Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Shree Gurukrupa Trading Company, Prop.Amol Gunwant Patil

DRT17 Apr 2024OA/208/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal at Pune allowed an ex-parte Original Application filed by HDFC Bank Limited against three defendants for recovery of loan dues totaling approximately Rs. 47.79 Lakhs after deducting ineligible charges, with interest and a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Payment of Rs. 47,78,915 plus future interest at 8.25% p.a., recovery via hypothecated property, and issue of Recovery Certificate.

Hdfc Bank versus Shree Gurukrupa Trading Company, Prop.Amol… — Intellectual Property | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on : 21.12.2021 Registered on : 24.03.2022 Decided on : 17.04.2024 Duration : Y M D 02 03 27

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 208/2022.

¶3

HDFC Bank Limited,

¶4

A Banking Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and having its branch office at 21/6, Ground Floor, MIT Marathon, Bund Garden, Pune – 411001.

¶5

.. Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1 Shree Gurukrupa Trading Company, Prop. Amol Gunwant Patil, Age 36 years, Occ. Business, Market Yard, Islampur, Taluka Walwa, District Pune 415407.

¶8

2 Mr. Suhas Gunwant Patil, Age 35 years, Occ. Business, Chandani Chowk, A/P – Rethare Dharan, Taluka Walwa, District Sangli 415407, District Pune 415407.

¶9

3 Mr. Omprakash Bendha, Age 52 years, Occ. Business, Nawalgarh Road, Veer Tanajai Colony Ward, No. 42, Sikar, Taluka Sikar, Rajasthan.

.. Defendants

(OA No. 208/2022)

Page 1 of 5

Sanap

APPEARANCES

For Applicant	Advocate Pradip Yadav.
For Defendants	Exparte.

¶16

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.49,47,347=62/-

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

(Delivered on 17^th April, 2024)

¶19

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.49,47,347=62 by rounding Rs.49,47,348/- together with future interest @8.25% per annum from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendants.

¶20

Brief facts of the application are as under :

¶21

Defendant No.1 is a borrower, defendant No.2 is a co-borrower and defendant No.3 is a guarantor. As per the loan application dated 09.07.2019 of the defendant, the applicant Bank sanctioned and disbursed the Vehicle Loan of Rs.47,94,168/(Loan I) to the defendant. Thereafter, again at the request of defendant No.1, the applicant Bank has sanctioned ECLGS vide Sanction Letter dated 05.10.2020 for an amount of Rs.9,26,000/(Loan II).

¶22

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the

(OA No. 208/2022)

Page 2 of 5

Sanap

defendants executed necessary loan and security documents in favour of the applicant Bank along with deed of hypothecation of equipment namely KOBELCO SK220XDLC bearing Engine and Chassis No. JO5ETA51465, in favour of the applicant Bank. 3. The applicant Bank contended that the defendants committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the accounts. Therefore, on 27.11.2021, the applicant Bank issued legal Notice to the defendants. Despite service of Notice, the defendants failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank.

¶27

Hence, this application is filed.

¶28

The defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 07.02.2023 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶29

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Rohan Madhukar Edake, Power of Attorney Holder of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1 to AW-8 along with list (Exhibit 7), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶30

I have heard arguments of the learned Advocate for the

(OA No. 208/2022)

Page 3 of 5

Sanap

applicant Bank.

Since the defendants failed to appear and contest the application, I find no reason to disbelieve evidence of the applicant Bank. Therefore, the applicant Bank is entitled for reliefs as claimed.

¶36

The applicant Bank has claimed Overdue EMI Interest, Prepayment Charges and Cheque Bouncing Charges total of Rs.1,63,972/- towards Loan I and Overdue EMI Interest and Cheque Bouncing Charges total of Rs.4,461/-, total of Rs.1,68,433/- which cannot be granted and the same is required to be deducted from the total claim amount. Therefore, the total claim amount of Rs.49,47,348/is reduced to Rs.47,78,915/-.

¶37

Hence, I pass the following order :-

¶38

ORDER

¶39

(A) Original Application No. 208/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶40

(B) Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.47,78,915/(Rupees Forty Seven Lakhs Seventy Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Fifteen only) along with future

(OA No. 208/2022)

Page 4 of 5

Sanap

interest @8.25% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 21.12.2021 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶45

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the hypothecation of the movable property i.e. equipment namely KOBELCO SK220XDLC bearing Engine and Chassis No. JO5ETA51465, more particularly described in the Para No.5.3 of the Original Application.

¶46

(D) The applicant Bank is entitled to sell the hypothecated property to recover its dues.

¶47

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶48

(F) The Registrar is directed to send the copy of Judgment and Recovery Certificate to the applicant and defendants.

¶49

Place : Pune Date : 17.04.2024

¶50

Sd/(Dilip G Murumkar) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶51

(OA No. 208/2022)

¶52

Page 5 of 5

¶53

Sanap

Hdfc Bank v. Shree Gurukrupa Trading Company, Prop.Amol Gunwant Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Shree Gurukrupa Trading Company, Prop.Amol Gunwant Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bank of Maharashtra versus Bharat

Bank of India versus Raoso Patil

Bank of India versus Niranjan Shinde

State Bank of India versus M/S. Anna Mahadik Services Station Prop. Mr. Dhanaji Shahaji Choipade

The Cosmos Co. Operative Bank Limited versus HolyWoodAcademy

Bank of India versus Nandkumar Rajani