Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Sewa Singh

DRT1 Jan 2024OA/1377/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Original Application under Section 19(1) RDB Act allowed for recovery of Rs.33,96,298 with simple interest at 8% per annum from September 27, 2023. Tribunal exercised discretion to lower claimed interest due to economic conditions and ordered joint and several liability.

What did the court decide?

Granted recovery of Rs.33,96,298 with simple interest at 8% p.a. from 27.09.2023 and issued Recovery Certificate.

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Sewa Singh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, CHANDIGARH, PRESIDED OVER BY M.M. DHONCHAK

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 1377/2023

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 27.09.2023

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 01^st DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶5

HDFC Bank Limited, a Banking Company, carrying on the Banking business under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 and Branches amongst other places one at Siwani, Haryana, through Sh. Jatinder Mishra, Assistant Manager and holder of an Attorney from the Applicant Bank

¶6

…..Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Sewa Singh s/o Sh. Munga Ram r/o Village Bhera, Tehsil Tosham, District Bhiwani-127043

¶9

Sh. Surjeet Singh s/o Om Parkash r/o Village Bhera, Tehsil Tosham, District Bhiwani-127043

¶10

....Defendants

¶11

Argued by: Sh. J.S. Sehgal counsel for the applicant bank Defendants ex parte vide order dated 30.12.2023

¶12

FINAL ORDER

¶13

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity), against the defendants for recovery of Rs.33,96,298/(Rupees Thirty Three Lac Ninety Six Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Eight Only) . It has been filed through Sh. Jatinder

¶14

OA/1377/2023 HDFC BANK VS SEWA SINGH AND ANOTHER 2

¶15

Mishra, Assistant Manager and holder of an Attorney of the applicant bank stated to be competent to institute the Original Application vide General Power of Attorney dated 16.12.2020, Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶16

The brief facts of the case of the applicant as per Original Application are that defendant No. 1 had approached the applicant bank for grant of cash credit facility of Rs. 26.60 lac vide application dated 05.06.2015 for retail agriculture loan, AnnexureA2 (copy). Defendant No. 2 stood as a guarantor for repayment of the loan.

¶17

The applicant bank sanctioned aforesaid facility to the defendants vide sanction letter dated 16.06.2015, Annexure-A3 (copy) as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶18

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facility, the defendants executed various loan and security documents, i.e. overdraft/cash credit-cum-guarantee-cum hypothecation agreement dated 24.06.2015, Annexure-A4 (copy), demand promissory note dated 24.06.2015, Annexure-A5 (copy) and letter dated 24.06.2015 of continuity of demand promissory note, Annexure-A6 (copy).

¶19

The aforesaid loan was further secured by creation of mortgage by defendant No. 1 in respect of agricultural land measuring 175 Kanal 12 Marla situated in the revenue estate of Bhera, Tehsil Tosham, District Bhiwani, Haryana, fully detailed in para No. 5(v) of the Original Application.

¶20

OA/1377/2023 HDFC BANK VS SEWA SINGH AND ANOTHER 3

¶21

The documents relating to the mortgage are as under:

¶22

i. Registered mortgage deed dated 23.06.2015, Annexure-A7 (copy).

¶23

ii. Request letter dated 23.06.2015 to the Tehsildar, Tosham, for entry/mutation of mortgaged property, Annexure-A8 (copy).

¶24

It is further the case of the applicant bank that the loan facility was duly availed of by the defendants but they failed to maintain the financial discipline of the applicant bank leading to the loan account becoming irregular and it being classified as NPA. The applicant bank recalled entire outstanding amount vide original legal notice dated 01.08.2023, Annexure-A9 along with its original postal receipts, Annexures-A10 and A11 , but to no avail.

¶25

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan accounts, a sum of Rs.33,96,298/(Rupees Thirty Three Lac Ninety Six Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Eight Only) , is recoverable against the defendants as per statement of account, duly certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891, Annexure-A12 (colly) (copy).

¶26

Since the defendants did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant bank preferred the present Original Application for issuance of Recovery Certificate.

¶27

Notices of the Original Application were duly served upon the defendants, but since none appeared on behalf of the defendants, thus, the defendants were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 30.12.2023 .

¶28

OA/1377/2023 HDFC BANK VS SEWA SINGH AND ANOTHER 4

¶29

In support of contents of the OA, affidavit of evidence of Sh. Jatinder Mishra, Assistant Manager of the applicant bank was filed.

¶30

This Tribunal has heard ex-parte arguments advanced by the learned counsel and gone through the record carefully.

¶31

It was argued by the learned counsel that in view of unrebutted documentary evidence brought on record, the applicant bank had proved its case against the defendants for recovery of the amount sought. From perusal of Annexures-A1 to A12 , it is clear that the defendants had approached the applicant bank for availing of the loan facility which was granted to them. It is further clear that the defendants had executed all the relevant documents as stated above in favour of the applicant bank. Unfortunately, the defendants failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement executed between the parties. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.33,96,298/- (Rupees Thirty

¶32

Three Lac Ninety Six Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Eight

¶33

Only) from the defendants.

¶34

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause, has claimed rate of interest @12% per annum in cash credit facility with half yearly rests. In sanction letter dated 16.06.2015, Annexure-A3 (copy), the rate of interest has been mentioned @12% per annum in cash credit facility.

¶35

This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that sometimes in appropriate cases the prerogatives of mercy and magnanimity are

¶36

OA/1377/2023 HDFC BANK VS SEWA SINGH AND ANOTHER 5

¶37

the brightest jewels in the crown of the Judge. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case including the Pandemic Covid-19 affecting businesses, nature of the mortgaged property, purpose of loan, i.e. agricultural , present conditions of economy based on agriculture, quantum of loan, prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yesteryears, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @8% per annum from the date of filing of the OA till realisation of the amount ordered vide this order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶38

In the result, the Original Application is allowed with costs holding that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum of Rs.33,96,298/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lac Ninety Six Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Eight Only) with current and future simple interest @8% per annum w.e.f. 27.09.2023 , till the date of realisation of the amount. The liability of the defendants shall be joint as well as several. Accordingly, the applicant bank shall be at liberty to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of mortgaged/hypothecated property of the defendants in execution proceedings, if not sold earlier under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 or otherwise. If the dues of the bank still remain unsatisfied, the applicant bank shall be at liberty to recover the same by attachment and sale of personal assets of the defendants. However, the applicant bank is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶39

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶40

OA/1377/2023 HDFC BANK VS SEWA SINGH AND ANOTHER 6

¶41

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on

¶42

21.02.2024.

¶43

Copy of this order be sent to the applicant bank and the defendants through registered/speed post. This order be uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal.

¶44

Pronounced in the open Tribunal (M.M. Dhonchak) Presiding Officer DRT-2, Chandigarh

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Sewa Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Sewa 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

Vijay Thakur versus Punjab National Bank

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Same Singh

Ms Shyam Trading Company and others versus Canara Bank

Laxmi Chaudhary versus Icici Bank Limited

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Dinesh Creations

Canara Bank versus Fathimabi