Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Pradyumn Arya

DRT14 Nov 2023OA/839/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HDFC Bank Limited filed an Original Application for recovery of a loan amount of Rs. 37,13,723.11/- from Pradyumn Arya. The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the application in the absence of the respondent, directed the issuance of a Recovery Certificate, and awarded uniform simple interest at 9% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued; Respondent directed to pay Rs. 37,13,723.11/- with simple interest at 9% p.a. w.e.f. 16.05.2023.

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Pradyumn Arya — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.839/2023

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 16.05.2023

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 14^th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

HDFC BANK LIMITED , having its registered office at Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013, also at Plot Nos. 1-15, Sector-101, Alpha IT City, SAS Nagar (Mohali), through its Authorised Representative, Ms Khuspreet Kaur

¶6

…..Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Pradyumn Arya s/o Sh. Mahipal Arya resident of Near Government Secondary School, Bhandwa (41), Bhiwani, Badhara (Haryana)-127308 Also At: -

¶9

Pradhyumn Arya at S.S. Motors (Proprietor) r/o Near Maa Karani, Dharam Kanta, Loharu Road Satnali, Mahendargarh (Haryana)-123024

¶10

…..Defendant

¶11

Argued by: Ms Dipti Toni proxy counsel for Sh. Gagandeep Toni counsel for the applicant bank Defendant ex parte vide order dated 05.08.2023

¶12

FINAL ORDER

¶13

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank under 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. 37,13,723.11/- (Rupees Thirty Seven Lac Thirteen Thousand

¶14

OA/839/2023 HDFC BANK LIMITED Vs PRADYUMN ARYA

¶15

¶16

Seven Hundred Twenty Three and Eleven Paisa Only) . It has been filed through Ms Khuspreet Kaur, Authorised Representative of the applicant bank stated to be competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 09.01.2023, Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶17

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 CD loan loan of Rs. 1,84,102/- and auto premium loan of Rs. 33,15,031/- vide application forms dated 13.08.2022 and 13.10.2022, Annexures-A2 and A3 (copy).

¶18

The applicant bank sanctioned aforesaid facilities to the defendant as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendant.

¶19

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facilities, the defendant executed loan-cum-hypothecation agreement dated 17.10.2022, Annexure-A4 (copy) and agreement dated 18.08.2022 for two wheeler loan-cum-hypothecation, Annexure-A5 (copy).

¶20

It is further the case of the applicant bank that the loan facilities were duly availed of by the defendant but they failed to maintain the financial discipline of the applicant bank leading to the loan accounts becoming irregular and those being classified as NPA. The applicant bank recalled the entire outstanding amount vide legal notice dated 26.04.2023, Annexure-A8 (copy) and postal receipts dated 28.04.2023, Annexures-A9 and A10 (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 accounts, a sum of Rs. 37,13,723.11/- (Rupees Thirty Seven Lac Thirteen Thousand

¶22

OA/839/2023 HDFC BANK LIMITED Vs PRADYUMN ARYA 3

¶23

Seven Hundred Twenty Three and Eleven Paisa Only), is recoverable against the defendant as per statement of accounts, certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, Annexures-A6 and A7 (copy).

¶24

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

¶25

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 05.08.2023 . 7. In support of contents of the OA, affidavit of evidence Ms Khuspreet Kaur, Manager Legal of the applicant bank was filed. 8. This Tribunal has heard ex-parte arguments advanced by the learned proxy counsel and gone through the record carefully.

¶26

It was argued by the learned proxy counsel 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 A10 , 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 Rs. 37,13,723.11/- (Rupees Thirty Seven Lac

¶27

OA/839/2023 HDFC BANK LIMITED Vs PRADYUMN ARYA 4

¶28

Thirteen Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty Three and Eleven Paisa Only) from the defendant.

¶29

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank has claimed rate of interest @16.75% per annum. In loan-cum-hypothecation agreement dated 17.10.2022, Annexure-A4 (copy) and agreement dated 18.08.2022 for two wheeler loan-cum-hypothecation, Annexure-A5 (copy), rate of interest has been mentioned @7.90% per annum and @16.75% per annum.

¶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. purchase of a vehicle, 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 @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. 37,13,723.11/- (Rupees Thirty Seven Lac Thirteen Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty Three and Eleven Paisa Only) with current and future simple interest @9% per annum w.e.f. 16.05.2023 , till the date of realisation of the amount. Accordingly, the applicant bank shall be at liberty to recover

¶32

OA/839/2023 HDFC BANK LIMITED Vs PRADYUMN ARYA 5 aforesaid amount from the sale of hypothecated vehicle of the defendant 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 defendant. However, the applicant bank is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶33

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶34

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 26.12.2023 .

¶35

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.

¶36

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

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Pradyumn Arya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Pradyumn Arya

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

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus G Ravi Kumar

Nakkala Ilaya Yadav versus Iifl Home Finance Ltd.

Canara Bank versus Raghavandra Associates

Canara Bank versus M/s Saluja Communication and Others

Bank of India versus Ms Jayashree Paridhan

Union Bank of India (e-Andhra Bank) versus Mr.Dora Maheswara Rao