This tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application for recovery of dues from a defaulting borrower on an inventory funding facility, adjusting the claim amount and approving a reduced future interest rate.
Defendant directed to pay Rs. 87,81,062/- with future interest @ 9% p.a. from filing date; debt secured by hypothecated assets.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Presented on: 06.11.2019 Registered on: 24.09.2022 Decided on: 07.12.2023 Duration: Y M D 4 1 1
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.798/2022
HDFC Bank Limited
Banking Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having Registered Office at HDFC Bank House, C.S. No.6/242, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 and having one of its Offices at Department for Special Operations, Peninsula Business Park, B Wing, 4th Floor, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400 013.
Versus
Mr. Rakesh Rajpal, Proprietor of M/s. Rajpal Auto Lounge, Age-47 years, Occupation-Business
(OA No.798/2022)
Page 1 of 6
[ npb ]
APPEARANCES
| For the Applicant | Mrs Tejashree Hirve - Advocate |
|---|---|
| For Defendant | Exparte |
TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.88,22,561.77Ps.
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 07th December, 2023)
The defendant is a proprietary concern engaged in the business of sale of two/three wheelers and its spare parts manufactured by India Yamaha Motor Pvt. Ltd. The defendant was carrying his business under the name and style as M/s. Rajpal Auto Lounge.
Defendant as a borrower applied for Inventory Funding (TWIF) loan facility of Rs.1,00,00,000/- for his working capital requirement and the applicant Bank has sanctioned and disbursed on 05th January, 2016 the Inventory Funding
(OA No.798/2022)
Page 2 of 6
[ npb ]
(TWIF) facility of Rs.1 Crore to defendant, with interest @12% p.a. with monthly rests.
Defendant signed and executed loan transaction and security documents as set out in paragraph No.5.5 of the Original Application.
The applicant Bank contended that after availing the Inventory Funding (TWIF) facility, defendant was irregular in payment of interest/EMIs and made default in repayment of the said facility. Despite repeated requests made by the applicant Bank, defendant failed and neglected to regularize the loan account. Resultantly, the loan account of defendant has become Non-performing Asset on 23rd June, 2017.
Thereafter, the applicant Bank through its Advocate issued Recall Notice dated 12th October, 2019 calling upon defendant to pay the outstanding amount with interest. In spite of issuance of Recall Notice, defendant did not pay the dues and failed to comply with the said Notice.
Hence, this applicant is filed.
(OA No.798/2022)
Page 3 of 6
[ npb ]
Order dated 04th December, 2023 below the Application (Exhibit-1).
Rs. 87,81,061.77 Ps. (rounded off to Rs. 87,81,062/- ).
(OA No.798/2022)
Page 4 of 6
[ npb ]
However, considering facts of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% p.a. (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.
ORDER
(OA No.798/2022)
Page 5 of 6
[ npb ]
any other place whatsoever and wheresoever in the Borrower’s possession or occupation or at any other premises or place, and/or
more particularly mentioned in Schedule-I of the Original Application.
Sd/- (Dilip G Murumkar) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date : 07.12.2023 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune
(OA No.798/2022)
Page 6 of 6
[ npb ]
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant bank is entitled to recovery of the outstanding dues with future interest.
What rate of future interest would be just and reasonable in the facts of the case.
Whether the debt is secured by the hypothecation of movable properties and book debts.
HDFC Bank Limited
Dilip G Murumkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
