Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Sunrise Traders

DRT2 Sept 2024OA/213/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application for recovery of dues against four respondents who failed to appear. The tribunal directed joint and several payment of principal amounts, grant of interest, and sale of hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Orders for payment of principal dues with interest at 10% and 8% p.a., authorization to sell hypothecated assets, restraint on disposal of property, and issuance of a Recovery Certificate under Sectio

Hdfc Bank versus Sunrise Traders — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL : JABALPUR

¶2

(for the States of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh)

¶3

(Presiding Officer - Hon'bte Shri Ram Niwas Patet)

¶4

Originol Application No.^{- 213123}

¶5

HDFC Bank Limited, Katni (M.P.)

¶6

..... Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sunrise Traders, Through its Prop.'Mr. Ahfaz Khan, ACC Factory Lat Nagar Ward No.-11, Kymore, Katni, M.P. 483 880

¶9

Mhd. Riyaz Khan, Gram Gudgadauha, Post- Bamhangwan, Ward Katni, M.P. 483880

¶10

1. Mr. Ahfaz Khan, S/o Mr. Mohd Nazim Khan

¶11

Mohd Nazim Khan

¶12

(3 & 4 at La[ Nagar, Kymore, Ward No.-1 1, Gudgadauha, Katni, M.P. 483 880)

¶13

..... Defendants

¶14

Counsel for the Appticant : Shri Mattikarjun Khare, Advocate

¶15

Defendants : Ex-parte

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

(Dated : O2ilSeptember, ZO24l

¶18

The Appticant-Bank has fited the present Originat Apptication u/s 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act on 10102123 against the Defendants for recovery of Rs. 34,69,287.50 (rupees Thirty Four Lac, Sixty Nine Thousand, Two Hundred Eighty Seven and Paisa Fifty onty) atong with interest and other retiefs as stated.

¶19

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of Defendant No.-1 through its Proprietor Defendant No.-3 and Defendant No-4, the Appticant Bank sanctioned Loan of Rs. 19,55,1501- on 25/06/19 and simitarty on the request of Defendant No.-1 and 3 the Appticant-Bank atso sanction Loan of Rs.7,92,1361- on 09107119. Likewise, on the request of Defendant No.-1 to 4 the Appticant-Bank sanctioned GECL of Rs. 4.80 Lac on 11/08/20 and on the request of Defendant No.-1 through Defendant No.-3

¶20

¶21

oA2t3l23

¶22

and Defendant No.-2, the Appticant-Bank sanction Loan of Rs. 24,09,8341on 19/12120. ln consideration of the sanction of credit facitities the Defendants in addition to execution of loan documents have atso hypothecated CommerciaI Vehicte/Equipment bearing Registration No.MP21DA/0487, MP21CA/9529, CG04NJ/6580 in favour of the bank. The Defendants avaited the credit facilities but faited to liquidate the outstanding dues despite issuance of Legal Notice on 02101123 by the Appticant Bank. The Appticant-Bank has relied upon the documents at Ex A-1 to A-13 which were proved by shri shubham Kesharwani, Legal Manager.

¶23

Despite service of notice, the Defendants neither appeared nor fited written statement. They were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 20105124. There is therefore, no ieason to disbetieve the contentions of the Bank. Considering the facts of the case, I opine that the Defendants are jointty and severatty tiabte to pay the ctaim amount together with interest and costs. The Appticant-Bank in its application has claimed interest at contractuat rate but has not specified the prevaiting rate of interest. However, I feel it fair and reasonabte to grant interest @10% p.a. for att Commercial vehictes/Equipment loan account and interest @8% p.a. for GECL account simpte pendentetite and future titl reatization of the dues. The hypothecated Commercial Vehicte/Equipment bearing Registration No.MP21DA/0487, MP}ICA|9529, CG04NJ/6580 are liabte to be sold for recovery of amount due atong with the personal properties and assets of the Defendants.

¶24

The Originat Apptication is attowed and it is ordered as under-

¶25

i) The Defendant No.-1, 3 and 4 do pay jointty and severatty Rs. 9,26,147.51 (Rupees Nine Lac, Twenty Six Thousand, One Hundred Fourty Seven and Paisa Fifty one onty) due in loan account No.-83819467, the Defendant No.-1 and 3 do pay jointty and severatty Rs. 21,52,327.45 (Rupees Twenty One Lac, Fifty Two Thousand, Three Hundred Twenty Seven and Paisa Fourty Five onty) due in Loan Account No.-69435871and the Defendant No.-1 to 4 do further pay jointty and severalty Rs. 3,90,812.54 (Rupees Three Lac, Ninety Thousand, Eight Hundred Twetve and Paisa Fifty Four onty) due in Loan Account No.-8435953, together with pendentelite and future interest @10% per annum in Vehicte/Equipment accounts and interest @8% per annum in GECL account simpte from the date of fiting of the OA, i.e., 10102123, with costs titt its realization.

¶26

¶27

oA2t3l23

¶28

ii) The Applicant Bank is entitted to se[[ the hypothecated CommerciaI Vehicte/Equipment bearing Registration No.-MP21DA/0487, MP21CAl9529, CGO4NJ/6580 as wetl as personat properties and assets of the Defendants for reatization of its dues. The Defendants are hereby restrained by means of injunction from depleting, transferring, encumbering, atienating or in any way deating with their properties/assets without first paying the ctaim of the Appticant Bank.

¶29

iii) A Recovery Certificate be issued uls 19(22) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act. The appticant bank may fite a memo of cost within 7 days for preparing Recovery Certificate.

¶30

Judgment pronounced in the open court on this 02nd Day of September,2024.

¶31

A
o 7
( Niwas Patet)
Pre.siding Officer

Hdfc Bank v. Sunrise Traders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Sunrise Traders

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

Union Bank of India versus Virendra Rajak

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Arvind Oil

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S Narayan Construction Company

Central Bank of India versus Ms Burburik International

Hdfc Bank versus Amit

Axis Bank versus Tofan Singh Padihar