Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Dipak Arjun Veer

DRT19 Jun 2024OA/556/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an applicant bank's application for recovery of outstanding loan dues from two defendants who failed to appear. The court adjusted the claim amount by deducting penal interest and granted future interest at 8.25% per annum, secured by hypothecated property.

What did the court decide?

The defendants shall pay the adjusted sum of Rs.35,29,850/- along with future interest at 8.25% per annum. The antecedent hypothecation is affirmed, and a Recovery Certificate was issued.

Hdfc Bank versus Dipak Arjun Veer — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on : 11.03.2022 Registered on : 18.05.2022 Decided on : 19.06.2024 Duration : Y M D 08 03 08

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 556/2022.

¶3

HDFC Bank Limited,

¶4

A Banking Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its branch office at 21/6, Ground Floor, MIT Marathon, Bund Garden, Pune 411001.

¶5

.. Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1 Mr. Dipak Arjun Veer, At Post Bhamburde, Ranjangaon Ganpati, Tal.Shirur, District Pune 412209.

¶8

2 Mr. Sushma Dipak Veer, At Post Bhamburde, Ranjangaon Ganpati, Tal.Shirur, District Pune 412209.

¶9

.. Defendants

¶10

APPEARANCES

¶11

For Applicant Advocate Pradip Yadav. For Defendants Ex parte. TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.35,44,951/-

(OA No. 556/22)

Page 1 of 5

Sanap

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 19^th June, 2024)

¶16

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.35,44,951/- together with future interest @8.25% per annum from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendants .

¶17

Brief facts of the application are as under :

¶18

As per the loan application of the defendant, the applicant Bank sanctioned the equipment loan of Rs.30,17,840/- to the defendant. In order to secure the aforesaid loan, the defendant executed necessary loan and security documents in favour of the applicant Bank along with deed of hypothecation of Hyundai I-20 ASTA CRDI bearing RTO Registration No. MH12-LT-0005 and Tata LPK 2523 bearing RTO Registration No. MH-12-SF-0055, in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶19

Again the defendant approached for Emergency loan and the applicant Bank has sanctioned Emergency loan of Rs.9,69,000/- to the defendant on execution of necessary loan documents by the defendant in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶20

The applicant Bank contended that the defendants committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the

(OA No. 556/22)

Page 2 of 5

Sanap

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.

¶25

Hence, this application is filed.

¶26

The defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 06.02.2024 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶27

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Rohan Madhukar Edake, 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-10 along with list (Exhibit 9), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶28

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

¶29

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.

¶30

The applicant Bank has claimed Penal Interest of Rs.15,101/-,

(OA No. 556/22)

Page 3 of 5

Sanap

which cannot be granted and the same is required to be deducted from the total claim amount. Therefore, the total claim amount of Rs.35,44,951/- is reduced to Rs.35,29,850/-.

¶35

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.

¶36

Hence, I pass the following order :-

¶37

ORDER

¶38

(A) Original Application No. 556/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶39

(B) The defendants either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.35,29,850/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty only) along with future interest @8.25% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 11.03.2022 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

(OA No. 556/22)

Page 4 of 5

Sanap

property i.e. Hyundai I-20 ASTA CRDI bearing RTO Registration No. MH-12-LT-0005 and Tata LPK 2523 bearing RTO Registration No. MH-12-SF-0055, more particularly described in the Para No. 5.2 of the Original Application.

¶45

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

¶46

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶47

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

¶48

Place : Pune Date : 19.06.2024

¶49

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

¶50

(OA No. 556/22)

¶51

Page 5 of 5

¶52

Sanap

Hdfc Bank v. Dipak Arjun Veer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Dipak Arjun Veer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Federal Bank versus Prakash

Uco Bank versus Alka Mhetre

Yes Bank versus Mahesh Popatrao Mansuke

Bank of Maharashtra versus Pushpawati Khaire

Uco Bank versus Vijaykumar Dhawan

State Bank of India versus Niranjan Desai