Allowed

Hdfc Bank Limited, v. M/s. Mettur Associates

DRT30 Nov 2023TA/673/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant's application under the RDB Act, confirming the loan agreement and outstanding debt. The court awarded recovery of the principal and interest at a reduced rate of 10% simple interest, and directed the issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.23,15,943.10 with future interest @ 10% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of OA, and issuance of a recovery certificate.

Hdfc Bank Limited, versus M/s. Mettur Associates — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 30^th day of November, 2023

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

TA No.673 of 2022

¶6

(Originally filed before DRT-I Chennai as OA No.157 of 2020 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.673 of 2022)

¶7

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

¶8

And also Having Ofiice at, “CEEBROS” 110, 4^th Floor, Nelson Manickam Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai – 600 029 Represented by its Authorised Signatory, Mr.P. Nirmalraj …Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

M/s. Mettur Associates, Represented by its Managing Partner, P.Stalin, Door No.148, Jahir Ammapalayam Post, Omalur Main Road, Mamangam, Salem – 636 302

¶11

And also Having Office at, No.5, Anugraha Compled, Mettur Dam RS, Salem District – 636 402

¶12

And also Having Registered office at, No.14/1-44, Ramamoorthy Nagar, Malco Backside, Mettur Dam RS, Salem District – 636 402

¶13

Mr. P. Stalin, S/o. Palaniappan, Door No.148, Jahir Ammapalayam Post, Omalur Main Road, Mamangam, Salem – 636 302 …Defendants Counsel for the Applicant Bank : Shreelaw Services Counsel for Defendants : Ex-parte

¶14

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

This Original Application herein after been referred as OA is filed under section 19(1) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1983, seeking issuance of a Recovery Certificate for Rs.23,15,943.10/- with future annual interest @ 9.52% per annum from the date of filing of OA till its realisation.

¶17

The defendant having availed a commercial vehicle loan for Rs.29,98,500 which got disbursed pursuant to submission of the loan application and consequential to the execution of necessary loan agreements. The facility was availed by agreeing to repay the amount in 47 equal installments of Rs.76,965/- with a tenure stretching from 20.1.2018 and ending at 20.11.2021.

¶18

It is further case of the applicant that the defendant failed to full their commitment as to repayment resulting the account fell in default. it is also stated that due to the defaults the applicant caused to issue a lawyer notice on 14.10.2019 and despite the same the amount is not repaid and hence this OA.

¶19

Summons was taken out but summons to the 2^nd defendant returned unserved. Summons was taken out through paper publication. The defendants were set exparte on 03.02.2023 and 12.4.2023 respectively.

¶20

The applicant had let in evidence through the proof affidavit of AW1 and marked Ext.A1 to A11. Since defendant is set exparte the evidence of applicant remains uncontroverted and unrebutted. The following issues arise for consideration in this matter.

¶21

¶22

i) Whether the applicant had proved the OA claim

¶23

ii) What orders as to be passed

¶24

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶25

The applicants evidences consist of loan application and loan agreement which were marked as Ext.A1 and A3 which is sufficient prove the disbursement of the credit facility as stated by the applicant. The other documents produced as A2, A4, A5, A6 and A7 also evidences the case of the applicant Ext.A8, A9 and A10 evidences that the applicant had made the demand for repayment Ext.A11 the statement of accounts evidences that the amount as claimed in the OA is outstanding in the account, which the applicant is entitled to recover from the defendants. It is also to be noted that the tenure of repayment is already over and that there is no capitalization of penal interest. The claim of applicant is well within the period of limitation.

¶26

Hence in the basis of above evidences, the applicant is satisfied tht the applicant had successfully proved their entitlement to recover the amount as claimed in the OA. However as agreed rate of interest is claimed up to the date of filing of OA and rate of interest is in the higher side, pendalite and future interest is awarded at a reduced rate of 10% (simple)

¶27

In the result

¶28

i) TA.673 of 2022 stands allowed.

¶29

ii) The applicant is allowed to recover an amount of Rs.23,15,943.10/with further interest @10% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of OA from the defendants and their assets.

¶30

¶31

iii) All the amounts received and recovered during the pendency of OA is to be given credit to the loan account.

¶32

iv) A recovery certificate to be drawn in terms of above and issued to the Recovery officer to recover the amount.

¶33

v) Applicant is also allowed cost of the proceedings for which a cost memo is to be filed in 7 days from the date of receipt of the order.

¶34

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of Section 19(21) of RDB Act r/w Rules 16 of DRT (procedure) rules.

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

Hdfc Bank Limited, v. M/s. Mettur Associates

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Limited, v. M/s. Mettur Associates

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