Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Ak Engineering

DRT19 Jan 2024OA/661/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application by HDFC Bank against AK Engineering and others. The court decreed the recovery of Rs. 20,39,942.07 plus uniform simple interest at 8% per annum from the date of filing, issuing a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate commanding the recovery of Principal amount Rs. 20,39,942.07 along with simple interest @8% per annum from the date of filing.

Hdfc Bank versus Ak Engineering — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.661/2023

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 12.04.2023

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 19^th DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶5

HDFC Bank Limited , having its registered office at Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel-(West), Mumbai-400013, also at Plot No. 1-15, Sector 101, ALPHA IT City, SAS Nagar (Mohali), through its Authorised Representative, Sh. Kabir Chopra

¶6

….. Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

AK Engineering, through its Proprietor, Sh. Vijay Kumar Yadav, shop Nos. 3 and 4, in front of plot No. 24, Sector 8, IMT Manesar, Gurgaon-122051

¶9

Sh. Vijay Kumar Yadav s/o Sh. Ram Naresh Yadav, House No. 612, Street No. 3, Rajeev Nagar, Near Sheetla P.G. Gurgaon122001

¶10

Sh. Ashok Kumar s/o Sh. Jagadish, Pachokhara-Khurd, PateharaKhurd, Near HP Petrol Pump, Mirzapur-231310

¶11

….. Defendants

¶12

Argued by: Ms Dipti Toni proxy counsel for Sh. Gagandeep Toni, Advocate for the applicant bank Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 ex parte vide order dated 20.09.2023 Defendant No. 3 ex parte vide order dated 28.06.2023

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank

¶15

under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy

¶16

OA/661/2023 HDFC BANK Vs AK ENGINEERING AND OTHERS 2

¶17

Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity), against the defendants for recovery of Rs.20,39,942.07/(Rupees Twenty Lakh Thirty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Two and Seven Paisa Only) . It has been filed through Sh. Kabir Chopra, Authorised Representative of the applicant bank stated to be competent to institute the Original Application vide Resolution of Board dated 16.10.2021, Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶18

The brief facts of the case of the applicant as per the Original Application are that the defendants had approached the applicant bank for grant of Commercial Loans for Vehicles for a sum of Rs. 3,24,756/- and Rs. 22,13,375/- vide loan application Form dated 14.04.2021, Annexure-A2 (copy).

¶19

The applicant bank sanctioned aforesaid facilities to the defendants, as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶20

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facilities, the defendants executed loan and guarantee agreement dated 22.04.2021, Annexure-A3 (copy).

¶21

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. The applicant bank recalled the entire outstanding amount vide legal notice dated 30.01.2023, Annexure-A4 (copy) and original postal receipts, Annexures- A5, A6 and A7 (copy), but to no avail.

¶22

OA/661/2023 HDFC BANK Vs AK ENGINEERING AND OTHERS 3

¶23

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan accounts, a sum of Rs.20,39,942.07/(Rupees Twenty Lakh Thirty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Two and Seven Paisa Only), is recoverable against the defendants as per statements of accounts, duly certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891, Annexures-A8 and A9 (copy).

¶24

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

¶25

Notices of the Original Application were duly served upon the defendants, but since none appeared on behalf of the defendants, thus, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 20.09.2023 and defendant No.3 was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 28.06.2023.

¶26

In support of contents of the OA, affidavit of evidence of Sh. Kabir Chopra, Manager Legal of the applicant bank was filed.

¶27

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

¶28

It was argued by the learned proxy counsel of the applicant bank 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-A1 to A9, it is clear that the defendants had approached the applicant bank for availing of the loan facilities which

¶29

OA/661/2023 HDFC BANK Vs AK ENGINEERING AND OTHERS 4

¶30

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 Rs.20,39,942.07/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Thirty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Two and Seven Paisa Only) from the defendants.

¶31

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause, has claimed rate of interest @9.01% per annum. In loan and guarantee agreement dated 22.04.2021, Annexure-A3 (copy), rate of interest has been mentioned @9.01% per annum.

¶32

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, purpose of loan, i.e. purchase of

¶33

commercial vehicles make TATA HITACHI B 60 AND TATA BX80 BACKHOE LOADER, quantum of loan and 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 @8% per annum from the date of filing of the OA till realisation of the amount ordered vide this order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶34

OA/661/2023 HDFC BANK Vs AK ENGINEERING AND OTHERS 5

¶35

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.20,39,942.07/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Thirty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Two and Seven Paisa Only) with current and future simple interest @8% per annum w.e.f. 12.04.2023 , till the date of realisation of the amount. The liability of the defendants shall be joint as well as several. If the dues of the bank remain unsatisfied, the applicant bank shall be at liberty to recover the same by attachment and sale of hypothecated/personal assets of the defendants. However, the applicant bank is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶36

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶37

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 07.03.2024 .

¶38

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.

¶39

Pronounced in the open Tribunal (M.M. Dhonchak) Presiding Officer DRT-2, Chandigarh

Hdfc Bank v. Ak Engineering

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Ak Engineering

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

Idbi Bank versus M/s Gilead Communication

Canara Bank versus Sri Bharat Deka

Ms Shree Devnath Infratech Private Ltd. versus Union Bank of India

Union Bank of India versus M/S Kanhiya Beverages

State Bank of India versus Smt. Inderjeet Kaur

State Bank of India versus Sh. Suresh Pal