Allowed

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Pargat Singh and Another

DRT9 Oct 2024OA/680/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed under Section 19 RDBFI Act, 1993, for recovery of Rs. 34,37,706.00. The court declared the defendants liable to pay the sum along with costs and uniform simple interest at 8% p.a., and authorized recovery through mortgage properties.

What did the court decide?

Directed defendants to pay Rs. 34,37,706.00 jointly and severally with costs and interest @8% p.a. Recovery to be effected from mortgaged or personal assets.

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Pargat Singh and Another — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.680/2023 PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 16.02.2023

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 09.10.2024

¶5

HDFC Bank Ltd., having its registered office at Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013 and having its branch office at Bhikkiwind, Tarn Taran, Punjab. Also at HDFC Bank House, Plot No. 28, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh through its Authorized Representative Sh. Harminder Pal Singh.

¶6

……..Applicant Versus

¶7

Sh. Pargat Singh S/o Sh. Lakhbir Singh, R/o Bainka, Bhikiwind, Tarn Taran, Punjab-143303

¶8

Sh. Balraj Singh S/o Sh. Darshan Singh, R/o House No. 19, Balehar, Patti, Tarn Taran, Punjab-143416

¶9

….……Defendants

¶10

Advocates:

¶11

Argued by Sh. Jiteshwar Malhi, Advocate proxy for Sh. Amit Rishi, Advocate for the applicant Defendants are ex-parte

¶12

FINAL ORDER

¶13

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.34,37,706.00 (Rupees Thirty Four Lacs Thirty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred and Six only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Harminder Pal Singh, Authorized Representative o f the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 16.12.2020, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶14

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendants’ no.1 & 2 had approached the applicant for the grant of Cash Credit Limit of Rs.7.19 Lacs and Term Loan of Rs. 2.40 Lacs. The defendants again approached the applicant for enhancement of the existing limit to Rs.

¶15

¶16

23.00 Lacs and DOD of Rs. 4.50 Lacs and OD of Rs. 4.50 Lacs vide Loan application dated 15.10.2016 and 11.02.2019, which are Annexures A2 & A3 to this OA.

¶17

The applicant sanctioned the Cash Credit Limit of Rs.7.19 Lacs and Term Loan of Rs. 2.40 Lacs. The applicant further sanctioned the enhancement of the existing limit to Rs. 23.00 Lacs and DOD of Rs. 4.50 Lacs and OD of Rs. 4.50 Lacs vide Sanction Letter dated 14.05.2012, 26.10.2016 and 25.02.2019, which are Annexures A4 to A7 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶18

Defendants No.1 had mortgaged his immovable properties i.e. total land measuring 72K-00M situated at Village Bainka, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran (Punjab) vide Declaration under section 4 (1) dated 28.10.2016 along with its Translations, which is Annexure A13 to this OA. Documents executed:- Agreement for Cash Credit, Agreement for Term Loan both dated 12.06.2012, which are Annexures A8 & A9 to this OA; Agreement for Cash Credit dated 31.10.2016 and 25.02.2019, which are Annexures A10 to A12 to this OA; Title Search Report dated 26.10.2016, which is Annexure A14 to this OA; Demand Notice dated 15.12.2022 along with postal Receipts, which is Annexure A15 to this OA and Statement of CC Account and Statement of Term Loan Account along with Certificate under Bankers Book of Evidence, which are Annexures A16 & A17 to this OA.

¶19

The loan accounts became irregular and were classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in all the loan accounts there was a debit of Rs.34,37,706.00, which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notices but they did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant 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 30.09.2024.

¶20

¶21

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Harminder Pal Singh, Authorized Representative, HDFC Bank Ltd.h as been filed.

¶22

Heard arguments and perused record.

¶23

It was argued by learned proxy counsel that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case. From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A17 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant 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 applicant. The defendants failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, accounts of the defendants were classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.34,37,706.00 (Rupees Thirty Four Lacs Thirty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred and Six only) along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the account.

¶24

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @12.00%p.a. with half yearly rests plus penal interest @16.00%p.a. in CC Account and @13.00%p.a. with half yearly rests plus penal interests @24.00%p.a. in Term Loan from 01.12.2022 till the realization.

¶25

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 exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @8.00%p.a. in

¶26

¶27

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.34,37,706.00 (Rupees Thirty Four Lacs Thirty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred and Six 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 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 applicant 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.

¶28

Any other application pending stands disposed of. 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶29

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 24.10.2024.

¶30

Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant 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.

¶31

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 09.10.2024

¶32

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Pargat Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Pargat Singh and Another

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

Bank of Baroda versus Shalpa and Another

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Nonihal Singh and Another

Bank of India versus Sukhdev Singh and Others

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Dilpreet Knitting Works and Others

Bank of India versus M/S Hari Om Steel Traders and Others

Icici Bank Limited versus Pargat Singh and Another