Allowed

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Mohamed Rafi

DRT22 Sept 2023TA/837/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an application under Section 19(1) of the RDB Act. The applicant bank proved the disbursement of a business loan and the default by the defendant via an unchallenged affidavit. The Tribunal issued a recovery certificate permitting realization of the principal, reduced interest, and costs.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate permitting realization of Rs. 14,36,391.48 plus 10% p.a. interest and costs from the defendant.

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Mohamed Rafi — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 22^nd day of September, 2023

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

TA No.837 of 2023

¶6

(Originally filed before DRT-I Chennai as OA No.140 of 2020 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.837 of 2023)

¶7

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

¶8

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

¶9

…Applicant

¶10

Versus

¶11

Mohamed Rafi S/o Iqbal Basha 11, Ammaiyappan Apartment Bharathi Nagar, 5^th Cross Street Moolapalayam, Near Krishna School Erode – 638 002

¶12

Having office at Key Corp Limited 26/32, 1^st Floor, 1^st Street Kumar Nagar, Tirupur – 641 602

¶13

Also at 53, LBGS Colony, Kollampalayam Erode – 638 002 …Defendant

¶14

Counsel for the Applicant Bank : Mr. T.K.M. Sai Krishnan Counsel for Defendant : Ex-parte

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

This application is filed by the applicant bank under Section 19(1) of Recovery

¶17

of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendant seeking issuance of

¶18

¶19

a Recovery Certificate for recovery of a sum of Rs.14,36,391.48p together with interest at the rate of 10.99% per annum with monthly from the date of filing of the OA till the date of realisation along with costs of the application.

¶20

The subject matter of the case is the Business Loan availed by the defendant from the Applicant Bank.

¶21

It is the case of the applicant that the defendant approached the applicant bank for grant of Business Loan and submitted requisite document vide Loan Application dated 16.10.2017 and considering the said request the applicant on 19.10.2017 sanctioned a sum of Rs.14,80,000/- to the defendant under Loan Account No.51965704 repayable in 60 Equated Monthly Installments of Rs.32,171/- commencing from 07.12.2017 to 07.11.2022 and executed documents on 19.10.2017.

¶22

It is also the case of the applicant that the defendants violated the terms and conditions of sanction and committed default in repayments and failed to regularize the loan accounts despite repeated request the applicant issued a legal notice on 11.4.2019 calling upon the defendant to clear the dues and despite of the said notice failed to clear the outstanding dues.

¶23

It is the case of the applicant that after availing the loan, the defendant was irregular in remitting the loan amount. The efforts of the applicant bank to make the defendant 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.

¶24

¶25

Summons taken out to the defendant returned with endorsement “unclaimed” and hence the service was held sufficient. As there was no representation on behalf of the defendant continuously and on 26.11.2021, the defendants were called absent and set ex-parte on that day. Applicant Bank filed Proof Affidavit along with 10 documents, which were marked as Ex. A-1 to A-10 on 19.09.2022. The Ld. Counsel for Applicant Bank made his submissions on 04.08.2023 and thereafter the matter stood till this date for passing final orders.

¶26

The following issues arise for consideration in the matter: -

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

These issues are considered together.

¶30

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

¶31

The evidence of the applicant is led by AW1 who produced the documents Exhibit A-1 to A-10 along with the proof affidavit. The documents produced in evidence are all found admissible. 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

¶32

¶33

defendant. Further, the statement of accounts in respect of the loan account 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.

¶34

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.

¶35

In view of the fact that the loan facility availed by the defendant is a business loan and the applicant has claimed interest at contractual rate till the date of filing of the OA, this Tribunal is of the view that the pendente lite interest can be awarded at reduced rates.

¶36

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: -

¶37

(a) TA No.837 of 2023 stands allowed.

¶38

(b) Applicant is permitted to realize an aggregate sum of Rs.14,36,391.48p from the defendant together with interest at the rate of 10% per annum (simple), from the date of filing of OA till date of realization after deducting all the amounts received by them during the pendency of OA, and also by selling the other assets of the defendant.

¶39

¶40

¶41

(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.

¶42

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

¶43

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.

¶44

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 22^nd day of September, 2023)

¶45

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

¶46

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Mohamed Rafi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Mohamed Rafi

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

Mrs S Saroja versus State Bank of India

S Paldurai versus Canara Bank

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited versus M/s.Sun Traders

A C Velmurugan versus City Union Bank Limited

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Ms. v. Ammani

State Bank of India versus Mr. P. Panneerselvam