Allowed

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. Sh. Satnam Singh and Another

DRT15 Apr 2024OA/247/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's original application filed under Section 19 RDBFI Act. The court deemed it just to grant uniform simple interest at 9% p.a. instead of the claimed rate. The defendants were ordered to pay Rs.22,01,539.35 jointly and severally.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to pay Rs.22,01,539.35 jointly and severally with costs and uniform simple interest @9.00%p.a. Recovery certificate issued.

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Satnam Singh and Another — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.247/2022

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 12.01.2022

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 15.04.2024

¶6

HDFC Bank is a body incorporated under the name and title as HDFC Bank Ltd. under the provisions of The Companies Act, 1956 and is having its Registered Office at Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013 and one of its branches at Retail Loan Service Centre, The Mall, Mall Road, Fourth Floor, Ludhiana (Punjab), through its Principal Officer and Constituted Attorney Sh. Rajendra Prasad, Legal Manager, Posted at HDFC Bank, Industrial Area, Phase 1, Chandigarh

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Satnam Singh S/o Sh. Rajinder Singh, R/o Nede Bajakhana Sadak, VPO Sedha Singh Wala, on Jaitu Bajakhana Road, District Faridkot (Punjab)-151205

¶10

Sh. Khushdeep Singh S/o Sh. Lakhvir Singh, R/o VPO Sedha Singh Wala, on Jaitu Bajakhana Road, District Faridkot (Punjab)-151205

¶11

………Defendants

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

Argued by Sh. K.P.S. Dhillon, counsel for the applicant Defendants are ex-parte

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.22,01,539.35p (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs One Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Nine and Thirty Seven Paise only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Rajendra Prasad, Legal Manager of the applicant bank, who is competent to institute the Original

¶16

¶17

Application vide Power of Attorney dated 03.11.2021, which is Annexure P/A to this OA.

¶18

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendants had approached the applicant bank for grant of Vehicle loan of Rs.36,55,508.00 vide Loan Application dated 13.02.2018, which is Annexure A1 to this OA. 3. The applicant Bank sanctioned the Vehicle loan of Rs.36,55,508/(Rs.31,00,309/- for purchase of Vehicle and Rs.5,55,199/- for making body of the vehicle) and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants along with loan application. 4. Defendant No.1 had hypothecated his movable property i.e. Vehicle namely BHARAT BENZ 4928T bearing Chasis No.MEC2817CBJP056144, Engine No.400953D0056019 and having Registration No.RJ07GD0728 vide Loan Agreements dated 03.03.2018, which are Annexures A2 and A3 to this OA. Documents executed: - Statements of accounts along with certificate, which are Annexure A4 and A5 to this OA; Demand notice dated 02.12.2021, which is Annexure A6 to this OA and Legal notice dated 04.12.2021, which is Annexure A7 to this OA. 5. The loan accounts became irregular and were classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan accounts there was a debit of Rs.22,01,539.35p, which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notices but they did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant bank requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 6. The defendants were served notices to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte on 11.03.2024. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Rajendra Prasad, Legal Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd. has been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶19

¶20

It was argued by learned counsel that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant bank had proved its case. From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A7 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant bank for availing of the loan facilities which were granted to them and for that they had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. The defendants failed to pay back the loans as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, accounts of the defendants were classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.22,01,539.35p (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs One Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Nine and Thirty Seven Paise only) along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of both the accounts.

¶21

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has claimed interest @9.00%p.a. plus Penal interest @2%p.a. with monthly rest, in both the loan accounts from 03.12.2021 till the date of realization.

¶22

The Tribunal is of the considered opinion that sometimes in appropriate cases the prerogative of mercy is the brightest jewel in the crown of the Judge. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case including nature of the mortgaged property, undertaking of the defendants, quantum of loan and prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yester years, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @9.00%p.a. in both the loan accounts from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly. 11. In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of

¶23

¶24

Rs.22,01,539.35p (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs One Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Nine and Thirty Seven Paise only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @9.00%p.a. in both the loan accounts from the date of filing of OA till the date of realization of the amount. Accordingly, the applicant bank shall be entitled to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of hypothecated/mortgaged properties of the defendants in execution proceedings if not sold earlier under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. If the dues of the bank still remain unsatisfied, it shall be entitled to recover the same by attachment and sale of personal assets of the defendants. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶25

Any other application pending stands disposed of. 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶26

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 24.04.2024.

¶27

Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant bank and be sent to defendants through registered/speed post and this order be also uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal and record be consigned. Pronounced by me in the Open Tribunal .

¶28

Dated: 15.04.2024

¶29

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. Sh. Satnam Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. Sh. Satnam Singh and Another

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

Icici Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Simranjeet Singh Gill and Others

Union Bank of India versus M/s Juneja Print Pac

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Ajay Kumar Juneja and Another

Icici Bank Ltd. versus M/s Bansal Trading Co. and Others

Icici Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Parminder Singh

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Ranjit Singh