Allowed

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Mr. P. Senthamarai Kannan

DRT16 Jun 2023TA/42/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for a Recovery Certificate under Section 19(1) of the RDB Act, 1993. Finding the defendants' liability proved via unchallenged documentary evidence, the court directed the issuance of a certificate for recovery of the outstanding sum with interest.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 32,09,942.34 with interest at 15.50% per annum; Defendants jointly and severally liable.

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Mr. P. Senthamarai Kannan — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 16^th day of June, 2023

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

TA No.42 of 2023

¶6

(Originally filed before DRT-I Chennai as OA No.230 of 2021 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.42 of 2023)

¶7

HDFC Bank Limited No.128, Nelson Manickam Road East West Centre, Ground Floor Aminjikarai, Chennai – 600 029

¶8

Also at “CEEBROS”, 110, Nelson Manickam Road 4^th Floor, Aminjikarai, Chennai – 600 029 Represented by its Authorised Signatory Mr. P. Nirmalraj

¶9

…Applicant

¶10

Versus

¶11

Mr. P. Senthamarai Kannan

¶12

Represented by its Partner / Authorised Signatory S. Prabhu Kannan S-79, SAM Towers, 3^rd Floor 6^th Avenue, Anna Nagar

¶13

Chennai – 600 040

¶14

Mr. S. Prabhu Kannan

¶15

S/o Senthamarai Kannan 337/4, New Sunshine Apartments 2^nd Avenue, Anna Nagar Chennai – 600 040 …Defendants

¶16

Counsel for the Applicant Bank : M/s T.K.M. Sai Krishnan Defendants : Ex-parte

¶17

FINAL ORDER

¶18

This application is filed by the applicant bank under Section 19(1) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants’ seeking issuance of a Recovery Certificate for recovery of a sum of Rs.32,09,942.34p with

¶19

¶20

further interest at the rate of 15.50% per annum with monthly rests from 29.10.2019till the date of realisation along with costs of the application.

¶21

The subject matter of the case is the “Self Employed Professional Loan” availed by the defendants from the applicant.

¶22

It is the case of the applicant that the defendants approached the applicant bank for grant of a Self Employed Professional Loan by their Loan Application dated 27.10.2018. It is stated that the 1^st defendant submitted Authorisation Letter dated 31.10.2018 appointing the 2^nd defendant, Partner of the 1^st defendant company to sign and execute loan agreement and all necessary documents required by the applicant. The 2^nd defendant in pursuant to such authorization had executed the documents. It is also stated that the defendants had agreed to the terms and conditions of loan facility and expressly executed the loan agreement dated 31.10.2018. It is stated that in consequence to the same the applicant granted a loan of Rs.40,00,000/- to the defendants under Loan Account No.62291925. It is also stated that the defendants executed Post dated cheque acknowledgement letter and Forex Un-hedged Exposure Letter in this regard on 31.10.2018.

¶23

It is also the case of the applicant that the said loan was repayable in 55 equated monthly installments of Rs.1,12,339/- each commencing from 06.12.2018 to 06.06.2023. It is also stated that the defendants submitted a declaration dated 31.10.2018 to debit the EMI amounts on scheduled date from his bank account.

¶24

It is also the case of the applicant that the defendants violated the terms and conditions of sanction, committed default in repayments and failed to

¶25

¶26

regularize the loan accounts despite repeated request. Hence the applicant issued a legal notice on 02.02.2021 calling upon the defendants to clear the outstanding dues. It is stated that the notice was received by both the defendants. It is stated that despite the said notice the defendants did not come forward to clear the dues.

¶27

It is the case of the applicant that after availing the loan, the defendants were irregular in remitting the loan amount. The efforts of the applicant bank to make the defendants to settle the loan did not yield any result, and hence the applicant approached this Tribunal seeking issuance of a Recovery Certificate allowing recovery of the amount due in the account.

¶28

Summons were taken out to the defendants were served. As there was no representation on behalf of the defendants on 12.05.2022, the defendants were called absent and set ex-parte on that day. Applicant Bank filed Proof Affidavit along with 11 documents, which were marked as Ex. A-1 to A-11 on 03.03.2023. The Ld. Counsel for Applicant Bank made his submissions on 26.04.2023 and thereafter the matter stood till this date for passing final orders.

¶29

The following issues arise for consideration in the matter: -

¶30

(a) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the liability of the defendants?

¶31

(b) What order as to cost of the proceedings need be passed?

¶32

These issues are considered together.

¶33

¶34

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the applicant, perused the OA averments and the record placed before the Tribunal.

