Allowed

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Sushil Kumar and Another

DRT28 Nov 2024OA/785/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of Rs. 68,17,199.40p advanced as commercial and term loans. The court ruled the loan accounts NPA due to default, granted uniform interest at 6.77% p.a., and ordered recovery from hypothecated properties.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 68,17,199.40p with simple interest @ 6.77% p.a.; Authorization to recover from hypothecated properties.

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sushil Kumar and Another — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2024)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.785/2024

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BYMRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 07.06.2024

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 28.11.2024

¶6

HDFC Bank Limited, having its registered office at Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel-(West) Mumbai-400013 Having its Branch Office at: Pathankot, Punjab Also at: Plot No.1-15, Sector-101, Alpha City, Mohali Through its Authorized Representative Sh. Rajendra Prasad.

¶7

……..Applicant Versus

¶8

1. Sh. Sushil Kumar S/o Sh. Prem Chand R/o Village New Gugran P.O. Sujanpur, Pathankot, Punjab-145023.

¶9

Sh. Sunil Kumar S/o Sh. Prem Chand R/o Village New Gugran,

¶10

P.O. Sujanpur, Pathankot, Punjab-145023

¶11

………. Defendants

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

Argued by Sh. Karan Yuvraj, Advocate proxy for Sh. Amit Rishi, Advocate for the applicant None for Defendants

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

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.68,17,199.40p (Rupees Sixty Eight Lacs Seventeen Thousand One Hundred Ninety Nine And Paise Forty Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Rajendra Prasad, Authorized Representative of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Board Resolution dated 16.10.2021, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶16

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendants had approached the applicant for grant of Commercial Vehicle Loan I of Rs.33.00 Lacs and Term Loan I for its Body Making of Rs.5.00 Lacs & further for another Commercial Vehicle Loan II of Rs.45.50 Lacs and

¶17

¶18

Term Loan II for its Body Making of Rs.3.00 Lacs vide Loan Applications dated 16.02.2022, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶19

The applicant sanctioned Commercial Vehicle Loan of Rs.33.00 Lacs and Term Loan for its Body Making of Rs.5.00 Lacs & further sanctioned another Commercial Vehicle Loan of Rs.45.50 Lacs and Term Loan for its Body Making of Rs.3.00 Lacs.

¶20

Defendants had hypothecated their movable properties i.e. Commercial Vehicles namely:(i). TATA SIGNA 5525 BS VI, bearing Registration no. PB04AE5572, Engine no. 22A84966577 and Chassis no.MAT828022NAA01124 (ii). TATA LPT 4825 G BSVI, bearing Registration no. PB06AL0072, Engine no. B6.7B6A25D0D02122J64236720 and Chassis no. MAT820006N1J27126. Documents executed:- Agreement for Loan and Guarantee dated 23.02.2022, 19.10.2022 and 28.11.2022, which are Annexures A3 to A5 to this OA; Demand Notice dated 16.05.2024 with postal receipts, which is Annexure A6 to this OA; Statement of accounts along with copy of certificate under Bankers’s Book of Evidence, which are Annexures A7 to A10 to this OA and Delhi High Court Judgment, which is Annexure A11 to this OA.

¶21

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.68,17,199.40p, which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notices but they did not repay the 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 22.10.2024. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Rajendra Prasad, Authorized Representative, HDFC Bank Limited, has been filed. 8. Heard arguments and perused record.

¶22

¶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 A11 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, 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.68,17,199.40p (Rupees Sixty Eight Lacs Seventeen Thousand One Hundred Ninety Nine And Paise Forty Only) along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of all the accounts.

¶24

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @6.77%p.a.in Term Loan I, interest @8.31%p.a. in Term Loan II, interest @6.91% in Commercial Loan II interest and @8.29% in Commercial Loan II along with penal interest @2.00%p.a. with monthly rests from 18.06.2024 till the realization.

¶25

The Tribunal is of the considered opinion that sometimes inappropriate 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 defendant, 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 @06.77%p.a. in 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.

¶26

¶27

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.68,17,199.40p (Rupees Sixty Eight Lacs Seventeen Thousand One Hundred Ninety Nine And Paise Forty Only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @6.77%p.a. in all 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.

¶28

Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶29

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶30

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 02.01.2025

¶31

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.

¶32

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 28.11.2024.

¶33

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

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Sushil Kumar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Sushil Kumar 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

Union Bank of India versus Charanpreet Kaur and others

Indian Bank versus Ajmer Singh and Another

The Federal Bank Limited versus Sarabjeet Kaur and Another

Icici Bank Limited versus Sarabhjit Singh and Others

Icici Bank Limited versus Messrs Shah Trading Co. and Others

Idbi Bank Limited versus Avtar Singh and Another