the Securitisation and

¶32

OA/772/2023 HDFC BANK VS AVINASH CHANDERSEKAR 5

¶33

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

¶34

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶35

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 12.02.2024.

¶36

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

¶37

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

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Avinash Chandrasekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Avinash Chandrasekar

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

Sainulabdeen versus Authorized Officer

Joy Abraham versus South Indian Bank

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Shree Ram Industries

Icici Bank Limited versus Sri. Narayanaswamy H.V.

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Sri Raghavendra Technologies

Canara Bank versus M/s Mrida Group