Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. M/S Shiv Nath Rai Anil Kumar

DRT8 Jan 2024OA/1151/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application under Section 19 of the RDB Act to recover Rs 11.62 crore principal and interest. The court held the bank proved its case despite unproven contentions of the defendants and ordered joint and several liability with the issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 11,62,85,983.90 with interest at 18% per annum from 29.01.2022, joint and several liability, and issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Shiv Nath Rai Anil Kumar — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 1151 of 2022 Date of Institution: 29.01.2022 Date of Decision: 08.01.2024

¶4

HDFC Bank Ltd., Registered Office at HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai 400013 and one of its Branch office at HDFC Bank Ltd., adjoining Street No.11, Circular Road, Abohar.

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

M/s Shiv Nath Rai Anil Kumar through Sole Proprietor Anil Kumar HUF having Sh. Anil Kumar alias Anil Goyal as Karta, Shop No.2565, Mandi No.1, Abohar – 152116, Punjab.

¶8

2^nd Address: Shop No.22/40, Third Block, Krishi Upaj Mandi, Grain Market, Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.

¶9

Anil Kumar HUF having Sh. Anil Kumar alias Anil Goyal as Karta, Sole Proprietor M/s Shiv Nath Rai Anil Kumar, Shop No.2565, Mandi No.1, Abohar – 152116, Punjab.

¶10

2^nd Address: Shop No.22/40, Third Block, Krishi Upaj Mandi, Grain Market, Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.

¶11

Sh. Anil Kumar alias Anil Goyal S/o Sh. Lal Chand Goyal, R/o H. No.730, Street No.1-C, Near Sabzi Mandi, Abohar – 152116, Punjab.

¶12

2^nd Address: H. No.770, Ward No.4, Jujvi Gali 1-B, Abohar – 152116, Punjab.

¶13

3^rd Address: H. No.116-117-118, Sri Ganga Nagar Road, Ridhi Sidhi Estate, Abohar, Fazilka, Punjab- 152116.

¶14

Smt. Shobha Goyal W/o Sh. Anil Kumar alias Anil Goyal, R/o H. No.730, Street No.1-C, Near Subzi Mandi, Abohar – 152116, Punjab.

¶15

2^nd Address: H. No.770, Ward No.4, Jujvi Gali 1-B, Abohar – 152116, Punjab.

¶16

3^rd Address: H. No.116-117-118, Sri Ganga Nagar Road, Ridhi Sidhi Estate, Abohar, Fazilka, Punjab- 152116.

¶17

¶18

M/s Shiv Shanker Enterprises through its Proprietor Sh. Anil Kumar alias Anil Goyal, Shop No.2565, Mandi No.1, Abohar – 152116, Punjab.

¶19

……….Defendants

¶20

Advocates

¶21

Sh. Rohit Sapra, Counsel for the applicant bank. Sh. A. S. Gagrha, Counsel for defendant nos.1 to 4. None for defendant no.5.

¶22

OA for the Recovery of Rs.11,62,85,983.90p with interest @18% per annum with monthly rests from 29.01.2022.

¶23

ORDER

¶24

HDFC Bank Ltd. (Bank) has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of Rs.11,62,85,983.90p with interest against M/s Shiv Nath Rai Anil Kumar And Others (defendants).

¶25

Bank’s case is that on 24.06.2013, it had granted Cash Credit Limit of Rs.125.00 lacs to defendant no.1 through its sole proprietor Sh. Anil Kumar alias Anil Goyal as Karta/ defendant no.2 for business purpose. Defendant nos.2 to 4 stood as guarantors. To secure the loan, Defendant nos.3 and 4 had mortgaged their immovable properties (fully detailed in para No.5.5 of the application). The loan was chargeable to interest @11.40% per annum with monthly rests.

¶26

2(A). On 20.11.2013, at the request of defendant no.1, bank had enhanced the Cash Credit Limit from Rs.125.00 lacs to Rs.225.00 lacs and also sanctioned WCDL (Working Capital Demand Loan) facility of Rs.75.00 lacs to defendant no.1 through its sole proprietor defendant no.2. Defendant nos.3 to 5 stood as guarantors to the said loan facility. To further secure the loan, Defendant nos.3 and 5 had mortgaged their

¶27

¶28

immovable properties {fully detailed in para No.5.7(iii and iv) of the application}. The said loan facility was chargeable to interest @11.20% per annum with monthly rests.

