Dismissed

Ashok Harry Pothen v. Hdfc Bank

DRT21 Nov 2023SA/644/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's application challenging a possession notice and Section 14 measures. The court held the applicant was estopped from claiming illegality regarding NPA classification after entering a settlement plan with the bank.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- payable by the applicant to the defendant.

Ashok Harry Pothen versus Hdfc Bank — Company and Corporate | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Dated this the 21^st day of November, 2023

¶4

SECURITISATION APPLICATION No.644/2022

¶5

Between

¶6

Ashok Harry Pothen, S/o.Harry Pothen, Managing Director, M/s.Pothen Motors Pvt. Ltd. & M/s.Pothen Vehicles and Services Pvt. Ltd. Residing at Flat No.2A & 2B, Kowdiar Manor, Jawahar Nagar, Kowdiar.P.O., Trivandrum – 695 041. …Applicant

¶7

And

¶8

HDFC Bank Limited, 1^st Floor, Choice Towers, Manorama Junction, Ernakulam – 16, Represented by its Authorised Officer. …Defendant

¶9

This Securitization Application having been heard on 27.07.2023

¶10

in the presence of Senior Advocate Sri.George Thomas Mevada and Advocate Moly.E.V for the applicant and Advocate Sri.Jayasanker.B for the defendant, and stood over to this day for consideration, the Tribunal delivered the following:

¶11

F I N A L O R D E R

¶12

This SA is filed by the applicant under S.17(1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the SARFAESI Act’) with a prayer to set aside Annexure-A8 possession notice and other measures initiated by the defendant.

¶13

SA 644/2022

¶14

¶15

Brief facts of the case :

¶16

In the SA the applicant claimed that he, being the managing director of M/s.Pothen Motors Pvt. Ltd. and M/s.Pothen Vehicles and Services Pvt. Ltd., availed various loans from the defendant vide A/c Nos.50200025437395, 81853914, 82637383, 02400450028724 and 00630450000220 and created equitable mortgage over the properties described in paragraph 6 of the SA for securing the loans. The applicant was repaying the loans regularly but due to Covid-19 pandemic his business was severely affected resultantly repayment of the loans was not regular. The defendant classified the loans as NPA with effect from 28.09.2020 . The defendant issued demand notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on dated 30.06.2021 recalling the entire outstanding amount within 60 days from the date of issuance of notice. After getting the demand notice, the applicant approached the defendant bank for an amicable settlement which was accepted. There was consensus between the parties regarding the repayment plan vide Annexure-A1. As per the repayment plan, the applicant claims that he deposited Rs.28.21 crores with the defendant and attempted to raise further amount but the same was delayed due to reasons beyond his control. It is averred in the application that the defendant released some properties by substituting other properties for the same after receiving amount from the applicant as per the repayment plan.

¶17

Further, it is submitted that despite earnest effort made by the applicant, the entire settlement amount could not be raised. The default was not wilful but it was due to genuine delay in mobilizing huge amount especially the market situation existed at that time in the

¶18

SA 644/2022

¶19

¶20

country. On failure to repay the loan as per Annexure-A1, defendant bank approached the CJM, Thiruvananthapuram by filing MC No.1250/2022 under S.14 of the SARFAESI Act for taking physical possession of the secured assets for which security interest was created in favour of the defendant bank. As per the terms of settlement, it was decided to remit Rs.38.23 crores by the applicant to the defendant bank within the period commencing from September, 2021 up to November, 2022 and in pursuance to such settlement the applicant deposited Rs.28.21 crores. Despite the same the defendant proceeded to take coercive measure which is not legal and proper.

¶21

It is averred in the SA that the applicant approached the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in W.P.(C) No.34630/2022 seeking for issuance of a direction to the defendant bank to permit the applicant to settle the inventory funding cash credit facility in reasonable time or reasonable instalments. Pending disposal of the writ petition, the defendant took symbolic possession of the secured asset on 21.12.2022 vide Annexure-A7. It is further averred that classification of the accounts as NPA was done on 28.09.2020 which is against the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed on 03.09.2020 in Writ Petition No.825/2020 in the case titled Gajendra Sharma vs. Union of India and hence the entire securitization proceeding is bad and illegal.

¶22

During the pendency of the case, the SA was amended wherein S.14 measure was challenged and the applicant claims to set aside the same. It is claimed that the affidavit furnished by the defendant accompanying the application under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the CJM is not as per the statutory requirement and hence the proceeding under S.14 of the SARFAESI Act is vitiated.

