Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Rahul Goyal

DRT16 Jan 2024OA/2210/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an original application under the RDBFI Act, the Tribunal allowed the bank's claim for recovery of a business loan outstanding amount of Rs.23,43,049.92. The applicant bank was granted the power to recover the dues via attachment and sale of assets after issuing a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued; defendant ordered to pay Rs.23,43,049.92 with 10% simple interest; liberty granted to apply attachment and sale of assets.

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Rahul Goyal — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.2210/2022

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 28.11.2022 DATE OF DECISION: 16^th DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶4

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

¶5

….. Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Sh. Rahul Goyal s/o Sh. Mahendra Goyal r/o House No. F-69, Block-F, Near Tau Devi Lal Park, TDI City, Panipat

¶8

Also at: Proprietor of Rahul Yarn and Fabrics, Jatal Road, Near Shiv Mandir Chowk, Panipat-132103

¶9

….. Defendant

¶10

Argued by: Ms Dipti Toni proxy counsel for Sh. Gagandeep Toni, Advocate for the applicant bank Defendant ex parte vide order dated 09.01.2024

¶11

FINAL ORDER

¶12

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant

¶13

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.23,43,049.92/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakh Forty Three Thousand Forty Nine and Ninety Two Paisa Only). It has been

¶14

OA/2210/2022 HDFC BANK Vs RAHUL GOYAL 2

¶15

filed through Ms Samandeep Kaur Sekhon, Authorised Representative of the applicant bank stated to be competent to institute the Original Application vide Resolution of Board dated 16.10.2021, Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶16

The brief facts of the case of the applicant as per the Original Application are that the defendant had approached the applicant bank for grant of Business Loan of Rs. 20,00,000/- vide loan application Form dated 26.10.2017, Annexure-A2 (copy). 3. The applicant bank sanctioned aforesaid facility to the defendant, as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendant.

¶17

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facility, the defendant executed agreement regarding terms and conditions applicable to business loan dated 31.10.2017, Annexure-A3 (copy).

¶18

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 the entire outstanding amount vide loan recall notice dated 15.11.2022 and original postal receipts, Annexures-A5, A6 and A7 (copy), but to no avail.

¶19

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account, a sum of Rs.23,43,049.92/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakh Forty Three

¶20

Thousand Forty Nine and Ninety Two Paisa Only), is recoverable against the defendant as per statement of account, duly

¶21

OA/2210/2022 HDFC BANK Vs RAHUL GOYAL 3

¶22

certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891, Annexure-A4 (copy).

¶23

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

¶24

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 09.01.2024 .

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

It was argued by the learned proxy counsel of the applicant bank 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 A7 , 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

¶28

OA/2210/2022 HDFC BANK Vs RAHUL GOYAL 4

¶29

proved that applicant bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.23,43,049.92/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakh Forty Three Thousand Forty Nine and Ninety Two Paisa Only) from the defendant.

¶30

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause, has claimed rate of interest @16.25% per annum. In agreement regarding terms and conditions applicable to business loan dated 31.10.2017, Annexure-A3 (copy), rate of interest has been mentioned @16.25% per annum.

¶31

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. business , quantum of loan and 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 @10% per annum from the date of filing of the OA till realisation of the amount ordered vide this order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶32

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.23,43,049.92/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakh Forty Three Thousand Forty Nine and Ninety Two Paisa Only) with current and future simple interest @10% per annum w.e.f. 28.11.2022 , till the date of realisation of the amount. If the dues of

¶33

OA/2210/2022 HDFC BANK Vs RAHUL GOYAL

¶34

¶35

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

¶36

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶37

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 05.03.2024.

¶38

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.

¶39

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

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Rahul Goyal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Rahul Goyal

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

Ashrafudheen K versus Urban Co. operative Bnak Ltd.

Punjab National Bank versus M/s Jai Bihar Enterprises and others

Hdfc Bank versus Amandeep Singh Yadav

M S Firozabad Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. versus Bank of Baroda

Karanjit Singh versus Canara Bank

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Ajit Ved Parkash