Allowed

M/s. Hdfc Bank Ltd., v. Narottam Kumar Gaur

DRT29 Dec 2023TA/18/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chennai allowed a Transfer Application filed by HDFC Bank Ltd. to recover the outstanding principal amount along with interest and legal costs from three defendants, ruling that the case was well within the period of limitation.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 33,27,023.61 with interest; issuance of Recovery Certificate; allowance of litigation costs.

M/s. Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Narottam Kumar Gaur — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI Dated this 29^th day of December, 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

T.A.No.18 of 2022

¶4

(Old OA.No.554/2019–DRT-I, Chennai)

¶5

M/s. HDFC Bank Ltd.,

¶6

No.128, Nelson Manikkam Road, East West Centre, Ground Floor, Aminjikarai, Chennai - 600 029. IFSC Code : HDFC0000441. PAN No: AAACH2702H. And Also Having Office At “CEEBROS”, No. 110, 4^th Floor, Nelson Manikkam Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai 600 029.

¶7

… Applicant.

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Narottam Kumar Gaur, No.913/18, 4^th Street, ASI, West Block, Sarangapani Nagar, Madhavaram, Madhavaram Bus Depot., Chennai – 600 060. PAN No: BBAPG0201K.

¶10

Jaynath Suman.R., No.AP.447, 13^th East Cross Street MKB Nagar, Vyasarpadi, Chennai – 600 039. PAN No: AD1PJ0623K.

¶11

¶12

Pista Gaur, No.913/18, 4^th Street, Sarangapani Nagar, HPK Star, Promenode, AS1, Flat West Block, Madhavaram, Near Bus Depot., Chennai – 600 060. PAN No: AUTPG1465A. … Defendants.

¶13

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. D. Sathyaraj Counsel for 2^nd Defendant : M/s. K.A.Ramakrishnan Defendants 1 and 3 : Exparte.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The above Transfer Application is filed under section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act seeking recovery of Rs. 33,27,023.61 with further interest from the date of filing of the TA and by allowing the same to be recovered from the defendants jointly and severally and from their assets.

¶16

The above original application is filed before the DRT-I and stood transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as above.

¶17

The case of the applicant can be encapsulated as follows:

¶18

The 1^st and 3^rd defendants as borrower and guarantor respectively had approached the applicant for a Commercial Vehicle loan pursuant to which the applicant had sanctioned a credit facility for Rs.21,00,000/- It

¶19

¶20

is also stated that the 1^st and 2^nd defendants as borrower and guarantor respectively had applied for and availed another commercial vehicle loan for Rs.24,38,400/- from the applicant.

¶21

It is also stated that the above facilities were availed after execution of necessary loan documents by the defendants, obliging themselves to repay the amount promptly and regularly, without fail.

¶22

Apart from execution of the necessary loan documents by the defendants, hypothecation over the schedule mentioned vehicles was created being the security for repayment of the loan.

¶23

Even though the defendants had obliged themselves to repay the amount promptly and regularly, they failed to do so resulting in defaults in the account and the same being declared as NPA.

¶24

The applicant’s officials had on many occasions approached the defendants requesting them to regularize the account and despite the same, no effort was made by the defendants to get the account regularized over to pay back the amount. Even as no repayment was made despite repeated requests, the applicant had on 18.01.2019 caused to issue a legal notice requiring repayment of the amount due in the accounts.

¶25

¶26

It is also the case of the applicant that despite repeated reminders and requests, the defendants had failed to make the repayment forcing the applicant to file this TA seeking recovery of the amount due in the account with further interest and cost.

¶27

Even as the 1^st and 3^rd defendants failed to enter appearance, they were set exparte on 16.03.2020. The 2^nd defendant filed their reply statement contending that he stood as guarantor for the purchase of one vehicle only and further denied the execution of loan documents.

¶28

The applicant had let in evidence through AW1 who had sworn to a Proof Affidavit in terms of the pleadings in the TA and also produced Exhibits A1 to A20 and got the same marked as evidence.

¶29

Heard the counsel for the applicant and considered the contentions as taken in the TA in the light of documentary evidence and proof affidavit. The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶30

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the TA claim?

¶31

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶32

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶33

¶34

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted. The evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed, as no contra evidence is available from the side of the defendants. The evidences put forth by the applicant were found admissible. From the statement of accounts as produced by the applicant, it is evident that the amount as claimed in the TA is outstanding in the account, which the applicant is entitled to get recovered from the defendants and their assets (including the scheduled mentioned hypothecated vehicles). The claim of the applicant is well within the period of limitation and there is no Capitalization of

¶35

penal interest.

¶36

In view of the finding as entered above:

¶37

i) TA No.18/2022 stands allowed.

¶38

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.33,27,023.61 (Rupees Thirty Three Lakhs Twenty Seven

¶39

Thousand Twenty Three and Sixty One paisa only) out of which an amount of Rs.21,48,075.27 is to be recovered from

¶40

the defendants 1 and 2 with future and pendentelite interest @11% p.a. and an amount of Rs. 11,78,948.34 /- is to be recovered from the defendants 1 and 3 with future

¶41

¶42

and pendentelite interest @ 12.01% p.a. from the date of

¶43

filing of the TA till realization after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the TA and also by sale of hypothecated vehicles.

¶44

iii) A Recovery Certificate is to be drawn and issued to the recovery officer to enable recovery of the amounts as per the above terms.

¶45

iv) Applicant is allowed to realize cost of the proceedings for which cost memo is to be filed in 7 days’ time from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

¶46

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶47

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 29^th day of December, 2023)

¶48

Sd./- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, CHENNAI

¶49

M/s. Hdfc Bank Ltd., v. Narottam Kumar Gaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Hdfc Bank Ltd., v. Narottam Kumar Gaur

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

Indian Overseas Bank versus R.Ramesh

M/s Canara Bank Erstwhile M/s Syndicate Bank versus T.R. Saravanan

Deutsche Bank Ag versus Kothari Bath Concepts

State Bank of India versus Venkatasamy

Bank of Baroda, versus Mrs. R. Subbulakshmi

State Bank of India versus Mrs.a.Kumari