¶23

SA 644/2022

¶24

¶25

The defendant contested the claim by filing written statement denying the averments in the SA and claimed inter alia that the applicant being the managing director of M/s.Pothen Motors Pvt. Ltd. and M/s.Pothen Vehicles and Services Pvt. Ltd. availed various credit facilities from the defendant bank. When the operation of the financial assistance was highly irregular and the applicant neglected to repay the debt and the accrued interest thereon, the accounts maintained in the name of the aforesaid companies became NPA on 28.09.2020 and 29.09.2020 respectively as per the guidelines of Reserve bank of India. No securitization measure was initiated after passing of the order by the Hon’ble Apex court. After vacation of interim order by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the defendant issued separate demand notices under S.13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 30.06.2021 to the applicant companies namely M/s.Pothen Vehicles and Services Motors Ltd. and M/s.Pothen Motors Pvt. Ltd. calling upon them to discharge the entire dues vide Annexures-B1 and B2 notices. Despite issuance of the demand notices, the applicant did not settle the outstanding dues. Consequently, the defendant initiated measures under S.14 of the SARFAESI Act by filing MC No.513/2021 before the CJM, Thiruvananthapuram for taking physical possession of the secured assets.

¶26

Thereafter, the applicant approached the defendant bank for settlement of the accounts and offered to pay an amount of Rs.38.23 crores plus interest @9% per annum with monthly rests. The total outstanding in the accounts maintained in the name of M/s.Pothen Motors Pvt. Ltd. and M/s.Pothen Vehicles and Services Pvt.

¶27

SA 644/2022

¶28

¶29

Ltd. was Rs.52.75 crores as on 30.09.2021. Taking into consideration of the spread of pandemic and long business relations this defendant with the applicant, the defendant bank took a lenient view and the competent authority accepted the offer subject to certain stipulations as per the repayment plan vide Annexure-A1. In view of the settlement, S.14 application filed by the defendant in MC No.513/2021 was withdrawn. Despite such settlement, the applicant committed default and failed to comply with the terms and conditions specified in Annexure-A1. Out of the total offered amount, an amount of Rs.28.21 crores was deposited in the accounts covered by Annexure-A1. Since the applicant did not comply with the terms and conditions of settlement, all the approvals, waivers and concessions granted to him were withdrawn.

¶30

Subsequently, the account maintained in the name of another business unit of the applicant viz., M/s.Pothen Autos was classified as NPA on 03.05.2022. Though the moratorium given to the companies as per the RBI circular was also approved by the defendant bank, the applicant did not avail the concession and waivers and neglected in repaying the loans taking advantage of the general order dated 03.09.2020 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case titled Gajendra Sharma vs. Union of India (supra) . After passing of the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the applicant was given all the benefits of the interim order and the interest on interest charged during moratorium period in all the accounts of the applicant were reversed.

¶31

As there was no initiative from the side of the applicant in repaying huge amount of outstanding, symbolic possession of the

¶32

SA 644/2022

¶33

¶34

secured asset was taken under S.13(4) of the SARFAESI Act on 21.12.2022. Thereafter fresh application bearing MC No.1250/2022 was filed before the CJM, Thiruvananthapuram under S.14 of the SARFAESI Act which was allowed on 24.01.2023 and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to take physical possession of the secured asset. The applicant challenged such measure by amending the SA. There is absolutely no illegality in any of the proceeding initiated by the defendant and the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court was not at all violated. The applicant has no case to seek any relief in this proceeding and hence the SA, being devoid of any merit, may be dismissed.

¶35

From the respective case of both the parties, the following points are emerged for adjudication in this case:-

¶36

(i) Whether classification of the loans as NPA after the interim order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court renders the securitization measures initiated by the defendant as bad and illegal?

¶37

(ii) Whether there is any procedural defect or illegality in the securitization measures initiated by the defendant?

¶38

(iii) Whether the applicant is entitled to seek any relief in this case?

