Allowed

Hdfc Bank Limited, v. Ms. B.Rojabegum

DRT30 Nov 2023TA/684/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the transfer application filed by HDFC Bank Limited for recovery of an outstanding loan amount from the defendant. The court found the claim unrebutted and admissible, permitting recovery from the defendant's assets including a hypothecated vehicle.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 26,63,994.67 with future and pendentlite interest @ 12.01% from filing date, including realization of the hypothecated vehicle. Issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Hdfc Bank Limited, versus Ms. B.Rojabegum — Banking and Recovery | 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.684 OF 2022 (Old OA.No.709/2019–DRT-I, Chennai)

¶4

HDFC Bank Limited, 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. Represented by its Authorized Signatory Mr.T.Mahendiran … Applicant

¶5

Vs.

¶6

Ms. B.Rojabegum, PAN No: BIJPR4409K Makkal Auto, No.17, Umapathy Street, Opposite Kali Temple, West Mambalam, Chennai – 600 033.

¶7

¶8

Having Permanent Address at No. 9/20, Mythili Apartments Jayammal Road, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018, … Defendant

¶9

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

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The above Transfer Application is filed under section 19 of the Recovery of Debt and Bankruptcy Act seeking recovery of Rs. 26,63,994.67 with further interest from the date of filing of the TA and by allowing the same to be recovered from the defendant and her assets including the hypothecated vehicle.

¶12

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

¶13

The case of the applicant can be encapsulated as follows:

¶14

The defendant had applied for and got sanctioned a used car premium loan for Rs. 35,00,000/- from the applicant.

¶15

It is also stated that the above facility was availed after execution of necessary loan documents by defendant obliging herself to repay the amount promptly and regularly, without fail in 40 equated monthly installments of Rs. 1,06,611/-each.

¶16

¶17

Apart from execution of the necessary loan documents, hypothecation over the BMW 730 D bearing registration number TN01AP3559 (schedule mentioned vehicle) was marked as being the security for repayment of the loan.

¶18

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

¶19

The applicant’s officials had on many occasions approached the defendant requesting her to regularize the term loan account and pay back the due amount and in spite of 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 notice requiring repayment of the amount due in the account.

¶20

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.

¶21

¶22

Even as the defendant failed to enter appearance, she was set exparte

¶23

on 13.02.2020.

¶24

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.

¶25

Heard the counsel for the applicant and considered the contentions as

¶26

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. 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

¶31

¶32

get recovered from the defendant and her assets (including the schedule mentioned vehicle). The claim of the applicant is well within the period of limitation and there is no Capitalization of penal interest.

¶33

In view of the finding as entered above:

¶34

i) TA No.684/2022 stands allowed. ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs. 26,63,994.67/-(Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Sixty Three Thousands Nine Hundred Ninety Four and Sixty Seven Paisa only) with future and pendentelite interest @ 12.01% from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendant after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the TA and also by proceeding against and selling scheduled mentioned vehicle.

¶35

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.

¶36

¶37

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.

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

Hdfc Bank Limited, v. Ms. B.Rojabegum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Limited, v. Ms. B.Rojabegum

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