¶35

The evidence of the applicant is led by AW1 who produced the documents Exhibit A-1 to A-11 along with the proof affidavit. Exhibit A-1 is the certified copy of the Board Resolution dated 16.04.2022 authorizing Ms. Abirami Nagarajan, to present the application on behalf of applicant. Exhibit A-2 is the Loan Application Form dated 27.10.2018 submitted by the defendants for grant of Loan. Exhibit A-3 is the Authorisation Letter dated 31.10.2018 executed by the defendants. Exhibit A-4 is the Loan Agreement dated 31.10.2018 executed by the defendants. Exhibit A-5and A-6 are the Post dated cheque acknowledgement letter and Forex Un-hedged Exposure Letter executed by the defendants. Exhibit A-7 is declaration dated 31.10.2018 to debit EMI amounts on schedule date from bank account. Exhibit A-8 to A-10 are the Legal Notice dated 02.02.2021issued by the applicant and the proof of services on the defendants. Exhibit A-11 is the statement of account in respect of the loan account along with certificates under Bankers’ Book Evidence Act.

¶36

Exhibit A-1 evidences that Ms. Abirami Nagarajan has been authorized by the applicant to institute and defend the claim on behalf of the applicant. Exhibit A-2 evidences that the defendants by Loan Application dated 27.10.2018approached applicant for grant of Self Employed Professional Loan. Exhibit A-3 evidences that the 1^st defendant by letter dated 31.10.2018 appointed the 2nd defendant, the partner of the 1^st defendant to sign and execute loan agreement and all necessary documents required by the

¶37

¶38

applicant. Exhibit A-4 evidences that the applicant considering the request of the defendants sanctioned Loan of Rs.40,00,000/- under Loan Account No.62291925 and the defendants executed the Loan Agreement on 31.10.2018. Exhibit A-5 and A-6 evidence that the defendants had executed necessary loan documents on 31.10.2018. Exhibit A-7 evidences that the 2^nd defendant submitted a declaration dated 31.10.2018 to debit the EMI amounts on scheduled date from his bank account. Exhibit A-8 to A-10 evidence that the defendants defaulted in repayments and hence the applicant issued the legal notice dated 02.02.2021 calling upon the defendants to clear the outstanding dues and the said notices were served on both the defendants. Exhibit A-11the statement of accounts in respect of both the loan accounts produced and certified under the Banker’s Book Evidence Act, clearly indicates that the amount claimed by the applicant is due from the defendants. It is clear from the statement of accounts that penal interest is not capitalized.

¶39

The proof affidavit of the applicant bank remained unchallenged and unrebutted. Therefore, on careful consideration of proof affidavit along with Exhibits filed on behalf of the applicant bank, besides the material placed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant bank has successfully proved the OA claim against the defendant. Point is answered accordingly.

¶40

In view of the foregoing, it is clearly evident that the application filed by the applicant bank is well within the period of limitation and this Tribunal possesses the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this OA.

¶41

¶42

In view of the fact that the instant loan is availed by the defendant for the purpose of business and the applicant has claimed interest at contractual rates till the date filing of the OA, this Tribunal is of the view that the pendent lite interest can be awarded at reduced rates and therefore proceeds to award interest at the rate of 15.50% per annum (simple).

¶43

In view of the afore mentioned discussions, the only conclusion this Tribunal can draw is that the applicant had clearly proved the disbursement of the loan, which the applicant is entitled to realize. Hence, OA is disposed off in the following manner: -

¶44

(a) TA No.42of 2023 stands allowed.

¶45

(b) Applicant is permitted to realize a sum of Rs.32,09,942.34p with further interest at the rate of 15.50% per annum (simple) from the defendants jointly and severally from 28.01.2021till date of realization, after deducting all the amounts received and recovered by them during the pendency of TA, and also by selling the other assets of the defendants.

¶46

¶47

(d) Applicant is permitted to realize cost of the proceedings and shall file cost memo within 7 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

¶48

(e) The Recovery Certificate shall be drawn up and issued to the Recovery Officer in terms of this final order.

¶49

¶50

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.

¶51

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 16^th day of June, 2023)

¶52

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

¶53

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Mr. P. Senthamarai Kannan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Mr. P. Senthamarai Kannan

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

Canara Bank versus Harish

Bank of Baroda versus M/s Subbuakshmi Enterprises

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd. versus Mr. G. Uthayakumar

Ms Nandhini Bakery and Sweets Rep by Viswanathan Narayanan versus Sbfc Finance Private Limited Erstwhile Smal Business Fincredit India Private Limited

M/s Deutsche Bank Ag versus M/s Unicorn Facility Support Services Pvt. Ltd.

S Ganesan versus Union Bank of India