¶39

FINDINGS :

¶40

Point No.(i):

¶41

During the hearing, learned Senior counsel Sri.George Thomas Mevada appearing for the applicant raised a sole contention that classification of NPA is against the order passed by the Hon'ble

¶42

SA 644/2022

¶43

¶44

Apex Court on 03.09.2020 in Gajendra Sharma case (supra) . The classification of the loans is illegal and hence no securitization measure is sustainable in view of the provision contained under S.13(2) of the SARFAESI Act which specifically says that securitization measures can be initiated only if the account of the borrower in respect of the secured debt is classified as NPA by the secured creditor. Since the classification of accounts as NPA on 28.09.2020 is against the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it can be said that the loans were not classified as NPA and the defendant cannot proceed further under S.13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and the entire measures is vitiated. Hence the securitization measure is liable to be set aside.

¶45

Advocate Sri.Jayasanker.B appearing for the defendant refuted the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant and would contend that classification of loans as NPA is automatic and no specific order is passed for the same. In the present case, the loans availed by the applicant were at the stage of SMA 2 category prior to passing of interim order by the Hon'ble Apex Court. After passing of such order by the Hon'ble Apex Court, no step was taken under the SARFAESI Act against the applicant. After vacation of the order by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 23.03.2021, further measure was taken and the benefit of interim order of the Hon’ble Apex Court was given to the applicant by reversing the interest on interest charged therein during the moratorium period. The applicant cannot take any benefit of his own fault. It is further contended that after initiation of the measures by the defendant bank, a proposal was submitted by the applicant to settle the loans and the proposals initiated by M/s.Pothen Motors Pvt. Ltd. and M/s.Pothen Vehicles and Services Pvt. Ltd. were settled vide

¶46

SA 644/2022

¶47

¶48

repayment plan as per Annexure-A1. The entire loan amount was settled for Rs.38.23 crores, which is inclusive of principal and unpaid interest. Hence now the applicant cannot be heard to contend that classification of loans as NPA is illegal and the defendant cannot proceed with the securitization measures. The contention raised by the applicant is not sustainable and the SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶49

The admitted fact is that the applicant being managing director of two companies’ viz., M/s.Pothen Motors Pvt. Ltd. and M/s.Pothen Vehicles and Services Pvt. Ltd. had availed financial assistance from the defendant bank by creating equitable mortgage over the properties described in paragraph 6 of the SA. Besides the same, the applicant has availed loans from the defendant bank for other companies. In paragraph 8 of the SA the applicant has averred as follows:-

¶50

“8. It is respectfully submitted that the defendant bank classified the loan account of the applicant as NPA on 28.09.2020 and has issued demand notice dated 30.06.2021 demanding repayment of the entire outstanding amount within a period of 60 days from the date of said notice. The applicant on receipt of the said notice approached the defendant bank and reached into a consensus as to repayment plan for the outstanding amount and accordingly the applicant was offered to pay an amount of Rs.38,23,00,000/- payable in instalments commencing from September, 2021 till November, 2022 and the first instalment of Rs.3 Cr. was directed to be remitted in 09/2021 followed by Rs.1 Cr. in October, 2021, Rs.1 Cr. November, 2021, Rs.3 Cr. December, 2021, Rs.2 Crores January, 2022, Rs.3 Cr. February, 2022, Rs.6 Cr. March, 2022, Rs.1 Cr. April, 2022, Rs.1 Cr. May, 2022, Rs.6.83 Cr. June 2022, Rs.1 Cr. July 2022, Rs.1 Cr. August, 2022, Rs.6 Cr. September 22, Rs.1 Cr. October, 2022 and November, Rs.2.4 Cr. The applicant had deposited an amount of Rs.28.21 Cr. in the various group account after the said arrangement extended by the defendant bank. The true copy of the letter dated 1.11.2021 showing the repayment arrangement extended by the bank is produced herewith and marked as Annexure-A1.”

¶51

From this paragraph it appears that the applicant had knowledge about the classification of loans as NPA on 28.09.2020 and basing upon the same, demand notice dated 30.06.2021 was issued by the defendant

¶52

SA 644/2022

¶53

¶54

for realization of the outstanding dues. Accepting such demand notice as legal, the applicant approached the defendant for a settlement and accordingly consensus was arrived for repayment as per the schedule mentioned in Annexure A-1. As per the settlement, the applicant deposited an amount of Rs.28.21 Cr. in the loan account.

