Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Rakesh Kumar

DRT6 Feb 2024OA/563/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HDFC Bank Limited filed an application under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against four respondents for recovery of an agricultural loan of approx. Rs. 2.08 crore. The Tribunal allowed the application ex parte, holding respondents liable for the principal and modified the claimed interest rate to 9% per annum, issuing a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay Rs. 2,08,36,076.26 with simple interest @ 9% p.a. from 28.03.2023. Recovery Certificate issued. Struck off other interest claims.

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Rakesh Kumar — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, CHANDIGARH, PRESIDED OVER BY M.M. DHONCHAK

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 563/2023

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 28.03.2023

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 06^th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

HDFC Bank Limited , a Banking Company, carrying on the banking business under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013, whereas Branches amongst the other places one at HDFC Bank Limited, Ward No.8, Civil Road, Samta Chowk, Gohana, District Sonepat, Haryana, through Sh. Jatinder Mishra, Manager (Agriculture Legal), HDFC Bank, Plot Nos. 1-15, Sector 101, Alpha, IT City, Mohali, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, Punjab, being Power of Attorney holder of the Bank

¶6

…..Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Rakesh Kumar s/o Sh. Baljeet r/o Shop No. 73, New Anaj Mandi, Gohana, Sonepat, Haryana-131301

¶9

Sh. Somvir Singh s/o Sh. Baljeet Singh r/o Shop No. 73, New Anaj Mandi, Gohana, Sonepat, Haryana-131301

¶10

Sh. Baljeet Singh s/o Sh. Chatter Singh r/o Shop No. 73, New Anaj Mandi, Gohana, Sonepat, Haryana-131301

¶11

Sh. Ravinder Singh s/o Sh. Surjit Singh r/o Bhawar, Sonepat, Haryana

¶12

....Defendants

¶13

Argued by: Sh. K.P.S. Dhillon counsel for the applicant bank Defendants ex parte vide order dated 04.09.2023

¶14

OA/563/2023 HDFC BANK VS RAKESH KUMAR AND OTHERS 2

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity), a gainst the defendants for recovery of Rs.2,08,36,076.26/- (Rupees Two Crore Eight Lakh Thirty Six Thousand Seventy Six and Twenty Six Paisa Only) . It has been filed through Sh. Jatinder Mishra, Manager (Agriculture Legal) of the applicant bank stated to be competent to institute the Original Application vide General Power of Attorney dated 27.10.2020, Annexure-P/A (copy).

¶17

The brief facts of the case of the applicant as per Original Application are that defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 had approached the applicant bank for grant of Cash Credit Facility-I of Rs. 20.90 lakh, Cash Credit Facility-II of Rs. 50 lakh and Cash Credit Facility-III of Rs. 1,09,10,000/- vide loan application dated 15.01.2021 for retail agriculture loan, Annexure-A1 (copy). Defendant No. 4 stood as a guarantor for repayment of the loan.

¶18

The applicant bank sanctioned aforesaid facilities to the defendants vide sanction letters dated 25.03.2021, Annexures-A2, A3 and A4 (copy), as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶19

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facilities, the defendants executed overdraft/cash credit-cum-guarantee-cumhypothecation agreements dated 25.03.2021, Annexures-A5 and

¶20

OA/563/2023 HDFC BANK VS RAKESH KUMAR AND OTHERS 3

¶21

A6 (copy) and dropline overdraft-cum-hypothecation–cum-guarantee agreement dated 25.03.2021, Annexure-A7 (copy).

¶22

The aforesaid loan facilities were further secured by creation of mortgage by defendant No. 2 in respect of agricultural land measuring 183 Kanal 10 Marla situated in the revenue estate of Bhawar, Tehsil Gohana, District Sonepat, Haryana, fully detailed in para No. 5(vi) of the Original Application.

¶23

The documents relating to the mortgage are as under:

¶24

i. Declaration dated 19.03.2021 under Section 4(1) of the Haryana Agricultural Credit Operations and Miscellaneous Provisions (Banks) Act, 1973, Annexure-A8 (copy).

¶25

ii. Request letter dated 19.03.2021 to the Tehsildar, Gohana, for entry/mutation of mortgaged property along with affidavit dated 24.03.2021 regarding mortgaged property, AnnexureA9 (colly) (copy).

