Allowed

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. Sukhveer Singh S/O- Nathan Singh

DRT26 Mar 2024OA/1020/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Recovery Tribunal allowed HDFC Bank's application under the RDBA against three respondents (borrowers and guarantor). The court decreed joint and several liability for principal, future interest, and costs, and ordered issuance of a Recovery Certificate with an injunction against disposing of mortgaged or personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Decree for recovery of Rs. 23,68,272.60 plus interest at 10% p.a. from 22/08/2022; issuance of Recovery Certificate under Section 19(2) RDBA 2002; injunction against disposal of assets.

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Sukhveer Singh S/O- Nathan Singh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL : JABALPUR

¶2

(for the States of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattjsgarh)

¶3

(Presiding Officer - Hon'bte Shri Ram Niwas Patet)

¶4

Originot Applicotion No. - 1020122

¶5

HDFC Bank Limited, HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Pare[ (West), Mumbai 400013

¶6

.. Appticant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sukhveer Singh, S/o Shri Nathan Singh

¶9

Shri Nathan Singh, S/o Lal.jiram

¶10

(1 & 2 al'13 / 1, Vittage-Rusatti, Post-Khiriya Devat, Tehsil-lsagarh, District-Ashok, M.P. 473331)

¶11

Shri Rajendra singh, S/o Hanumant Singh, Viltage-RusaLti, Post-Khiriya Devat, Tehsit-lsagarh, Distt-Ashok (M.P. ) 473331 .. Defendants

¶12

Counsel for the Appticant : Shri^{Sanjeev Dubey, Advocate}

¶13

Defendants : Ex'Parte

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

(Dated : 26th March, 2024)

¶16

The Appticant-Bank has fited the^{present OriginalApptication} u/s 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Acl on^{22/08lZZagainst the} Defendants for recovery ot Rs. 23,68,272.60^{(RuPees Twenty ThreeLac,} Sixty Eight Thousand, Two Hundred Seventy^{Two andPaisa Sixty onty)atong} with interest and other retiefs as stated.

¶17

The brief facts of the case are that on the^requestof Defendant No.-1 and 2, the Appticant^{Bank sanctionedCash CreditLimit of} Rs. 9.95 Lac. ln consideration of the sanction^{of credit facititytheDefendant} No.-1 & 2 as borTowers and Defendant^{No.-3 as guarantorin additionto} execution of toan and^{guarantee documentshave a(so created simpte} mortgage under the provisions of M.P. Krishi Udhar Pravartan^Tatha

¶18

¶19

oA 1020t22

¶20

Prakriyan Upbandh (Bank) Adhiniyam 1972 oyer the immovabte properties betonging to Defendant No.-1 and 2, i.e.,

¶21

i) Agricutturat Land bearing Kh No.-66l2/Ka arca 1.037; 17512 area 0.209; 178 arca 1.024i 179 area 0.010; 180 area 0.449; 187 arca 1.673i 188/3 area 0.6?7i 22015/Kha area 0.050; 22115 area 0.077i 24112 arca 0.140t Z5'll1/Cha/2 area 0.395, Vittage-RusatLi, PH Circte No.-'13, Tehsitlsagarh, District-Ashok Nagar (M.P.);

¶22

ij) Agricutturat Land bearing Kh No.-107 area 1.118; 174/1 area 1.045; 174/2/Kha area 0.500; 175 area 0.836; 182 area 0.188; 183 area 1.066; 187/1 arca 0.784, Vittage-Betkhedi, PH Circte No.-62, Tehsit.lsagarh, District-Ashok Nagar (M. P. ).

¶23

As per the RBI guidetines amount of pending instatlment of the Term Loan account conyerted further in to new term loan account. The Defendant No.-'l & 2 ayailed the credit facitities and atso executed Letter of Acknowtedgment of Debt on 01106116. The accounts became irregutar and the Defendants faiLed to tiquidate the outstanding dues despite issuance of Legat Notice on 08/01122 by the Appticant Bank. The Appticant-Bank has retied upon the documents at Ex. A-1 to A-13 which were proved by Shri Sudipt Pawar, Legal Manager.

¶24

Despite service of notice, the Defendants neither appeared nor fited written statement. They were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 25107123- There is therefore, no reason to disbetieve the contentions of the Bank. Considerjng the facts of the case, I opine that the Defendants are jointty and severatty liabte to pay the ctaim amount together with interest and costs. The Appticant-Bank in its apptication has not specifjed the rate of interest but ctaimed interest at the contractual rate. However, I feet it fair and reasonabte to grant^jnterest @10% p.a. simpte pendentetite and future titl reatization of the dues. The mortgaged properties are is tiabte to be sotd for recovery of amount due atong with the^{personal properties} and assets of the Defendants.

¶25

The Originat AppLication is attowed and it is ordered as under-

¶26

i) The Defendants do pay^jointty and seyeratty Rs. 23,68,272.60 (Rupees Twenty Three Lac, Sixty Eight Thousand, Two Hundred Seventy Two and Paisa Sixty onty) together with^pendentetite and future interest @10% per annum simpte from the date of fiting of the OA, i.e., 22108/22, with costs tilt its realization.

¶27

¶28

oA 1020122

¶29

ii) The Appticant Bank is entitted to se[[ the mortgaged as wetl as personal properties and assets of the Defendants for reatization of its dues. The Defendants are hereby restrained by means of injunction from depteting, transferring, encumbering, atienating or in any way dealing with their properties/assets without first paying the ctaim of the Appticant Bank.

¶30

iii) A Recovery Certificate be issued uls 19(22) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act. The applicant bank may file a memo of cost within 7 days for preparing Recovery Certificate.

¶31

Judgment pronounced in the open court on this 26th Day of March, 2024.

¶32

9'
(Ram N as Patel)
Presid ine Officer

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. Sukhveer Singh S/O- Nathan Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. Sukhveer Singh S/O- Nathan Singh

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

Avnish Tiwari versus Union Bank of India

Smt Shantidevi Jha wife of Shri Ramswaroop Jha through General Power of Attorney Ajit Kumar Jain versus Canara Bank

Naveen Sharma versus Axis Bank

Canara Bank versus Smt. Satalesh Kushwaha W/O- Dilip Kushwaha

Central Bank of India versus M/S Rawat Chemical Industries Prop Shri Atul Rawat

Ramesh Solanki versus State Bank of India