¶55

Further, it appears from the averments in the SA that during such settlement process on deposit of certain amount by the applicant the defendant bank released one item property by substituting four more items of properties. Further, it is averred in the SA that the applicant approached other financial institutions like Kerala Financial Corporation (KFC) and RCD International to take over the loans from the defendant bank. In the SA it is also claimed that for the purpose of road widening, the Government of Kerala acquired a portion of the building of the applicant which is a part of the secured asset. The compensation amount likely to be obtained would be enough to satisfy substantial portion of the debt due to the defendant. He had approached the defendant bank seeking reasonable extension of time to honour his commitment but the defendant did not accept the proposal and initiated measures under S.14 of the SARFAESI Act. The applicant has admitted that as per the settlement, he has deposited an amount of Rs.28.21 crores out of the total settlement amount of Rs.38.23 crores. It is also borne out from the record that the applicant filed W.P.(C) No.34630/2022 seeking for issuance of a direction to the defendant bank to allow the applicant to settle the inventory cash credit facility in reasonable time or in reasonable instalment and allow the applicant to service interest portion payable in the term loan accounts. From the averments in the application, it appears that the

¶56

SA 644/2022

¶57

¶58

applicant has never raised any contention after receipt of the demand notice under S.13(2) of the SARFAESI Act that there is any illegality in classifying the loans as NPA and the securitization measures initiated by the defendant are not sustainable as it violates the interim order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

¶59

The classification of the loans as NPA by the defendant bank after passing of the interim order by the Hon'ble Apex Court was not an issue and the applicant has waived such contention by entering into a settlement with the defendant bank. It is true that the Hon'ble Apex Court passed an interim order on 03.09.2020 in Writ Petition No.825/2020 in the case titled Gajendra Sharma vs. Union of India by holding that the accounts which were not declared NPA till 31.08.2020 shall not be declared NPA till further orders. The defendant claimed that at the time of classification of the loans as NPA, the loans were at the stage of SMA 2 and hence classification of the loans as NPA on 28.09.2020 is automatic as per RBI guidelines. Further, after passing of the order by the Hon'ble Apex Court, no measure was taken by the defendant under the provisions of SARFAESI Act and the interest on interest charged in the accounts was reversed, which is not disputed by the applicant. The demand notice was issued after vacation of the interim order by the Hon'ble Apex Court and hence there is no illegality in the securitization measures initiated by the defendant.

¶60

The contention raised by the defendant has sufficient force. The statute stipulates that before issuance of demand notice under S.13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, such account must be classified as NPA

¶61

SA 644/2022

¶62

¶63

which was done in this case. Section 2(1) (o) of the SARFAESI defines “non-performing asset” as follows:

¶64

“ non-performing asset” means an asset or account of a borrower, which has been classified by a bank or financial institution as substandard, doubtful or loss asset,-

¶65

(a) in case such bank or financial institution is administered or regulated by any authority or body established, constituted or appointed by any law for the time being in force, in accordance with the directions or guidelines relating to assts classifications issued by such authority or body;

¶66

(b) in any other case, in accordance with the directions or guidelines relating to assets classifications issued by the Reserve Bank;”

¶67

Commercial Banks including other Financial Institutions are guided in accordance with the directions and guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India from time to time. The RBI issues guidelines or directions to provide a frame work for earlier recognition, reporting and time bound resolution of stressed assets of the commercial bank as well as other financial institutions. As per the RBI Circular, classification of borrowers account as SMA/NPA as per the norms given below:-

¶68

Special Mention Account (SMA)

¶69

Special mention accounts shall be classified as per following categories:

¶70

Loans in the	nature of Term Loans	Loans in th cred	e nature of cash it/overdraft
SMA Sub- Categories	Basis for classification- Principal or interest payment or any other amount wholly or partly overdue	SMA Sub Categories	Basis for classification- Outstanding balance remains continuously in excess of the sanctioned limit or drawing power, whichever is lower, for a period of:
SMA-0	Upto 30 days
SMA-1	More than 30 days and upto 60 days	SMA-1	More than 30 days and upto 60 days
SMA-2	More than 60 days and upto 90 days	SMA-2	More than 60 days and upto 90 days

¶71

SA 644/2022

¶72

¶73

Non-Performing Asset (NPA)

¶74

A non –performing asset (NPA) is a loan or advance where:

¶75

a) Interest and/or installment of principal remains overdue for a period of more than 90 days in respect of a term loan,

¶76

b) the account remains ‘out of order’ as indicated at paragraph below, in respect of an Overdraft/Cash Credit (OD/CC)