¶29

2(B). Thereafter, on 19.03.2014 and 13.12.2014, bank had renewed the Cash Credit Limit of Rs.300.00 lacs. Again, on 05.03.2015, at the request of defendant no.1, bank had enhanced the said Cash Credit Limit from Rs.300.00 lacs to Rs.525.00 lacs. To further secure the loan, Defendant no.4 had mortgaged her immovable properties {fully detailed in para No.5.10(v to vii) of the application}. The said loan facility was chargeable to interest @11.20% per annum with monthly rests.

¶30

2(C). On 10.07.2015, the bank had renewed the said Cash Credit Limit of Rs.525.00 lacs. Thereafter, on 15.06.2016, at the request of defendant no.1 through is Sole Proprietor defendant no.2, bank had enhanced the Cash Credit Limit from Rs.525.00 lacs to Rs.725.00 lacs. To further secure the loan, Defendant nos.3 and 4 had mortgaged their immovable properties {fully detailed in para No.5.13(viii, ix, xii and xiii) of the application}. The said loan facility was chargeable to interest @10.50% per annum with monthly rests.

¶31

2(D). At the request of defendants, bank had renewed the said cash credit limit of Rs.725.00 lacs vide sanction letters dated 29.12.2016, 27.06.2017 and 25.07.2018. To further secure the loan, Defendant no.4 had mortgaged her immovable properties {fully detailed in para No.5.15(xv, xvi, xvii and xviii) of the application}. The said loan facility was chargeable to interest @10.50% per annum with monthly rests. On 28.01.2022, a sum of Rs.11,62,85,983.90p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶32

¶33

On 29.06.2022, summonses were issued to the defendants by registered post, which was duly served. However, defendant no.5 did not put in appearance. Though, defendant no.5 is a proprietorship concern of defendant no.2 i.e. Sh. Anil Kumar alias Anil Goyal. Accordingly, defendant no.5 stands proceeded ex parte .

¶34

3(A). On 23.03.2023, defendant nos.1 to 4 filed written statement, wherein they alleged that the application is not maintainable; defendants are not liable in any capacity whatsoever, as the facility was not fully disbursed to them; signatures were obtained upon the blank documents; incorrect averments has been alleged in the application; the statement of account annexed with the OA as Annexure A-72 and A-73 has not been filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Banker’s Book Evidence Act, 1891; application of the applicant bank has not been filed by an authorized person; the amount claimed by the applicant bank is highly excessive; interest has not been charged as per guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of C.B.I Vs. Ravindra ;.

¶35

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Sunil Kalra, Senior Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-73. 5. I have perused the evidence on the record. Defendants have led no evidence to prove the contentions raised in their written statement. I am of the considered view that the Bank has proved its case that it had advanced the Cash Credit Limit of Rs.725.00 lacs and on 28.01.2022, a sum of Rs.11,62,85,983.90p was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.11,62,85,983.90p (Rupees Eleven Crore Sixty-Two Lacs Eighty-Five Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty-Three And Piasa Ninety Only) with interest @18% per annum with monthly rests from 29.01.2022, till the

¶36

¶37

date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of all the defendants would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged properties {fully detailed in para No.5(5), 5(7), 5(10), 5(13) and 5(15) of the application}, as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants. 7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 12.02.2024 , who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgage properties and hypothecated stocks/goods, as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) of the Act . 10. A Copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to the Recovery Officer as well as the parties. Pronounced in the open court. (A S Narang) Dated: 08^th January, 2024 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh

Hdfc Bank v. M/S Shiv Nath Rai Anil Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. M/S Shiv Nath Rai Anil Kumar

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

Sri Avinash Mohan versus Idbi Bank

Ragni Devi versus Indian Bank

Ms Maa Sidheshwari Enterprises versus Canara Bank

Punjab National Bank versus Jokhan Singh and Others

Punjab National Bank versus M/s Abhinav Bamboo Industries and others

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Inderjit Singh