¶26

It is further the case of the applicant bank that the loan facilities were duly availed of by the defendants but they failed to maintain the financial discipline of the applicant bank leading to the loan accounts becoming irregular and those being classified as NPA on 01.10.2022. The applicant bank recalled entire outstanding amount vide legal notice dated 22.02.2023 along with postal receipts, Annexure-A13 (colly) (copy), but to no avail.

¶27

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan accounts, a sum of Rs.2,08,36,076.26/- (Rupees Two Crore Eight Lakh Thirty Six

¶28

Thousand Seventy Six and Twenty Six Paisa Only) is recoverable against the defendants as per statements of accounts,

¶29

OA/563/2023 HDFC BANK VS RAKESH KUMAR AND OTHERS 4

¶30

duly certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891,

¶31

Annexures-A10, A11 and A12 (colly) (copy).

¶32

Since the defendants did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant bank preferred the present Original Application for issuance of Recovery Certificate.

¶33

Notices of the Original Application were duly served upon the defendants, but since none appeared on behalf of the defendants, thus, the defendants were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 04.09.2023 .

¶34

In support of contents of the OA, affidavit of evidence of Sh. Raman Sharma, Senior Legal Manager of the applicant bank was filed.

¶35

This Tribunal has heard ex-parte arguments advanced by the learned counsel and gone through the record carefully.

¶36

It was argued by the learned counsel that in view of unrebutted documentary evidence brought on record, the applicant bank had proved its case against the defendants for recovery of the amount sought. From perusal of Annexures-P/A, A1 to A13 , it is clear that the defendants had approached the applicant bank for availing of the loan facilities which were granted to them. It is further clear that the defendants had executed all the relevant documents as stated above in favour of the applicant bank. Unfortunately, the defendants failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement executed between the parties. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant bank is entitled to recover a sum of

¶37

Rs.2,08,36,076.26/- (Rupees Two Crore Eight Lakh Thirty Six

¶38

OA/563/2023 HDFC BANK VS RAKESH KUMAR AND OTHERS 5

¶39

Thousand Seventy Six and Twenty Six Paisa Only)) from the defendants.

¶40

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause, has claimed rate of interest @9.10% per annum with half yearly rests. In sanction letters dated 25.03.2021, Annexures-A2, A3 and A4 (copy), the rate of interest has been mentioned @9.10 % for all facilities.

¶41

This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that sometimes in appropriate cases the prerogatives of mercy and magnanimity are the brightest jewels in the crown of the Judge. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case including the Pandemic Covid-19 affecting businesses, nature of the mortgaged property, purpose of loan, i.e. agricultural , present conditions of economy based on agriculture, quantum of loan, prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yesteryears, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the OA till realisation of the amount ordered vide this order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶42

In the result, the Original Application is allowed with costs holding that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum of Rs.2,08,36,076.26/- (Rupees Two Crore Eight Lakh Thirty Six Thousand Seventy Six and Twenty Six Paisa Only) with current and future simple interest @9% per annum w.e.f. 28.03.2023 , till the date of realisation of the amount. The liability of the defendants shall be joint as well as several. Accordingly, the applicant bank shall be at liberty to recover

¶43

OA/563/2023 HDFC BANK VS RAKESH KUMAR AND OTHERS 6

¶44

aforesaid amount from the sale of mortgaged/hypothecated property of the defendants in execution proceedings, if not sold earlier under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 or otherwise. If the dues of the bank still remain unsatisfied, the applicant bank shall be at liberty to recover the same by attachment and sale of personal assets of the defendants. However, the applicant bank is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶45

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶46

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 20.03.2024.

¶47

Copy of this order be sent to the applicant bank and the defendants through registered/speed post. This order be uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal.

¶48

Pronounced in the open Tribunal (M.M. Dhonchak)

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Rakesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Rakesh Kumar

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

Bushara Aseez versus Authorised Officer South Indian Bank

Aseena versus Urban Co. operative Bnak Ltd.

Indian Bank versus Ms Shree Hari Fuels

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Mohammad Reja Alam

State Bank of India versus Niduram Hanmaiah

C K Prakasan versus Catholic Syrian Bank Limited