Allowed

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Messrs Amar Nath Megh Raj and Others

DRT4 Sept 2024OA/559/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the bank's application under RDBFI Act, 1993 for recovery of Rs 35,50,817.61 outstanding as ODAP and WCTL-GECL. The Tribunal modified the claimed interest rate from 18% to 8% p.a. and issued a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Order to pay Rs. 35,50,817.61 with 8% p.a. simple interest; Recovery Certificate issued; Liberty to enforce via SARFAESI or attachment.

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Messrs Amar Nath Megh Raj and Others — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.559/2022 PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 02.12.2021

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 04.09.2024

¶5

HDFC Bank Limited, a Banking Company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956, having its Registered Office at HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013, Maharashtra and one of its Branches at PNB Road, Opposite Grain Market, Budhladha, District Mansa and a Branch Office at Plot No.28, Second Floor, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh-160002 through its duly authorized officer Sh. Narender Kumar Nanda, Recovery Manager.

¶6

……..Applicant Bank

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s Amar Nath Megh Raj, through its Proprietor Sh. Amar Nath, son of Sh. Nohar Chand having its principle place of business at Shop No.209, Grain Market, Budhladha-151502, Tehsil & District Mansa,

¶9

Punjab. (Borrower)

¶10

Sh. Amar Nath S/o Sh. Nohar Chand, Proprietor, M/s Amar Nath Megh Raj, Shop No.209, Grain Market, Budhladha-151502, Tehsil and District Mansa, Punjab

¶11

2^nd Address :- House No.158, Ward No.9, near Old Telephone Exchange, Rengeelay Sunyar Wali Gali, Budhladha-151502, Tehsil and District Mansa, Punjab.

¶12

….Proprietor, Mortgagor and Guarantor

¶13

Smt. Tulsi Rani, W/o Sh. Amar Nath, R/o House No.158, Ward No.9, near Old Telephone Exchange, Rengeelay Sunyar Wali Gali, Budhladha-151502, Tehsil and District Mansa, Punjab.

(Guarantor)

………Defendants

Advocates: Argued by Sh. Vijay Sharma, Advocate counsel for the applicant Defendants are ex-parte

¶18

FINAL ORDER

¶19

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.35,50,817.61p (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs Fifty Thousand Eight Hundred Seventeen and Sixty One Paise only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Narender Kumar Nanda, Recovery Manager of the applicant bank, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Board Resolution dated 28.09.2018, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶20

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant No.1 through its proprietor i.e. defendant no.2 had approached the applicant bank for the grant of Overdraft Limit against Property (ODAP) of Rs.25.00 Lacs vide Loan Application dated 09.06.2014, which is Annexure A2 to this OA and further approached the applicant bank for its renewal vide request letter dated 11.12.2015, which is Annexure A12 to this OA. Thereafter also requested the applicant bank for Credit Facility of WCTL-GECL of Rs. 4.36 Lacs. Defendant No.3 stood as guarantor. 3. The applicant Bank sanctioned the Overdraft Limit against Property (ODAP) of Rs.25.00 Lacs vide Initial Sanction Letter dated 03.07.2014, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and further sanctioned from time to time the renewals of OD Limit vide Renewal Sanction Letters Dated 13.07.2015, 22.07.2016, 12.06.2017, 25.06.2018, 26.06.2019 and 18.06.2020 which are Annexures A11, A13, A16, A18, A19 to A24 to this OA. Thereafter sanctioned the Credit facility of WCTL-GECL of Rs.4.36 Lacs vide sanction letter dated 11.06.2020, which is Annexure A-19A to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶21

Defendant nos.2 had mortgage his immovable properties i.e. All that part and Parcel of Residential property admeasuring 111.11 Sq.

¶22

¶23

Yards situated at Ward No.9, Suniyar Rangeelay Wali Gali, Budhladha, District Mansa, Punjab, vide equitable mortgage of Transfer Deed bearing vasika no. 937, dated 31.05.2013 along with its Translation, and affidavit and Title Search Report dated 10.07.2014 which is Annexures A26(colly) to this OA.

¶24

Documents executed:- Demand Promissory Note, letter of Continuing Security, Master Facility Agreement, Letter of Continuing Guarantee and Declaration by customer all dated 04.07.2014, which are Annexures A4 to A6 , A9 & A10(i) to this OA; Memorandum of Recording Past Transactions of creation of Mortgage dated 31.07.2014, which is Annexure A7 to this OA; Declaration cum Indemnity Bond dated 04.08.2014, which is Annexure A8 to this OA; Deed of Indemnity dated 22.07.2014, which is Annexure A-10(ii) to this OA; Demand Promissory Note and Amendment Agreement both dated 25.07.2016, which are Annexures A14 & A15 to this OA; Amendment Agreement dated 15.06.2017, which is Annexure A17 to this OA; Supplementary Deed of Hypothecation, Memorandum recording past transactions of creation of mortgage by title deeds and declaration cum undertaking all dated 11.06.2020, which are Annexures A20 to A22 to this OA; Supplementary letter of continuing Guarantee dated 11.06.2020, which is Annexure A23 to this OA; Addendum dated 18.06.2020, which is Annexure A25 to this OA; Valuation Report dated 08.07.2014, which is Annexure A27 to this OA; Statements of ODAP Account and WCTL-GECL along with certificate, which are Annexures A28 & A29 to this OA and Loan Recall Notice dated 23.07.2021 with postal receipts, which is Annexure 30 to this OA. 5. The loan accounts became irregular and were classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in both the loan accounts there was a debit of Rs.35,50,817.61p, which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notices but they did not repay the

¶25

¶26

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 03.08.2024.

¶27

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Narender Kumar Nanda, Recovery Manager, HDFC Bank Limited has been filed.

¶28

Heard arguments and perused record.

¶29

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 A30 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 loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, both the 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.35,50,817.61p (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs Fifty Thousand Eight Hundred Seventeen and Sixty One 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.

¶30

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has claimed interest @18.00%p.a. with monthly rests from 21.10.2021 till the realization. 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

¶31

¶32

exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @8.00%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 Rs.35,50,817.61p (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs Fifty Thousand Eight Hundred Seventeen and Sixty One Paise only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00%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. 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 27.09.2024. 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: 04.09.2024 (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Messrs Amar Nath Megh Raj and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Messrs Amar Nath Megh Raj 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

Punjab National Bank versus Harmeet Kaur and Others

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Major Singh and Others

Punjab National Bank versus Gurcharan Singh

Idbi Bank Limited versus Gurpreet Singh and Another

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Manjinder Singh and Others

Union Bank of India versus Hardhian Singh and Others