Allowed

Hdfc Bank Ltd., v. . Mr.Utkarsh Dalmia

DRT30 Nov 2023TA/313/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal considered a Transfer Appeal filed by HDFC Bank against two borrowers for recovery of an auto loan default. With respondents in absence, the Court found the claim well within limitation, allowed recovery with compound interest, but rejected the claim for penalty interest at 2% monthly.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 24,21,383.40 with interest @9.30% p.a.; 2% monthly interest rejected; Recovery Certificate issued.

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus . Mr.Utkarsh Dalmia — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI Dated this 30^th day of November, 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

TA.No.313 OF 2022 (Old OA.No.294/2022–DRT-I, Chennai)

¶4

HDFC Bank Ltd., Represented by its Legal – Manager, Branch Office at No.110, Ceebros Building, 4^th Floor, Nelson Manikkam Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai – 600 029. IFSC Code : HDFC0000441.

¶5

… Applicant. Vs.

¶6

Mr.Utkarsh Dalmia, S/o.Mr.Dalmia, 17/8, Venus Colony, 1^st Street, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Also At Door No.11/6, 1^st Floor, Bishop Wallers Avenue South, CIT Colony, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. PAN No:ACPPU3525K.

¶7

Mr.Sparsh Dalmia, S/o.Mr.Dinesh Dalmia, 17/8, Venus Colony, 1^st Street, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. PAN No:DMHPS6142F.

¶8

… Defendants.

¶9

¶10

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.D.Sathyaraj. Defendants : Exparte.

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The above Transfer Application is filed under section 19 of the Recovery of Debt and Bankruptcy Act seeking recovery of Rs.24,21,383.40/- with further interest from the date of filing of the TA and by allowing the same to be recovered from the defendants and by sale of hypothecated

¶13

vehicle.

¶14

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

¶15

The case of the applicant can be encapsulated as follows:

¶16

The 1^st defendant being the borrower and 2^nd defendant being the coborrower had applied for and availed an auto loan facility of Rs.28,81,261/- from the applicant. The facility was availed for the purchase of an Audi Q3 vehicle.

¶17

It is also stated that the above facility was availed after execution of necessary loan documents by defendants obliging themselves to repay the amount promptly and regularly, without fail in 70 equated monthly installments of Rs.60231/- arrived at by calculating interest @9.30% p.a. and late payment charges of 2% per month.

¶18

¶19

Apart from execution of the necessary loan documents, hypothecation over the vehicle was marked as being the security for repayment of the loan.

¶20

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

¶21

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 24.03.2022 caused to issue a lawyer notice requiring repayment of the amount due in the account.

¶22

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.

¶23

Even as the defendants failed to enter appearance they were set exparte on 25.05.2023.

¶24

¶25

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 A9 and got the same marked as evidence.

¶26

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:

¶27

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

¶28

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶29

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶30

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendants remain exparte. The evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed. 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. The claim of the applicant is well within the period of limitation and there is no Capitalization of penal interest. Since the facility is a car loan the

¶31

¶32

applicant is allowed for interest at claimed rate but the separate claim of interest @ 2% p.m. for delayed payment is rejected.

¶33

In view of the finding as entered above

¶34

i) TA No.313/2022 stands allowed.

¶35

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover the due amount of Rs. 24,21,383.40/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Twenty One

¶36

Thousands Three Hundred Eighty Three and Forty Paisa only) with future and pendentalate interest @9.30% p.a. from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendants after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the TA and also by sale of hypothecated vehicle.

¶37

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

¶38

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.

¶39

¶40

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of

¶41

Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶42

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 30^th day of November, 2023)

¶43

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

¶44

Hdfc Bank Ltd., v. . Mr.Utkarsh Dalmia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Ltd., v. . Mr.Utkarsh Dalmia

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 Bank versus M/s. Royal Agro and Diary Limited

M/s. Idbi Bank Ltd. versus M/s V.S Enterprises

Thangamani oil Stores versus Indian Overseas Bank

State Bank of India, versus R.M.Ezhilarasu

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited versus Mr.S.Rengaraj

Idbi Bank versus Ramajayam R