Allowed

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Kamaljit Sharma and others

DRT6 Sept 2024OA/32/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HDFC Bank filed an Original Application under the RDDBFI Act, 1993 to recover Rs.33,90,867 from borrowers Daljeet Singh, Kamaljit Sharma, and Avinash Kumar. The Tribunal allowed the application, declaring the defendants liable to repay the principal sum plus interest and costs, permitting recovery through sale of mortgaged property or personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.33,90,867 with costs and 8% p.a. simple interest; consent to sale of mortgaged or personal assets.

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Kamaljit Sharma and others — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.32/2024 PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 25.11.2023 DATE OF DECISION: 06.09.2024 H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd., a banking company, carrying on the banking business under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, incorporated under The Companies Act, 1956 and having its Registered Office at HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013, whereas its branch at “Begowal, District Kapurthala (Punjab)” through Dinesh Kumar, Deputy Manager (Agri. Legal), H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd., Regional Office, Mohali, District Mohali (Punjab) being Authorized Officer of applicant bank ……..Applicant Versus 1. Kamaljit Sharma S/o Sh. Rajpal Sharma, R/o Village Nadala, Tehsil Bholath District Kapurthala (Punjab)-144624. 2. Avinash Kumar S/o Sh. Rajpal Sharma, R/o Village Nadala, Tehsil Bholath District Kapurthala (Punjab)-144624. (Borrowers) 3. Daljeet Singh S/o Sh. Charan Singh, R/o Village Nadala, Tehsil Bholath District Kapurthala (Punjab)-144624. (Guarantor) ….……Defendants Advocates: Argued by Sh. Saurabh Bharadwaj, Advocate for the applicant (through VC) Defendants are ex-parte FINAL ORDER 1. 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.33,90,867.00 (Rupees Thirty Three Lacs Ninety Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty Seven Only). The Original Application has been filed

¶4

¶5

through Dinesh Kumar, Deputy Manager (Agri. Legal) o f the applicant bank, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Board Resolution dated 28.07.2023, which is Annexure A1 to this OA. 2. The brief facts of the OA are that defendants No.1 and 2 had approached the applicant bank for the grant of Agriculture CC Limit of Rs.32.00 Lacs vide Loan Application dated 16.03.2015, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. Defendant no. 3 stood as guarantor. 3. The applicant Bank sanctioned the Agriculture CC Limit of Rs.32.00 Lacs vide Sanction Letters dated 16.04.2015, which is Annexures A3 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. 4. Defendants No.1 and 2 had mortgaged their immovable property i.e. total agriculture land measuring 31 Kanals 12 Marla detailes as under:

¶6

(a) 14 Kanals 12 Marla situated at Village Nadala Patti Khairdin (b) 17 Kanals situated at Village Nadala Patti Narangpur H.B. No.64, Tehsil Bhulath, Distt. Kapurthala (Punjab) vide Declaration u/s 4(1) dated 29.04.2015 , which is Annexure A7 to this OA.

¶7

Documents executed:- D.P. Note, Letter of continuity, Agreement for overdraft/cash credit-cum-guarantee-cum-hypothecation all dated 29.04.2015, which are Annexures A4 to A6 to this OA; Letter of Acknowledgment of Debts dated 31.12.2020, which is Annexure A8 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 02.11.2023 with postal receipts, which is Annexure A9 to this OA; and Account Statement along with Certificate regarding the computer system and the genuineness of the statement of account being prepared through the computer system, which is Annexure A10 to this OA.

¶8

The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan account there was a debit of Rs.33,90,867.00, which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notices but they did not repay the outstanding

¶9

¶10

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 29.07.2024. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Dinesh Kumar, Deputy Manager (Agri. Legal), HDFC Bank Ltd. h as been filed. 8. Heard ex parte arguments and perused record. 9. It was argued by learned counsel through video conferencing 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 A10 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant bank for availing of the loan facility which was 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 loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, account of the defendants was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.33,90,867.00 (Rupees Thirty Three Lacs Ninety Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty Seven Only) along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the account. 10. In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has claimed interest @11.00%p.a. along with penal interest @2%p.a. from 31.10.2023 till the realization.

¶11

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

¶12

¶13

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 @8.00%p.a. in the loan account 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 Rs.33,90,867.00 (Rupees Thirty Three Lacs Ninety Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty Seven Only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00%p.a. in the loan account 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. 12. Any other application pending stands disposed of. 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 01.10.2024. 15. 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 . Dated: 06.09.2024 (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Kamaljit Sharma and others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Kamaljit Sharma and others

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

Canara Bank versus Simranjit Singh

Punjab National Bank versus Jujhar Singh alias Jughar Singh and Another

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Pasora Singh and Others

Punjab National Bank versus Baljit Singh

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Gurpinder Singh And Others

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Nanak International and Others