Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Raj Kumar

DRT5 Feb 2024OA/1590/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an application filed by HDFC Bank Limited for the issuance of a Recovery Certificate against three respondents for a vehicle loan defaulting amount of Rs. 26.43 lakhs. The order granted the recovery request and fixed the interest rate at 8% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of a Recovery Certificate for Rs. 26,43,749.01 with simple interest at 8% per annum from 04.11.2023.

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Raj Kumar — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1590/2023

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 04.11.2023

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 05^th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

HDFC Bank Limited , having its registered office at Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013, also at Plot No. 1-15, Sector 101, Alpha IT City, S.A.S Nagar, Mohali, through its Authorised Representative, Ms Khushpreet Bains

¶6

…..Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Raj Kumar s/o Sh. Mahavir r/o Near Main Bus Stand, SurpuraKala, Surpura-Khurd (104), Bhiwani, Haryana-127028 Mobile No. 981319418, PAN No. CCMPK7023D

¶9

Sh. Mahabir Parsad s/o Sh. Lal Chand r/o Near Panchayat Ghar, Near Main Bus Stand, Ward No. 04, Surpura-Kalan (105), SurpuraKhurd, Bhiwani, Haryana–127028, Mobile No. 9813545780, PAN No. BOTPP7394Q

¶10

Sh. Mukesh s/o Sh. Mahabir r/o House No. 111, Near Main Bus Stand, Surpura-Kalan (105), Surpura-Khurd, Bhiwani, Haryana– 127028, PAN No. AUEPM1921G

¶11

....Defendants

¶12

Argued by: Ms Dipti Toni proxy counsel for Sh. Gagandeep Toni counsel for the applicant bank Defendants ex parte vide order dated 02.02.2024

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as

¶15

OA/1590/2023 HDFC BANK VS RAJ KUMAR AND OTHERS 2

¶16

‘the Act’ for brevity), against the defendants for recovery of Rs.26,43,749.01/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakh Forty Three Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Nine and One Paisa Only) . It has been filed through Ms Khushpreet Bains, Authorised Representative of the applicant bank stated to be competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 09.01.2023, Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶17

The brief facts of the case of the applicant as per Original Application are that the defendants had approached the applicant bank for grant of Vehicle Loan Facility-I of Rs. 16,03,905/- and Vehicle Loan Facility-II of Rs. 19,38,234/- vide commercial loan applications Form dated 12.08.2022, Annexures-A2 and A3 (copy).

¶18

The applicant bank sanctioned aforesaid credit facilities to the defendants, as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶19

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facilities, the defendants executed loan and guarantee agreement dated 25.06.2021, Annexures-A4 and A5 (copy).

¶20

It is further the case of the applicant bank that the loan facilities were duly availed of by the defendants but they failed to maintain the financial discipline of the applicant bank leading to the loan accounts becoming irregular and those being classified as NPA. The applicant bank recalled entire outstanding amount vide original legal notice dated 25.09.2023, Annexure-A8 and its original postal receipts, Annexures-A9 and A10 , but to no avail.

¶21

OA/1590/2023 HDFC BANK VS RAJ KUMAR AND OTHERS 3

¶22

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account, a sum of Rs.26,43,749.01/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakh Forty Three Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Nine and One Paisa Only) , is recoverable against the defendants as per statements of accounts, duly certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891, Annexures-A6 and A7 (copy).

¶23

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

¶24

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 02.02.2024 .

¶25

In support of contents of the OA, affidavit of evidence of Ms Khushpreet Bains, Manager Legal of the applicant bank was filed.

¶26

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

¶27

It was argued by the learned proxy 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 A10 , it is clear that the defendants had approached the applicant bank for availing of the loan facilities which were granted to them. It is further clear that the defendants had executed all the relevant documents as

¶28

OA/1590/2023 HDFC BANK VS RAJ KUMAR AND OTHERS 4

¶29

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.26,43,749.01/- (Rupees

¶30

Twenty Six Lakh Forty Three Thousand Seven Hundred Forty

¶31

Nine and One Paisa Only) from the defendants.

¶32

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause, has claimed rate of interest @9.07% per annum. In agreement for loan and guarantee dated 05.03.2021, Annexures-A4 and A5 (copy), the rate of interest has been mentioned @8.51% per annum and @9.07% per annum for Vehicle Loan Facility-I and Vehicle Loan Facility-II, respectively.

¶33

This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that sometimes in appropriate cases the prerogatives of mercy and magnanimity are 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, purpose of loan, i.e. purchase of

¶34

vehicles (Make TATA 1109 G LPT DCR BS VI and TATA 1212

¶35

LPT DCR BSVI) , 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.

¶36

In the result, the Original Application is allowed with costs

¶37

holding that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant bank a

¶38

OA/1590/2023 HDFC BANK VS RAJ KUMAR AND OTHERS 5

¶39

sum of Rs.26,43,749.01/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakh Forty Three Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Nine and One Paisa Only) with current and future simple interest @8% per annum w.e.f. 04.11.2023 , till the date of realisation of the amount. The liability of the defendants shall be joint and several. If the dues of the bank remain unsatisfied, the applicant bank shall be at liberty to recover the same by attachment and sale of hypothecated/personal assets of the defendants. However, the applicant bank is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶40

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶41

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 18.03.2024.

¶42

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.

¶43

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

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Raj Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Raj 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

Icici Bank Limited versus Jitender Gautam

Canara Bank (E-Syndicate Bank) versus N.S Infra Height

South Indian Bank Limited versus Mrs. Sally Unnikrishnan

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Fasruddin

Bank of Baroda versus Ms Motel Aquasis

Canara Bank versus Sri. Prabhakar H. Avaraddi