Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Jitender Singh

DRT19 Jan 2024OA/1685/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the original application filed by HDFC Bank Limited for recovery of Rs. 69,23,266/- along with interest against the respondents. The Tribunal reduced the claimed interest rate to 7% per annum and issued a Recovery Certificate. The proceedings were conducted ex parte.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 69,23,266/- with 7% simple interest from filing date, joint and several liability, and issuance of Recovery Certificate.

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

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 1685/2022

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 13.09.2022

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 19^th 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, whereas Branch amongst other places at Hansi, District Hisar, Haryana, through Sh. Jatinder Mishra, Assistant Manager (Agriculture Legal), HDFC Bank Limited, Regional Office, Chandigarh, being Power of Attorney holder of the applicant Bank

¶6

…..Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Jitender Singh s/o Sh. Kura Ram r/o Pali-Dhani-Barhamanan, Narnaund, District Hisar, Haryana-125049

¶9

Sh. Narender Singh s/o Sh. Kura Ram r/o Pali-DhaniBarhamanan, Narnaund, District Hisar, Haryana-125049

¶10

Sh. Ram Avtar s/o Sh. Kura Ram @ Kudamal r/o Pali-DhaniBarhamanan, Narnaund, District Hisar, Haryana-125049

¶11

Sh. Virender Singh s/o Sh. Kura Ram @ Kudamal r/o Pali-DhaniBarhamanan, Narnaund, District Hisar, Haryana-125049

¶12

Smt. Sumitra Yadav d/o Sh. Virender Yadav r/o Pali-DhaniBarhamanan, Narnaund, District Hisar, Haryana-125049

¶13

Sh. Sunil s/o Sh. Jai Singh r/o Dhani-Barhamanan, Rajpura

¶14

OA/1685/2022 HDFC BANK VS JATINDER SINGH AND OTHERS 2

¶15

Narnaund, District Hisar, Haryana-125049

¶16

....Defendants

¶17

Argued by: Sh. Saurabh Bhardwaj counsel for the applicant bank Defendants ex parte vide order dated 20.09.2023

¶18

FINAL ORDER

¶19

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 ‘the Act’ for brevity), against the defendants for recovery of Rs.69,23,266/- (Rupees Sixty Nine Lakh Twenty Three Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Six Only) . It has been filed through Sh. Jatinder Mishra, Assistant Manager (Agriculture Legal) 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).

¶20

The brief facts of the case of the applicant as per Original Application are that defendant Nos. 1 to 5 had approached the applicant bank for grant of Cash Credit Facility-I of Rs. 65 lakh,

¶21

Cash Credit Facility-II of Rs. 20 lakh and Cash Credit Facility-

¶22

III of Rs. 9.50 lakh vide application dated 08.08.2019 for retail agricultural loan, Annexure-A2 (copy). Defendant No. 6 stood as a guarantor for repayment of the loan.

¶23

The applicant bank sanctioned Cash Credit Facility-I of Rs. 35 lakh, Cash Credit Facility-II of Rs. 14 lakh and Cash Credit Facility-III of Rs. 7 lakh to the defendants vide sanction letters dated 30.09.2019, Annexures-A3, A4 and A5 (copy), as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶24

OA/1685/2022 HDFC BANK VS JATINDER SINGH AND OTHERS 3

¶25

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facilities, the defendants executed overdraft/cash credit-cum-guarantee-cumhypothecation agreements dated 30.09.2019, Annexures-A6 and A7 (copy) and dropline overdraft-cum-hypothecation–cum-guarantee agreement dated 30.09.2019, Annexure-A8 (copy).

¶26

The aforesaid loan facilities were further secured by creation of mortgage by defendant Nos. 1 to 4 in respect of agricultural land measuring 137 Kanal 03 Marla situated in the revenue estate of Rajpura, Tehsil Narnaund, District Hisar, Haryana, fully detailed in para No. 5(v) of the Original Application.

¶27

The documents relating to the mortgage are as under:

¶28

i. Declaration dated 30.09.2019 under section 4(1) of the Haryana Agricultural Credit Operations and Miscellaneous Provisions (Banks) Act, 1973, Annexure-A9 (copy).

¶29

ii. Request letter dated 30.09.2019 to the Tehsildar, Narnaund/Kheri-Jalab, for entry/mutation of mortgaged property, Annexure-A10 (copy).

¶30

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 on 01.04.2022. The applicant bank recalled entire outstanding amount vide original legal notice dated 01.08.2022 along with its original postal receipts, Annexure-A11 (colly) (copy), but to no avail.

¶31

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

¶32

OA/1685/2022 HDFC BANK VS JATINDER SINGH AND OTHERS 4

¶33

Rs.69,23,266/- (Rupees Sixty Nine Lakh Twenty Three Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Six Only) , is recoverable against the defendants as per statements of accounts, duly certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891, Annexures-A12, A13 and A14 (colly) (copy).

¶34

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

¶35

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 20.09.2023 .

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

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 A14 , 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

¶39

of the agreement executed between the parties. From the

¶40

OA/1685/2022 HDFC BANK VS JATINDER SINGH AND OTHERS 5

¶41

documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.69,23,266/- (Rupees

¶42

Sixty Nine Lakh Twenty Three Thousand Two Hundred and

¶43

Sixty Six Only) from the defendants.

¶44

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause, has claimed rate of interest @11% per annum plus penal interest @2% per annum. In sanction letters dated 30.09.2019, Annexures-A3, A4 and A5 (copy), the rate of interest has been mentioned @13 % for Cash Credit Facility-I and II and @16% per annum for Cash Credit Facility-III, respectively.

¶45

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, nature of the mortgaged property,

¶46

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 and defendant No. 5 being a female, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @7% per annum from the date of filing of the OA till realisation of the amount ordered vide this order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶47

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.69,23,266/- (Rupees Sixty Nine Lakh Twenty Three

¶48

OA/1685/2022 HDFC BANK VS JATINDER SINGH AND OTHERS 6

¶49

Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Six Only) with current and future simple interest @7% per annum w.e.f. 13.09.2022 , 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.

¶50

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶51

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 07.03.2024.

¶52

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.

¶53

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

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Jitender Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Jitender 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

Idbi Bank versus M/s Gilead Communication

Canara Bank versus Sri Bharat Deka

Ms Shree Devnath Infratech Private Ltd. versus Union Bank of India

Union Bank of India versus M/S Kanhiya Beverages

State Bank of India versus Smt. Inderjeet Kaur

State Bank of India versus Sh. Suresh Pal