Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Mohammad Reja Alam

DRT6 Feb 2024OA/1634/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by HDFC Bank against two borrowers for recovery of an outstanding vehicle loan principal amount of Rs. 48,62,711, issuing a recovery certificate after noting default and proceeding ex parte.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for repayment of Rs. 48,62,711 with 8% simple interest from 05.12.2023 till realization.

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Mohammad Reja Alam — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1634/2023

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 05.12.2023

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 06^th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

HDFC Bank Limited , having its registered office at Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013, having its Branch at HDFC Bank House, Plot Nos. 1-15, Sector 101, Alpha IT City, S.A.S Nagar, Mohali, through its Authorised Representative, Sh. Kabir Chopra

¶6

…..Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Mohammad Reja Alam s/o Sh. Mohammad Anjarul Hassan r/o B-487, Gali No. 86, Ward No. 10, Dabua Colony, Faridabad, Haryana–121001, Mobile Phone No. 9971628243, PAN No. BRTPA5762N

¶9

Sh. Mohammad Mazeed Alam s/o Sh. Altaf Hussain r/o B-487, Dabua Colony, Faridabad, Haryana–121001, Mobile No. 9824176532, PAN No. BVYPA9897H

¶10

....Defendants

¶11

Argued by: Ms Dipti Toni proxy counsel for Sh. Gagandeep Toni counsel for the applicant bank Defendants ex parte vide order dated 03.02.2024

¶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.48,62,711/-

¶14

OA/1634/2023 HDFC BANK VS MOHAMMAD REJA AND ANOTHER 2

¶15

(Rupees Forty Eight Lakh Sixty Two Thousand Seven Hundred

¶16

and Eleven Only) . It has been filed through Sh. Kabir Chopra, Authorised Representative of the applicant bank stated to be competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 15.04.2023, 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 Term Loan Facility-I of Rs. 22,20,405/-, Vehicle Term Loan Facility-II of Rs. 22,20,405/, Vehicle Term Loan Facility-III of Rs. 3,00,000/- and Vehicle Term Loan Facility-IV of Rs. 3,00,000/- vide loan application dated 02.03.2023, Annexure-A2 (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 17.03.2023, Annexure-A3 (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 28.10.2023, Annexure-A8 and its original postal receipts, Annexures-A9 and A10 , but to no avail.

¶21

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account, a sum of

¶22

OA/1634/2023 HDFC BANK VS MOHAMMAD REJA AND ANOTHER 3

¶23

Rs.48,62,711/- (Rupees Forty Eight Lakh Sixty Two Thousand

¶24

Seven Hundred and Eleven Only) , is recoverable against the defendants as per statements of accounts, duly certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891, Annexures-A4 to A7 (copy).

¶25

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

¶26

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 03.02.2024 .

¶27

In support of contents of the OA, affidavit of evidence of Sh. Kabir Chopra, Manager Legal of the applicant bank was filed.

¶28

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

¶29

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 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

¶30

OA/1634/2023 HDFC BANK VS MOHAMMAD REJA AND ANOTHER 4

¶31

bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.48,62,711/- (Rupees

¶32

Forty Eight Lakh Sixty Two Thousand Seven Hundred and Eleven Only) from the defendants.

¶33

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause, has claimed rate of interest @9.61% per annum. In statements of accounts, Annexures-A4 to A7 (copy), the rate of interest has been mentioned @9.60% for Term Loan Facility-I and Term Loan Facility-II and @9.61% per annum for Term Loan Facility-III and Term Loan Facility-IV, respectively.

¶34

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 vehicles (Two Units Ashok Leyland AL 1920 and Two Bodies) , 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.

¶35

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.48,62,711/- (Rupees Forty Eight Lakh Sixty Two Thousand Seven Hundred and Eleven Only) with current and future simple interest @8% per annum w.e.f. 05.12.2023 , till the

¶36

OA/1634/2023 HDFC BANK VS MOHAMMAD REJA AND ANOTHER 5

¶37

date of realisation of the amount. The liability of the defendants shall be joint or 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.

¶38

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶39

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 20.03.2024.

¶40

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.

¶41

Pronounced in the open Tribunal (M.M. Dhonchak)

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Mohammad Reja Alam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Mohammad Reja Alam

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

Bushara Aseez versus Authorised Officer South Indian Bank

Aseena versus Urban Co. operative Bnak Ltd.

Indian Bank versus Ms Shree Hari Fuels

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Rakesh Kumar

State Bank of India versus Niduram Hanmaiah

C K Prakasan versus Catholic Syrian Bank Limited