Dismissed

Ashutosh Bhardwaj v. the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited

DRT19 Jun 2023SA/454/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Special Appeal regarding loan defaults, the Debts Recovery Tribunal rejected the claim that the applicant's voluntary retirement justified default. The Tribunal held the applicant was a willful defaulter who retired to avoid repayment and dismissed the appeal, allowing the bank to proceed with legal actions.

What did the court decide?

Special Appeal dismissed; Respondent Bank at liberty to proceed as per law.

Ashutosh Bhardwaj versus the Hongkong and Shanghai… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

SA No. 454/2022

¶3

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR PRESIDING OFFICER: SH. VIVEK SAXENA

¶4

SA No. 454/2022

¶5

Ashutosh Bhardwaj , R/o House No. 10, Sector 4, Malviya Nagar Jaipur 302017

¶6

Anshu Bhardwaj W/o Ashutosh Bhardwaj, House No. 10, Sector 4, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur 302017

¶7

..Applicants

¶8

V/s

¶9

1. The Hongkong & Shangai Banking Corporation Ltd, India, Branch Office OBL Jaipur

¶10

The Hongkong & Shangai Banking Corporation Ltd, India through Mr. Rohit Dutt Tyagi, Authorised Officer, 52/60 M G Road, Mumbai 400001 having its branch at 25, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi 110001 also at K-1418 Sector 18 Noida U P 201301

¶11

.. Respondents

¶12

Present:

¶13

Sh. T P Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant

¶14

Sh. Abhishek Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI

¶15

(Final Order)

¶16

(19.06.2023)

¶17

This SA was filed by the SA applicant on 21.07.2022, being aggrieved by the actions initiated by the Respondent Bank.

¶18

¶19

In Para 5.8, availing credit facility of Rs. 60.00 Lac through sanction letter dated 24.08.2017 (Annexure 1) and availing credit facility of Rs. 38.00 Lac is admitted.

¶20

The amount so sanctioned was disbursed to SA applicant for Rs. 60.00 Lac on 24.08.2017 and amount of Rs. 38.00 Lac on 31.01.2018.

¶21

In Para 5.B of the SA, it is admitted that on 01.04.2022, the SA applicant took VRS from services which resulted downfall in the earnings and on account of some family problems, repayment was affected, it is also alleged in Para 5.B that despite having knowledge of this fact the Respondent Bank enhanced the limits of the applicants without due diligence, ignoring the repaying capacity of applicants, creating hardships in payment of EMIs which ultimately resulted in turning the account into a Non Performing Asset.

¶22

In Para 5.C it is admitted that on 31.01.2018, the Respondent Bank enhanced the credit facility of Rs. 38.00 Lac and so it was not possible for the SA applicant to repay because the capacity of applicant was not to repay the amount of earlier loan of Rs. 60.00 Lac.

¶23

In Para 5.D, it is alleged that the Respondent Bank harassed and confused to the applicants, because the demand notice was issued on 01.10.2021.

¶24

In Para 5.F it is alleged that steps taken by the Respondent Bank are malafide, illegal and not justified and arbitrary.

¶25

It is also alleged that the steps taken by the Respondent Bank has furthermore restored to unfairness and indulged in such practices in derogation of principles of natural justice in a

¶26

¶27

systematic manner and in these circumstances the demand notice dated 01.10.2021 followed by possession notice and order u/s 14 of the Act of 2002 are completely illegal.

¶28

In grounds of SA, in Para 3, it is admitted that the applicant deposited an amount of Rs. 62,95,074/- and further assured the Bank to deposit the amount shortly but the account was declared as NPA.

¶29

In ground 5 to the SA, it is submitted that the applicant is ready to pay entire overdue or legal charges as per law and to regularize the account on the basis of original terms and through EMI and rate of interest, but Respondent Bank is not ready to do so.

¶30

Finally it was prayed that the demand notice, possession notice and all the actions initiated by the Respondent Bank are required to be quashed and set aside.

