Allowed

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. Mr.S.Jayachandran

DRT29 Dec 2023TA/66/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the transfer application filed under Section 19 of the RDB Act for recovery of a used car loan. Being the defendant appeared exparte and evidence was uncontroverted, the amount claimed was found outstanding, and the court directed recovery proceedings against the defendant's assets including the hypothecated vehicle.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.39,42,396.12 with interest and pendentlite interest; issuance of Recovery Certificate for enforcement against defendant's assets and hypothecated vehicle.

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Mr.S.Jayachandran — Specific Performance | 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.66 of 2023 (Old OA.No.707/2019–DRT-I, Chennai)

¶4

HDFC BANK LTD

¶5

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

¶6

… Applicant.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Mr.S.Jayachandran, S/o.Sasidaran, PAN No: BA1PJ2857B, N N N S Apartments, S3, 2^nd Floor, No.6, Ganesan Colony, Shanmuga Nagar, Near SBI Bank, Chitlapakkam, Chennai-600 064. Having Business At: Nil & Nith Trading Company, 46A, Walaja Street, Pattur, Mangadu Chennai – 600 122.

¶9

… Defendant.

¶10

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.T.K.M.Sai Krishnan. Defendant : Exparte. ……

¶11

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The above Transfer Application is filed under section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act seeking recovery of Rs.39,42,396.12 with further interest from the date of filing of the TA and by allowing the same to be recovered from the defendant and his assets.

¶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 is that the defendant had approached the applicant bank and got disbursed and availed a Used Car Premium Loan of Rs.34,65,000/- from the applicant.

¶16

It is also stated that the above facility was availed after execution of necessary loan documents by the defendant obliging himself to repay the amount promptly and regularly without fail in 55 EMIs of Rs.82,212/- each, arrived at by calculating interest at 12% p.a.

¶17

Apart from execution of the necessary loan documents by the defendant, hypothecation over the vehicle model Mercedes Benz R 350 bearing Registration No.TN07CA0099 and was created being the security.

¶18

¶19

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

¶20

The applicant’s officials had on many occasions approached the defendant requesting him to regularize the account and despite the same, no effort was made by the defendant to get the account regularized over to pay back the amount. Even as no repayment was made despite repeated requests, the applicant had on 21.05.2019 caused to issue a legal notice requiring repayment of the amount due in the account.

¶21

It is also the case of the applicant that despite repeated reminders and requests, the defendant 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.

¶22

Even as the defendant failed to enter appearance, he was set exparte on 06.02.2020.

¶23

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 in evidence.

¶24

¶25

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:

¶26

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

¶27

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶28

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶29

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendant remains 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 defendant and his assets (including the scheduled mentioned hypothecated vehicle). The claim of the applicant is well within the period of limitation and there is no Capitalization of penal interest.

¶30

In view of the finding as entered above

¶31

i) TA No.66 of 2023 stands allowed.

¶32

¶33

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.39,42,396.12 (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs Forty Two Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Six and Twelve Paisa Only) with future and pendentelite interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendant and by proceedings against the schedule mentioned hypothecated vehicle and his other assets.

¶34

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.

¶35

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.

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. Mr.S.Jayachandran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. Mr.S.Jayachandran

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