¶77

c) xxxxxxxxxxxx

¶78

d) xxxxxxxxxxxx

¶79

e) xxxxxxxxxxxx

¶80

f) xxxxxxxxxxx

¶81

g) xxxxxxxxxxx

¶82

‘Out of Order’ status

¶83

A Cash credit/Overdraft (CC/OD) account is classified as NPA if it is ‘out of order’. An account should be treated as 'out of order' if:

¶84

a) The outstanding balance in the CC/OD account remains continuously in excess of the sanctioned limit/drawing power for 90 days, or

¶85

b) The outstanding balance in the CC/OD account is less than the sanctioned limit/drawing power but there are no credits continuously for 90 days, or the outstanding balance in the CC/OD account is less than the sanctioned limit/drawing power but credits are not enough to cover the interest debited during the previous 90 days period.

¶86

As per the guidelines of RBI, term loan becomes NPA if interest and/or installment of principal remains overdue for more than 90 days and in case of cash credit or overdraft account, it becomes NPA if it is out of order continuously for 90 days. In this case, the demand notice Annexure-B1 was issued in respect of credit facility of M/s.Pothen Motors Pvt. Ltd. which availed both term loans and cash credit facility from the defendant bank. In paragraph 6 of Annexure-B1 it is specifically mentioned that loans were declared as NPA on 28.09.2020 in accordance with the guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India. The applicant has not disputed that at the time of passing of the interim order by the Hon’ble Apex Court its loan accounts were not standard or regular accounts. The applicant has accepted the demand advanced by the defendant and proceeded to settle the matter instead of disputing the classification of NPA. In the judgment of the Hon'ble

¶87

SA 644/2022

¶88

¶89

Apex Court reported in (2022) 2 SCC 221 in the case titled Arce

¶90

Polymers Private Limited v. Alphine Pharmaceuticals Private

¶91

Limited and others at paragraph 16 it is held as follows:-

¶92

“16. This principle has been subsequently followed in Pravesh Kumar Sachdeva v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , to hold that waiver is abandonment of a right which normally everybody is at liberty to waive. Waiver is nothing unless it amounts to release, albeit it can be adduced from acquiescence or may be implied. The essence of waiver is an estoppel and they are questions of conduct and, therefore, necessarily determined on the facts of each case. As a rule and judicial policy, the courts of law do not allow a litigant to take inconsistent position to gain advantage through the aid of judicial proceedings.”

¶93

In paragraph 18, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:-

¶94

“18 ……… Taking into consideration the entire facts of the case, which perspicuously reflect disingenuous conduct on the part of the Borrower to gain indulgence, unfulfilled assurance and promise, their unwillingness to pay, pay in light of law laid down by this Court, we are of the view that the Borrower has waived and is estopped from challenging violation of Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI ACT and hence, the first issue decided in favour of the Bank……….”

¶95

The applicant, having approached the defendant bank for settlement and deposited considerable amount in terms of settlement, it can be inferred that the applicant has waived the illegality, if any, in the securitization measures by his express conduct and now he cannot challenge the same in this proceeding in view of the ratio decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court as stated earlier.

¶96

Further, since the loan accounts were continuously out of order and overdue at the time of passing the interim order by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the same become NPA automatically after expiry of 90 days period as per the RBI circular. But the defendant did not initiate any securitization measure when the interim order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gajendra Sharma case ( Supra ) was in force and the securitization proceeding was commenced after vacation of the interim order by the Hon’ble Apex court. In such premises, it is held that classification of the loans as NPA on

¶97

SA 644/2022

¶98

¶99

28.09.2020 after passing of the interim order by the Hon’ble Apex Court did not render the securitization measure initiated by the defendant as bad and illegal in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In view of acceptance of the demand notice issued under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act by the applicant and entering into a settlement with the defendant bank to repay the demand advanced by it, he is estopped from challenging such measure in this proceeding. Hence point No.(i) is answered in negative.

¶100

Point Nos.(ii) & (iii):

¶101

During the hearing, no other contention was raised by the applicant as regards the securitization measures including the step taken under S.14 of the SARFAESI Act. No defect or illegality is also pointed out in such measure by the learned counsel for the applicant in the course of arguments. In absence of any challenge, it can be said that the proceeding under S.14 of the SARFAESI Act is legal and valid. In view of the discussion made above, the applicant is not entitled to get any relief in this proceeding. Hence both the points are answered against the applicant.