¶31

It is important to mention here that during the course of arguments which took place on 09.06.2023, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant started arguments but all of a sudden SA applicant, Mr. Ashutosh Bhardwaj preferred to argue the matter as he was not satisfied with the arguments raised by his Ld. Counsel, so Mr. Ashutosh Bhardwaj and Mrs. Anshu Bhardwaj, both the SA applicants were allowed to argue the matter finally, and they argued the mater finally.

¶32

Reply to SA was filed by the Respondent Bank on 20.10.2022 and Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank strongly objected each and every ground raised by the SA applicants.

¶33

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶34

¶35

It is a fact that the SA applicant availed two credit facilities i.e. one credit facility for Rs. 60.00 Lac on 24.07.2017 and another credit facility of Rs. 38.00 Lac on 31.01.2018 and so as on 31.01.2018 total sanctioned amount was Rs. 98.00 Lac and this fact is admitted in Para 5.8 of the SA.

¶36

In Para 5.B, ground taken by the SA applicant is very confusing and are not liable to be accepted because at one hand, the SA applicant states that he took VRS from the services which resulted in downfall in the earning but despite having knowledge of this fact the Bank has enhanced the credit limit for Rs. 38.00 Lac and this was the failure on account of Respondent Bank who failed to take due diligence ignoring the repaying capacity of SA applicant. As the SA applicant was facing hardships but then while Respondent Bank sanctioned the credit facility for an amount of Rs. 38.00 Lac, so from the ground/facts as mentioned in Para 5.B is seems that it was the respondent bank who was bent upon to sanction the credit facility of Rs. 38.00 Lac in favour of SA applicant and as if the SA applicant was not ready and willing to avail the credit facility and then the Respondent FI sanctioned the said credit facility and the SA applicant after getting an amount of Rs. 38.00 Lac against the loan amount, started facing hardship and in my considered opinion, if the SA applicant was not having the repaying capacity then why he accepted the amount of Rs. 38.00 Lac sanctioned by the Respondent Bank as additional credit facility.

¶37

In my considered opinion at one hand the SA applicant availed second credit facility of Rs. 38.00 Lac, after availing credit facility of Rs. 60.00 Lac, he took VRS from the services

¶38

¶39

and on account of this retirement, he faced downfall in fact for which the Respondent Bank is not at all responsible because the SA applicant who is a qualified Doctor, was not supposed to go for VRS after availing credit facility of Rs. 60.00 Lac from the Respondent Bank and he was also not supposed to claim that on account of VRS he was not in position to repay the outstanding amount.

¶40

So, it is clear that the SA applicants being a qualified Doctor, took VRS with an ulterior motive, to show that he is not in position to repay the outstanding amount and after availing credit facility of Rs. 38.00 Lac, now he alleged that the Respondent Bank has sanctioned the credit facility despite the fact that he was not in position to repay the outstanding amount.

¶41

SA applicant is a willful defaulter who is now trying to compel the Respondent Bank to go for settlement on his terms and conditions and also on the ground that as the SA applicant is now jobless he is not in position to repay the outstanding amount.

¶42

The SA applicant failed to point out any illegality in any of the actions initiated by the Respondent Bank and mainly on the ground that SA applicant took VRS and suffered financial crisis, he is not entitled for any leniency, because VRS was taken by him knowing fully well, in order to avoid the repayment of outstanding amount.

¶43

Accordingly, the actions initiated by the Respondent Bank are as per law, they have filed entire documentary evidence along with reply.

¶44

¶45

Accordingly SA filed by the SA applicants stands disposed of as dismissed, the Respondent Bank is at liberty to proceed ahead as per law.

¶46

Copy of this order be given free to the parties.

¶47

Put up before Registrar for compliance, after compliance

¶48

file be consigned to record as per rules.

¶49

Vivek Saxena Presiding Officer DRT, Jaipur

Ashutosh Bhardwaj v. the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashutosh Bhardwaj v. the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hdfc Bank versus Mr Dhima Ram

Yes Bank versus B R Godara Construction Company

Hdfc Bank versus Hanuman Shay

Indusind Bank Limited versus M/S Brijraj Construction

State Bank of India versus Mrs Hemlata Pareek

Icici Bank Limited versus Mahadev Earthmovers Company