Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Pratik Goraksha Saswade

DRT3 May 2024OA/546/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application by HDFC Bank Limited for recovery of dues from two defendants who defaultd on commercial vehicle and emergency credit loans. The court adjusted the claim by deducting prepayment and bouncing charges and directed issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs.36,46,137 with future interest at 8.25% p.a.; Recovery Certificate issued; authorization to sell hypothecated Benz Tipper.

Hdfc Bank versus Pratik Goraksha Saswade — Company and Corporate | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on	: 13.03.2022
Registered on	: 17.05.2022
Decided on	: 03.05.2024
Duration	: Y M D
	02 01 16

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 546/2022.

¶3

HDFC Bank Limited,

¶4

A Banking Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and having its branch office at – 21/6, Ground Floor, MIT Marathon, Bund Garden, Pune 411 001.

¶5

.. Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1 Mr. Pratik Goraksha Saswade, Hivare Road, Devkhal Mala, Nr S S Sales Corporation, District Pune 412208.

¶8

2 Mr. Ganesh Goraksha Saswade, Hivare Road, Devkhal Mala, Nr S S Sales Corporation, District Pune 412208.

¶9

.. Defendants

¶10

APPEARANCES

¶11

For Applicant Advocate Pradip Yadav. For Defendants Ex parte.

¶12

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.37,23,104=51

(OA No. 546/2022)

Page 1 of 5

Sanap

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 03^rd May, 2024)

¶17

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.37,23,104=51 together with future interest @8.25% per annum from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendants.

¶18

Brief facts of the application are as under :

¶19

As per the loan application of the defendants, the applicant Bank sanctioned and disbursed the following loan amounts to the defendants.

¶20

Name of the facility	Amount	Date of sanction
Commercial vehicle loan	32,54,000	22.07.2019
Emergency Credit Line	5,80,000	14.09.2020
Guarantee Scheme (ECLGS)

¶21

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendants executed necessary loan and security documents in favour of the applicant Bank along with deed of hypothecation of Benz Tipper bearing RTO Registration No. MH-14-HU-7072, in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶22

The applicant Bank contended that the defendants committed

(OA No. 546/2022)

Page 2 of 5

Sanap

defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the accounts. Therefore, on 06.12.2021, the applicant Bank issued legal Notice to the defendants. Despite service of Notice, the defendants failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank.

¶27

Hence, this application is filed.

¶28

The defendant failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 01.02.2024 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶29

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Amarjit Pandekar, Power of Attorney Holder of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1 to AW-8 along with list (Exhibit 9), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶30

I have heard arguments of the learned Advocate for the applicant Bank.

¶31

Since the defendants failed to appear and contest the application, I find no reason to disbelieve evidence of the applicant Bank. Therefore, the applicant Bank is entitled for reliefs as claimed.

(OA No. 546/2022)

Page 3 of 5

Sanap

The applicant Bank has claimed Prepayment Charges of Rs.69,644/- + Cheque Bouncing Charges of Rs.2,242/- + Rs.5,082/-, total of Rs.76,968/- which cannot be granted and the same is required to be deducted from the total claim amount. Therefore, the total claim amount of Rs.37,23,105/- is reduced to Rs.36,46,137/-.

¶36

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @8.25% per annum. Considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @8.25% per annum (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶37

Hence, I pass the following order :-

¶38

ORDER

¶39

(A) Original Application No. 546/2022 is allowed with proportionate costs.

¶40

(B) Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.36,46,137/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs Forty Six Thousand One Hundred Thirty Seven only) along with future interest @8.25% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 13.03.2022 till

(OA No. 546/2022)

Page 4 of 5

Sanap

full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶45

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting hypothecation of the movable property i.e. Benz Tipper bearing RTO Registration No. MH-14-HU-7072, more particularly described in the Para No. 5.2 of the Original Application.

¶46

(D) The applicant Bank is entitled to sell the hypothecated property to recover its dues.

¶47

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶48

(F) The Registrar is directed to send the copy of Judgment and Recovery Certificate to the applicant and defendants.

¶49

Place : Pune Date : 03.05.2024

¶50

Sd/(Dilip G Murumkar) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶51

(OA No. 546/2022)

¶52

Page 5 of 5

¶53

Sanap

Hdfc Bank v. Pratik Goraksha Saswade

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Pratik Goraksha Saswade

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

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) versus Rajendra

Bank of Maharashtra versus Vitthal

Idbi Bank versus Sadhana Jadhav

Bank of Maharashtra versus Shrinath Roadlines Prop Shri. Rahul Balaso Bhondwe

Bank of Maharashtra versus Arun

Canara Bank versus M/S.Vaibhav Krushi Udyog Prop. Mr, Santosh Vitthal Bhate