¶102

Hence it is ordered:-

¶103

ORDER

¶104

In view of the foregoing reasons, the SA, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) payable by the applicant to the defendant.

¶105

(Dictated to my PA, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 21^st day of November, 2023)

¶106

[SOVAN KUMAR DASH] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶107

SA 644/2022

¶108

¶109

Documents on the part of the applicant

¶110

Annexures	Date	Particulars of documents
Annexure-A1	01.11.2022	Copy of letter showing the repayment arrangement extended by the bank.
Annexure-A2	05.05.2022	Copy of e-mail communication sent by KFC.
Annexure-A3	05.07.2022	Copy of e-mail communication sent by KFC.
Annexure-A4	31.05.2022	Copy of letter received from the office of KRFB, Thiruvananthapuram.
Annexure-A5	16.08.2021	Copy of MC No.1250/2022 filed before the CJM, Thiruvananthapuram.
Annexure-A6	16.08.2021	Copy of affidavit filed by the bank along with MC No.1250/2022.
Annexure-A7	08.12.2022	Copy of pre-intimation notice received by the applicant.
Annexure-A8	21.12.2022	Copy of possession notice affixed on the property.
Annexure-A9	…	Copy of statement of account relating to A/c No.50200025437395.
Annexure-A10	…	Copy of statement of account relating to A/c No.81853914.
Annexure-A11	…	Copy of statement of account relating to A/c No.82637383.
Annexure-A12	…	Copy of statement of account relating to A/c No.02400450028724
Annexure-A13	24.01.2023	Copy of order in MC No.1250/2022 of the CJM, Thiruvananthapuram.
Annexure-A14	03.10.2023	Copy of e-mail communication sent by KFC.
Annexure-A15	18.05.2022	Copy of e-mail communication.
Annexure-A16	30.06.2022	Copy of e-mail communication.
Annexure-A17	30.06.2022	Copy of e-mail communication sent by the applicant.
Annexure-A18	18.09.2022	Copy of e-mail communication sent by the applicant.
Annexure-A19	10.06.2022	Copy of letter sent to the defendant bank by the applicant.
Annexure-A20	06.03.2023	Copy of notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner in MC No.1250/2022.

¶111

SA 644/2022

¶112

¶113

	Documents	on the part of the defendant
Annexure-B1	30.06.2021	Copy of demand notice issued to M/s.Pothen Motors Pvt. Ltd.
Annexure-B2	30.06.2021	Copy of demand notice issued to M/s.Pothen Vehicles and Services Pvt. Ltd.
Annexure-B3	17.04.2021	Copy of minutes of meeting of the board of directors of the defendant.
Annexure-B4	10.06.2022	Copy of authorization letter issued by the applicant.
Annexure-B5	…	Certified copy of the statement of account relating to A/c No.02400450028714.
Annexure-B6	…	Certified copy of the statement of account relating to A/c No.0630450000220.
Annexure-B7	…	Certified copy of the statement of account relating to A/c No.02400450028724.
Annexure-B8	…	Certified copy of the statement of account relating to A/c No.50200025437395.
Annexure-B9	…	Certified copy of the statement of account relating to A/c No.81853914.
Annexure-B10	…	Certified copy of the statement of account relating to A/c No.82637383.
Annexure-B11	…	Certified copy of the statement of account relating to A/c No.02400450038532.
Annexure-B12	28.06.2021	Copy of recall notice issued to the applicant.

¶114

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶115

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶116

PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶117

Dated the 21^st November, 2023

¶118

SA No.644/2022

¶119

Between Ashok Harry Pothen, S/o.Harry Pothen, Managing Director, M/s.Pothen Motors Pvt. Ltd. & M/s.Pothen Vehicles and Services Pvt. Ltd. Residing at Flat No.2A & 2B, Kowdiar Manor, Jawahar Nagar, Kowdiar.P.O., Trivandrum – 695 041. …Applicant

¶120

And

¶121

HDFC Bank Limited, 1^st Floor, Choice Towers, Manorama Junction, Ernakulam – 16, Represented by its - Authorised Officer. …Defendant

¶122

F I N A L O R D E R

Ashok Harry Pothen v. Hdfc Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Harry Pothen v. Hdfc Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Marx Alexander

Sulaiman K T versus The Manjeri Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Dhairjya Ram Deka

Mrs G K Rani versus State Bank of India

Ms Habib Oil and Grains Processing versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus M/S Mahavir Jain Enterprises