Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. M/S Santosh Kumar Agrawal

DRT24 Sept 2024OA/275/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by HDFC Bank for recovery of loan dues totaling Rs. 51,51,736.42 against borrowers and guarantors, who were proceeded ex-parte. The Court decreed joint and several liability, adjusted interest rate to 11.50% p.a., and ordered sale of mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs. 51,51,736.42 with 11.50% p.a. interest; Applicant bank entitled to recover dues from mortgaged and personal properties; Injunction granted against parting with assets; Recovery C

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Santosh Kumar Agrawal — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2024)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TR!BUNAL : JABALPUR

¶2

(for the States of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh)

¶3

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

¶4

Originol Applicotion No. - 275/22

¶5

HDFC Bank Limited, Savitri, GCF Road, Civil Lines, Jabatpur (M.P.) AppIicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s Santosh Kumar Agrawat, 01 ) Through its ProprietorLate Santosh Kumar Agrawat, 187, Rani Durgawati Ward (Ganj Ward), Seoni (M.P.) 48066'l; Atso a!: Ptot No.-5 and 17, Nagar Patika Parishad, Ganj Ward No.-19, Near Shiv Mandir, Railway Crossing, Seoni (M.P.) 480661; Also at: Ptot No.-2l1 and 3, Ward No.-19, Rani Durgawati Ward, Seoni (M.P.) 480661

¶8

Mr. Santosh Kumar Agrawal ......deceased Mrs. Kanchan Agrawal ..... deceased Through their Legal Heirs(a) Mr. Hitesh Kumar Agrawal, 5/o Late Santosh Kumar Agrawat

¶9

(b) Mr. Sumit Kumar Agrawal, S/o Late Santosh Kumar Agrawal

¶10

¶11

Mr. Mahesh Kumar Agrawal, S/o Shri Kundan La[ Agrawat

¶12

[2^{and 3 at187, RaniDurgawatiWard}

¶13

(Ganj Ward), Seoni, M.P. 480661I

¶14

Defendants

¶15

Counsel for the Appticant : Shri Sanjeev Dubey, Advocate Defendants : Ex-parte

¶16

JUDGMENT loated^{:-lm Septernber} ,2024)

¶17

The Appticant-Bank has fited the present Original Apptication u/s 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act on 11/02122 against the Defendants for recovery of Rs. 51,51,736.42 (Rupees Fifty One Lac, Fifty One Thousand, Seven Hundred Thirty Six and Paisa Fourty Two onty) atong with interest and other reliefs as stated,

¶18

¶19

oA27s/22

¶20

2, The brief facts of the case are that on the request of Defendant No.-1 through its Proprietor Santosh Kumar Agrawa[^(since deceased), the Appticant Bank sanctioned Cash Credit Limit of^{Rs. 25 Lac on} 24109110 which was further enhanced to Rs. 40 Lac on 09/09/14 which^was lastty renewed on 28/10120 and FITL on 2,21 ,6951- on 18/1 1/20.^ln consideration of the sanction of credit facitity the Defendant No.'1 through its Proprietor as borrower, Defendant No,-3 and Smt. Kanchan Agrawal (since deceased) as guarantors in addition to execution of [oan and guarantee documents have atso created equitabte mortgage over the immovabte properties, i.e.,

¶21

i) Lease hotd Commerciat Ptot No.-2l1 (1518 sq.ft.) and Ptot No.3 (1598 sq.ft.), Ward No.-19, Rani Durgawati Ward (Otd Ganj Ward), Seoni, M.P., totat area 3116 sq.ft.; belonging to Late Kanchan Agrawal; ii) Commercial Ptot No.-5 (1624 sq.ft.) and 17 (1881 sq.ft.), Near Shiv Mandir, Railway Crossing, situated at Rani Durgawati Ward, Seoni, M.P. 200103; betonging to Defendant No.-3.

¶22

The Defendant No.-1 through its Proprietor availed the credit facilities and also executed Letter of Acknowtedgment of Debts [astly on 01 /07 120. The accounts became NPA and the Defendants failed to [iquidate the outstanding dues despite issuance of Demand Notice on 15101 122 under the Securitisation Act by the Appticant Bank. The Appticant-Bank has retied upon the documents at Ex. A-1 to A-46 which were proved by Shri Ashish Rawat, Deputy Manager.

¶23

Despite service of notice, the Defendants neither appeared nor filed written statement. They were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 20110/23. There'is therefore, no reason to disbetieve the contentions of the Bank. Admittedty, Defendant No.-2(a), 2(b) and 2(c) are being impteaded being the Legal Heirs of deceased borrower Santosh Kumar Agrawal and guarantor/ mortgager Kanchan Agrawat. Thus their tiabitity is restricted to the vatue of assets inherited by them from deceased Santosh Kumar Agrawal and Kanchan Agrawal. Considering the facts of the case, I opine that the Defendants are^jointty and severalty tiabte to pay the ctaim amount together with interest and costs. The Appticant-Bank in its application has ctaimed contractual rate of interesl @11 .70% p.a. with penal interest. However, I feel it fair and reasonable to grant interest @11.50% p.a. simpte pendentetite and future titl reatization of the dues. The mortgaged

¶24

¶25

oA275/22

¶26

properties are liabte to be sotd for recovery of amount due atong with the personal properties and assets of the Defendants.

¶27

4, The Original Apptication is atlowed and it is ordered as under'

¶28

i) The Defendants do pay^jointty and severalty Rs. 51,51,736.42 (Rupees Fifty One Lac, Fifty One Thousand, Seven Hundred Thirty Six and Paisa Fourty Two onty) together with^{pendentetiteand future interest} @1^{1.50% per annumsimple from the dateof fitingof the OA, i.e.,11 / 07/22,} with costs titt its reatization. The tiabitity^{of DefendantNo.'2(a), 2(b)and} 2(c) are restricted to the value of^{assetsinherited fromdeceased Santosh} Kumar Agrawal who was Proprietor of^{DefendantNo.-1 firm and deceased} Kanchan Agrawal who was^guarantor and^mortgager'

¶29

ii) The Appticant Bank is entitted to setl^{the mortgaged as wetlas} personal properties and assets of the Defendant No.-1, 3,^{deceasedSantosh} Kumar Agrawal and deceased^{KanchanAgrawalfor realizationof its dues.} The Defendants are hereby^{restrained by means of injunctionfrom} depteting, transferring, encumbering,^{alienating or in anyway deating with} the mortgaged^{properties, properties of Defendant No.-1 and personal} properties/assets of deceased Santosh Kumar Agrawal^{and Kanchan Agrawal} inherited by Defendant No.-2(a), 2(b)^{and 2(c) without first payingthe ctaim} of the Applicant Bank.

¶30

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

¶31

Judgment pronounced in the open court^{on this 24th Day of September,2024.}

¶32

.>\ Ll.³ (Ram Niwas Patel) Presidine Officer

Hdfc Bank v. M/S Santosh Kumar Agrawal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. M/S Santosh Kumar Agrawal

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

Idbi Bank versus Tikaram Sahu

Central Bank of India versus M/S B C Enterprises

Ravindra Singh Doultani versus Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited

Canara Bank versus Radha Krishan Computer

Santosh Kumar versus Vastu Housing Finance Corporation Ltd.

Hdfc Bank versus Vikas Singh Khichi