Allowed

Hdfc Bank Limited, v. Sh. Harnath Singh

DRT2 Jan 2024OA/1531/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application for recovery of Rs. 34,80,765 from the defendant. The court fixed a uniform simple interest rate of 10% per annum. Directions were issued to issue a recovery certificate and proceed against mortgaged and personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued; declaration of liability for sum of Rs. 34,80,765 with interest @10% per annum; entitlement to enforce recovery through sale of mortgaged or personal assets.

Hdfc Bank Limited, versus Sh. Harnath Singh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1531/2022

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 20.09.2022

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 02.01.2024

¶6

HDFC Bank Limited, a banking company, carrying on the banking business under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, incorporated under The Companies Act, 1956 and having its Registered Office at HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 and Branch Office amongst other places one at Sri Muktsar Sahib, Punjab, through Sh. Parampreet Singh Kahlon, Assistant Manager holder of an attorney from the applicant bank

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Harnath Singh S/o Sh. Darshan Singh, R/o VPO Jandwala Charat Singh, Tehsil Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib-152107 (Borrower)

¶10

………Defendant

¶11

Advocates:

¶12

Argued by Sh. Sumeet Sehgal, counsel for the applicant Defendant is ex-parte

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, against the defendant for recovery of Rs.34,80,765.00 (Rupees Thirty Four Lacs Eighty Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Five only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Parampreet Singh Kahlon, Assistant Manager, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 16.12.2020, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶15

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant had approached the applicant bank for the grant of KCC Limit of Rs.13.58 Lacs and

¶16

¶17

Term Loan of Rs.4.55 Lacs vide Loan Application for Agricultural Credit dated 05.11.2014, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶18

The applicant Bank sanctioned the KCC Limit of Rs.11.37 Lacs and Term Loan of Rs.3.25 Lacs vide Sanction letters dated 23.12.2014, which are Annexures A3 and A4 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant. 4. Defendant had mortgaged his immovable property i.e. land measuring 25 Kanal 08 Marlas situated at Village Jandwala Charat Singh, Tehsil Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, Punjab vide Declaration under Section 4(1) of the Punjab Agricultural Credit Operations and Miscellaneous Provisions (Banks) Act, 1978 dated 02.12.2014, which is Annexure A11 to this OA.

¶19

Documents executed: - Agreement for Term Loan-cum-Guarantee- cum-Hypothecation, agreement for overdraft/cash credit-cumguarantee-cum-hypothecation, Demand Promissory Notes and Letters of Continuity all dated 23.12.2014, which are Annexures A5 to A10 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 21.03.2022 and its Postal Receipts, which are Annexures A12 and A13 to this OA and Statements of accounts along with certificate under the Banker’s Books Evidence Act, which are Annexures A14 and A15 to this OA.

¶20

The loan accounts became irregular and were classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan accounts there was a debit of Rs.34,80,765.00, which is recoverable and the defendant was served recall notice but he did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant bank requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 6. The defendant was served notice to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendant and he was proceeded exparte on 06.11.2023. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Parampreet Singh Kahlon, Assistant Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd. has been filed.

¶21

¶22

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶23

It was argued by learned counsel that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant bank had proved its case. From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A15 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant approached applicant bank for availing of the loan facility which was granted to him and for that he had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. The defendant failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, account of the defendant was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.34,80,765.00 (Rupees Thirty Four Lacs Eighty Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Five only) along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the account.

¶24

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has claimed interest @12.00%p.a. in CC limit with half yearly rests from 02.10.2021 and @13.00%p.a. in Term loan with half yearly rests from 20.03.2022 till the realization.

¶25

The Tribunal is of the considered opinion that sometimes in appropriate cases the prerogative of mercy is the brightest jewel in the crown of the Judge. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case including nature of the mortgaged property, undertaking of the defendant, quantum of loan and prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yester years, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @10.00%p.a. in both the loan accounts from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶26

¶27

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.34,80,765.00 (Rupees Thirty Four Lacs Eighty Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Five only) with costs, current and future simple interest @10.00%p.a. in both the loan accounts from the date of filing of OA till the date of realization of the amount. Accordingly, the applicant bank shall be entitled to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of hypothecated/mortgaged properties of the defendant in execution proceedings if not sold earlier under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. If the dues of the bank still remain unsatisfied, it shall be entitled to recover the same by attachment and sale of personal assets of the defendant. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶28

Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶29

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶30

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 18.01.2024.

¶31

Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant bank and be sent to defendant through registered/speed post and this order be also uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal and record be consigned.

¶32

Pronounced by me in the Open Tribunal. Dated: 02.01.2024

¶33

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Hdfc Bank Limited, v. Sh. Harnath Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Limited, v. Sh. Harnath 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

Punjab National Bank, versus Messrs Gaurav Electronics

State Bank of India, versus Sh. Mahinder Singh and Another

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Narinder Pal

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Sh. Ranjeet Singh

Vikrant Gupta versus Central Bank of India

Punjab National Bank, versus Sh. Rahul Sharma