Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. M/S Laxmi Medical Agencies Proprietor- Dilip Kumar Valecha (Deceased)

DRT9 Sept 2024OA/1173/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application for recovery of Rs. 22,31,907.60 from the borrowers and their legal heirs. The court determined liability, imposed an interest rate, and ordered the sale of mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

Defendants must pay Rs. 22,31,907.60 with interest and costs; recovery certificate to be issued; property sold for recovery.

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Laxmi Medical Agencies… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL : JABALPUR

¶2

(for the States of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh)

¶3

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

¶4

Original Applicotion No. - 1173122

¶5

HDFC Bank Limited, Savitri, GCF Road, Civil Lines, Jabatpur (M.P.)

¶6

Appticant

¶7

Versus

¶8

01 ) M/s Laxmi Medicat Agencies,

¶9

Proprietor-Ditip Kumar Vatecha^(deceased)

¶10

Dilip Kumar Vatecha (Deceased)

¶11

Through his Legal Heirs-

¶12

(a) Mrs. Neetam Vatecha,

¶13

Wd/o Late Ditip Kumar Vatecha

¶14

(b) Mrs. Priyanka Valecha,

¶15

D/o Late Ditip Kumar Valecha

¶16

¶17

Mr. Gourav Vatecha, S/o Late Ditip Kumar Valecha

¶18

(Att at House No.-330, Heera Ganj, Laxmi Medical Agencies, Matviya Ganj Ward, Murwara, Katni, M.P. 483501)

¶19

Defendants

¶20

Counsel for the Appticant : Shri Sanjeev Dubey, Advocate Defendants : Ex-parte

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

(Dated :09th September, 2024)

¶23

'l . The Appticant-Bank has fited the present Originat Apptication uls 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act on ZBl03l19 against the Defendants for recovery of Rs. 22,31,907.60 (Rupees Twenty Two Lac, Thirty One Thousand, Nine Hundred Seven and Paisa Sixty only) atong with interest and other retiefs as stated.

¶24

2, The brief facts of the case are that on the request of Defendant No.-1 through its Proprietor Ditip Kumar Valecha (since deceased), the Appticant Bank sanctioned ODAP Limit of Rs. 15 Lac on 11103113 which was further enhanced to Rs. 20 Lac on 20/02114 and atso renewed [astly on 11/05/20 and atso sanctioned GECL-WCTL of Rs. 3.75 Lac 12106/20. ln consideration of the sanction of credit facitity the Defendant

¶25

¶26

oA t173122

¶27

No.-1 as borrower and Defendant^{No.-3 as guarantorin addition to execution} of loan documents^{have atso created equitabte mortgageover the} immovabte^{property,i.e.,Property situatedat Mouza-Mudwara,NB No"493,} PN No.-4512, New 43,^{Part of MunicipatH.No.-3'10,Malviganj Ward,Tehsil-} Mudwara, District'Katni^(M.P. ),^{betonging to Ditip Kumar Vatecha,area} 6x10=60 sq.ft.,^{godam situated at Ground Ftoor of Housearea20'7x29'9=} 643 sq.ft. house^{godam.The Defendant No.-1 avaited the credit facilities} and atso executed Letter of^{Acknowtedgmentof Debt on 01 111/16 and} 01t11/19. The Proprietor of^{DefendantNo.-1 DitipKumar Vatecha has} expired teaving behind Defendant^{No.'2(a) to 2(c) as his tegat heir who has} acquired his entire estate^{including mortgagedproperty.The accounts} became NPA and the Defendants^faited to^{t'iquidate the outstandingdues} despite issuance of Demand Notice dated^{20109/22 underthe Securitisation} Act by the Appticant Bank. The Appticant-Bank^{has relied upon the} documents at Ex. A-1 to A-40 which were^{provedby ShriAshishRawat,} Manager in Department of Speciat Operation.

¶28

Despite service of notice, the Defendants^{neitherappeared nor} fited written statement. They were^{proceededex'parte vide order dated} 24/A1 123. Admittedty Defendant No.'2(a)^{and 2(b) are being impteaded} being the Legal Heirs of deceased^Proprietor of^{Defendant No.-1 firm Ditip} Kumar Vatecha and therefore,^{their tiabitity is restrictedto the value of} assets inherited from the deceased^{borrower. However, DefendantNo"2(c)} Shri Gourav Vatecha who^{is tegalheir beingson of deceasedDitip Kumar} Vatecha, is atso Defendant^{No.-3 being guarantorto the credit facitities} sanction to his deceased^{father/ Proprietor of Defendant No.'1 agency.} Therefore the tiabitity^{of Shri Gouravvatechais joint and several with the} tiabitity of Defendant^{No.'1 agency. Consideringthe facts of the case,I} opine that the Defendants^{are jointLy and severaltyliable to pay the claim} amount together with^{interest and costs. The Appl'icant-Bank in its} apptication has claimed^{interestat contractualrate. However,I feel it fair} and reasonabte to^{grant interest@11/o p.a. in oDAPaccount and interest} @7.5%p.a.inGECL-WCTLaccount,simptependentetiteandfuturetitl reatization of the dues.^{The mortgagedproperty is liabte to be sold for} recovery of amount^{due atong withthe personalproperties and assets of the} Defendant No.^{- 1} , 3^{and deceased DilipKumarValecha'} >*

¶29

¶30

oA t173/22

¶31

The Originat Apptication^{is attowed and it is orderedas under'}

¶32

i) The Defendants do^{pay jointty and severattyRs' 22,31,907'60} (Rupees Twenty Two Lac,^{ThirtyOne Thousand,NineHundredSevenand} Paisa sixty onty) together^{with pendentetite and futureinterest@1 1% per} annum in ODAP^{accountand [email protected]%per annum in GECL-WCTL} account simpte^{from the date of fiting of the oA, i.e.,78/03/19,with costs} titt its reatization.^{The tiabitity of Defendant No.-2(a) and 2(b) is restricted} to the vatue of assets^{inheritedfrom the deceased borrower Ditip Kumar} Valecha.

¶33

ii) The Appticant Bank^{is entitted to sett the mortgagedas wetl as} personalpropertiesandassetsoftheDefendantNo'-l,3anddeceasedDitip Kumar Vatecha acquired^{by the Defendant No,-2(a) to 2(c) for realization of} itsdues.TheDefendantsareherebyrestrainedbymeansofinjunctionfrom depteting, transferring,^{encumbering,alienating or in any way deating with} theproperties/assetswithoutfirstpayingthectaimoftheApp[icantBank.

¶34

iii) A Recovery^{Certificate be issued uts 19(22) of Recovery of} Debts and Bankruptcy^{Act. The appticantbank may file a memo of cost} within 7 days for^{preparingRecoveryCertificate'}

¶35

Judgment^{pronouncedin the open court on this 09th Day of September, 2}

¶36

q (Ram Niwas Patet) Presidine Officer

Hdfc Bank v. M/S Laxmi Medical Agencies Proprietor- Dilip Kumar Valecha (Deceased)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. M/S Laxmi Medical Agencies Proprietor- Dilip Kumar Valecha (Deceased)

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

Sheikh Abid Son of Sheikh Ajmeri versus Centram Housing Finance Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Dilip Singh Pawar

Bank of India versus M/S Jainam Enterprises

Shri Firoz Ahmad versus Omkara Assets Reconstruction Limited

Shri Sachcha Mobile and Electrical versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Avdhesh Kumar Shiv