Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Ravi Malik

DRT23 Jan 2024OA/2172/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the bank's application for a recovery certificate regarding an auto loan default. The court directed the defendant to pay the outstanding principal along with future simple interest at 7% per annum from the date of filing.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued; Defendant directed to pay Rs. 23,21,293.09 with interest at 7% p.a. warranting attachment of assets on default.

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Ravi Malik — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.2172/2022

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 22.11.2022

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 23^rd DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶5

HDFC Bank Limited , having its registered office at Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013, having its Branch at Plot No. 28, HDFC Bank House, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh, through its Authorised Representative, Ms Samandeep Kaur Sekhon

¶6

…..Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Ravi Malik s/o Sh. Azad Singh r/o House No. 104, Sector-41, Gurgaon–122001

¶9

Also at: Om Sai Enterprises, House No. 95, Gali No.2, Shiv Kunj, Shani Bazzar Road, Sant Nagar, Buradi, Delhi-110084

¶10

....Defendant

¶11

Argued by: Ms Dipti Toni proxy counsel for Sh. Gagandeep Toni counsel for the applicant bank Defendant ex parte vide order dated 26.09.2023

¶12

FINAL ORDER

¶13

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity), against the defendant for recovery of Rs.23,21,293.09/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakh Twenty One

¶14

Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Three and Nine Paisa Only) . It has been filed through Ms Samandeep Kaur Sekhon, Authorised

¶15

OA/2172/2022 HDFC BANK VS RAVI MALIK 2

¶16

Representative of the applicant bank stated to be competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 16.10.2021, Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶17

The brief facts of the case of the applicant as per Original Application are that the defendant had approached the applicant bank for grant of Auto Loan Facility of Rs. 20,71,387/- vide auto/two wheeler loan application Form dated 13.01.2022, Annexure-A2 (copy).

¶18

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

¶19

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facility, the defendant executed loan-cum-hypothecation agreement dated 21.02.2022, Annexure-A3 (copy) and irrevocable power of attorney dated 21.02.2022, Annexure-A4 (copy).

¶20

It is further the case of the applicant bank that the loan facility was duly availed of by the defendant but he failed to maintain the financial discipline of the applicant bank leading to the loan account becoming irregular and it being classified as NPA. The applicant bank recalled entire outstanding amount vide original legal notice dated 31.10.2022, Annexure-A6 and its original postal receipts, Annexures-A7 and A8 , 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 Rs.23,21,293.09/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakh Twenty One Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Three and Nine Paisa Only) , is recoverable against the defendant as per statement of account, duly

¶22

OA/2172/2022 HDFC BANK VS RAVI MALIK 3

¶23

certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891, Annexure-A5 (copy).

¶24

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

¶25

Notice of the Original Application was duly served upon the defendant, but since none appeared on behalf of the defendant, thus, the defendant was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 26.09.2023 .

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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 defendant for recovery of the amount sought. From perusal of Annexures-A1 to A8 , it is clear that the defendant had approached the applicant bank for availing of the loan facility which was granted to him. It is further clear that the defendant had executed all the relevant documents as stated above in favour of the applicant bank. Unfortunately, the defendant 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.23,21,293.09/- (Rupees Twenty Three

¶29

OA/2172/2022 HDFC BANK VS RAVI MALIK 4

¶30

Lakh Twenty One Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Three and

¶31

Nine Paisa Only) from the defendant.

¶32

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause, has claimed rate of interest @24% per annum. In loan-cum-hypothecation agreement dated 21.02.2022, Annexure-A3 (copy), the rate of interest has been mentioned @7.10% per annum.

¶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 vehicle (Make TATA Harrier XZA Plus AT) , 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 @7% per annum from the date of filing of the OA till realisation of the amount ordered vide this order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶34

In the result, the Original Application is allowed with costs holding that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum of Rs.23,21,293.09/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakh Twenty One Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Three and Nine Paisa Only) with current and future simple interest @7% per annum w.e.f. 22.11.2022 , till the date of realisation of the amount. If the dues of the bank remain unsatisfied, the applicant bank shall be at liberty to recover the same by attachment and sale of

¶35

OA/2172/2022 HDFC BANK VS RAVI MALIK 5

¶36

hypothecated/personal assets of the defendant. However, the applicant bank is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶37

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶38

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 11.03.2024.

¶39

Copy of this order be sent to the applicant bank and the defendant through registered/speed post. This order be uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal.

¶40

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

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Ravi Malik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Ravi Malik

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

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Bijender Kumar

Axis Bank versus M/S S. G. L. Traders

Ms Maniks salon and mangli kitchen rep by R Shiva Kumar versus Indusind Bank Limited

Dena Bank versus M/s Trident Tubes Limited.

Ms Sewa Enterprises versus Uco Bank

State Bank of India versus M S Priyadarshi Purnanand Automobiles Private Limited