Allowed

Idbi Bank v. Rajesh Kumar Rammoorat Yadav

DRT30 May 2024OA/752/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by IDBI Bank Ltd. for recovery of Rs. 27 lakhs plus interest against defendant Rajesh Kumar Rammoorat Yadav, noting the defendant's default on an auto loan and the lack of opposing defense.

What did the court decide?

Defendant directed to pay Rs. 27,34,018 plus interest within 60 days; otherwise recoverable from sale of assets; restriction on dealing with properties imposed.

Idbi Bank versus Rajesh Kumar Rammoorat Yadav — Company and Corporate | DRT (2024)

¶1

OA 752 of 2022

¶2

Registered on: 23.12.2022 Decided on: 30.05.2024

¶3

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT MUMBAI ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 752 of 2022

¶4

IDBI Bank Ltd., A company incorporated and registered under Indian Companies Act, 1956 [1/1956] and also a banking company under section 5[C] of Banking Regulation Act of 1949 [10/1949], having its head office at IDBI Tower, WTC Complex, Cuffe parade Mumbai 400 005 and having one of its branches amongst other places at Mahim Branch, Mumbai 400 016 and Retail Recovery Department, IDBI Zonal Office, Mittal Court, C-wing, 2^nd Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021. Through Deputy General Manager Mr. Sanjay Valecha

¶5

...APPLICANT

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Rajesh Kumar Rammoorat Yadav . Male, adult, Indian Inhabitant Having address at (i) B/401,New Garden View,Tuing Road, Nallasopara (East),Pin- 401203.

¶8

AND

¶9

Laxmi Bal Chaw, Akurli Road, Damu Nagar, Laxmi Nag, Kandivali , Mumbai – 400101.

...DEFENDANT

OA 752 of 2022

Counsel for the Applicant : Advocate A. W. Barwe. Counsel for the Defendants: Exparte

¶14

J U D G M E N T

¶15

The Original Application has been filed by the Applicant for recovery Rs. 27,34,018/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs Thirty Four Thousand Eighteen Only ), as on 28/09/2022 from the Defendant with further interest thereon @ at the contract rate which is 9.80% as per sanction terms and conditions & penal interest @2% p.a. on overdue amount plus further expenses , cost and charges , from 29/09/2022 till payment and/or realisation.

¶16

Facts as succinctly set out in the OA are that the Defendant applied for Auto Loan for Rs. 24,90,000/- for purchase of Toyota, Fortuner diesel, bearing Engine No. 1GDA302743, Chassis Number MBJGA3GS800384946.

¶17

It is stated that by sanction letter dated 11/09/2019 the Applicant sanctioned Auto Loan Credit facility of Rs.24,90,000.00 which is annexed and marked as Ex. “C” to the Original Application. It is submitted that the Defendant signed and accepted terms and conditions of the sanction.

¶18

In order to secure the aforesaid credit facilities the Defendant have executed the following security document in favour of the Applicants:-

¶19

¶20

OA 752 of 2022

¶21

a. Auto Loan cum Hypothecation Agreement dated

¶22

11/09/2019 for the Auto Loan Credit facility of Rs. 24,90,000=00 wherein the Defendant Hypothecated the Vehicle being Toyota ,Fortuner diesel, bearing Engine No. 1GDA302743, Chassis Number MBJGA3GS800384946 purchased by him for due repayment and discharge on demand of the loan to the bank together with interest (fixed) @ 9.80 % p.a. with monthly rests within 72 months by equated monthly installment (EMI) of Rs. 45,879.00 (Rupees Forty Five Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Nine only).

¶23

b. Demand Promissory Note dated 11/09/2019.

¶24

c. Irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 11/09/2019.

¶25

However, after availing the said Credit Facilities, the Defendant failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the Sanction of aforesaid Credit Facilities and neglected to make the payment to the Applicant. Therefore, the Loan Accounts of the Defendant declared as NPA, on 04.12.2020. Thereafter, the Applicant issued a Legal Notice through its Advocate dated 28.07.2022 and called upon the Defendant to pay the outstanding dues but they failed to pay the dues. Hence, the present OA is filed.

¶26

Notice was issued to the Defendant. Despite service, none appeared for the Defendant nor filed the WS thus, he is proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 08.05.2024.

¶27

¶28

OA 752 of 2022

¶29

The Applicant Bank has produced all the Original Loan documents and other relevant documents along with their Claim Affidavit filed on 17.01.2024 through Assistant Gen. Manager Pamreichon Shimrah.

¶30

I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank and perused the record.

¶31

The witness of the Applicant Bank has fully corroborated the averments made in the OA, even otherwise the whole case of the Applicant Bank is based on documents and the witness has duly proved all these documents as against the Defendant. In my view there is no question of disbelieving the evidence led by the Applicant Bank and the Applicant Bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

¶32

In the light of above discussions, the Original Application deserves to be allowed against the Defendant.

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

(i) I allow the present OA/TA and direct the Defendant to pay to the Applicant Bank, within a period of 60 days, a sum of Rs. 27,34,018/(Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs Thirty Four Thousand Eighteen Only ), as on 28/09/2022 from the Defendant with further interest thereon @ at the contract rate which is 9.80% as per sanction terms and conditions & penal interest @2% p.a. on overdue amount plus further expenses , cost and charges , from 29/09/2022 till payment and/or realisation.

¶35

(ii) Failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecation goods, personal moveable and immoveable assets of the Defendant.

¶36

¶37

OA 752 of 2022

¶38

(iii) Defendant are hereby directed not to deal with their properties till further direction of Ld. Recovery Officer.

¶39

(iv) Defendant shall also pay the cost and expenses of the OA.

¶40

(v) Recovery Certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to the Recovery Officer of this Tribunal.

¶41

Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.

¶42

File be consigned to record.

¶43

Place: Mumbai. Date : 30.05.2024

¶44

(Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar) Presiding Officer,

¶45

DRT-1, Mumbai.

¶46

Idbi Bank v. Rajesh Kumar Rammoorat Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idbi Bank v. Rajesh Kumar Rammoorat Yadav

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

Union Bank of India versus O L Shree Laxmi Traders Ltd.

Union Bank of India versus Ananta Interior

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Ratan Ramchandra Sharma

Idbi Bank versus Sachin Ambadas

Central Bank of India versus M/s. Synotech Polymers Pvt. Ltd.

Idbi Bank versus Jitu Bhagwandas Hinduja