Allowed

Hdfc Bank Ltd., v. Mr.Balasubramaniyan Rajamani

DRT30 Nov 2023TA/416/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT-II Chennai allowed a Transfer Application filed by HDFC Bank Ltd. for recovery of Rs.36.47 lakhs and interest against five defendants who had defaulted on agricultural term and cash credit loans secured by equitable mortgage, with the defendants appearing ex parte.

What did the court decide?

Ousterd recovery of Rs.36,47,540.09 with future interest @9% p.a., sale of schedule property, and issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Mr.Balasubramaniyan Rajamani — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 30^th day of November, 2023

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

TA.No.416 OF 2022

¶5

(Old OA.No.211/2020–DRT-I, Chennai)

¶6

HDFC Bank Ltd., No.128, Nelson Manickam Road, East West Centre, Ground Floor, Aminjikarai, Chennai-600029. IFSC code-HDFC0000441. PAN No: AAACH2702H And also having office at “Ceebros”, 110, 4^th Floor, Nelson Manickam Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai-600029. Rep.by its Authorized Signatory Mr.T.Manikandan. … Applicant. Vs.

¶7

Mr.Balasubramaniyan Rajamani, S/o.Rajamani, PAN No:BZSPB62352, Old No.9/61, Marulpatti, Udumalpet, Periyakottai, Tirupur North – 642 128.

¶8

Mr. Ramakrishnan Rajamani, S/o.Rajamani, PAN No:AWXPR8894C, Old No.61, Marulpatti, Kannamanickanoor Post, Udumalpet, Tirupur – 642 128.

¶9

Deivanayagam rajamani, S/o. Rajamani, Old No.61, Marulpatti, Kannamanickanoor Post, Udumalpet, Tirupur – 642 128.

¶10

¶11

Mrs. Sarathamani Sivakumar, W/o.Sivakumar, Door No.15, Rajiv Nagar, Ward No.10, Komaralingam, Coimbatore – 642 204.

¶12

Mr.Ramakrishnan Kandhasamy, S/o.Kandhasamy, Door No.22B, Masayandikavundanur, Kannamanaickanoor Post, Udumalpet, Tirupur – 642 128. … Defendants.

¶13

Counsel for Applicant : Mr.T.K.M.Sai Krishnan. Defendants : Exparte.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The above Transfer Application is filed under section 19 of the Recovery of Debt and Bankruptcy Act seeking recovery of Rs.36,47,540.09with further interest from the date of filing of the TA

¶16

and also by allowing the same to be recovered from the defendants jointly and severally and also by sale of schedule mentioned property.

¶17

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

¶18

It is the case of the applicant that the defendants have approached the applicant and got sanctioned a Cash Credit which was originally having limit of Rs.12,45,000/- which was periodically enhanced and lastly to Rs.20,50,000/- on 05.01.2016. Apart from the above, Term

¶19

¶20

loan facilities for Rs.2,84,000/- and three other term loans for Rs.4,00,000/- each were availed.

¶21

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

¶22

Apart from execution of the necessary loan documents, the defendants had created security by way of equitable mortgage over the schedule mentioned properties.

¶23

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. This all happened, despite the re-schedulement permitted by the applicant.

¶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 all thes,e the applicant had on 20.08.2019 caused to issue a legal notice calling upon the defendants to pay back the amount.

¶25

It is also the case of the applicant that despite repeated reminders and requests, the defendants had failed to make the repayment

¶26

¶27

forcing the applicant to file this TA seeking recovery of the amount

¶28

due in the account with further interest and cost.

¶29

Even as the defendants failed to enter appearance, they were set exparte on 26.11.2021.

¶30

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 A 26 and got the same marked as evidence.

¶31

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.

¶32

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

¶33

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶34

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶35

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 OA is outstanding in the account, which the applicant is entitled to get recovered from the defendants

¶36

¶37

and their assets (including the schedule mentioned property). The claim of the applicant is well within the period of limitation and there is no Capitalization of penal interest. Since the facility is agricultural

¶38

one, pendentelite and future interest is awarded at 9% (simple).

¶39

In view of the finding as entered above

¶40

i) TA.No.416 OF 2022 stands allowed. ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs. 36,47,540.09( Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs Forty Seven Thousands Five Hundred Forty and Nine paisa only) with future and pendentelite interest @ 9% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the TA till realization after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the TA.

¶41

iii) The schedule property to be proceeded against and sold and if the sale proceeds are not sufficient the defendants and their other assets are liable to be proceeded against.

¶42

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

¶43

¶44

v) Applicant is allowed to realize cost of the proceedings for

¶45

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 30^th day of November, 2023)

¶48

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

¶49

Hdfc Bank Ltd., v. Mr.Balasubramaniyan Rajamani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Ltd., v. Mr.Balasubramaniyan Rajamani

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