Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Vandana Goyal

DRT21 Dec 2024OA/938/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This was an original application by HDFC Bank for recovery of Rs.24,97,309.20 against M/s Vandana Designer Studio for a defaulted business loan. The respondent appeared by way of default. The Tribunal allowed the application, directing recovery of the principal, pendent lite and future interest at 12% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Directed the defendant to pay Rs.24,97,309.20 along with pendent lite and future interest at 12% per annum and costs within 30 days.

Hdfc Bank versus Vandana Goyal — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

O.A. No.938 of 2022

¶2

Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi 4th floor, Jeevan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi

¶3

Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sharma

¶4

O.A. No. 938 of 2022

¶5

HDFC Bank Limited Plot No.31, Najafgarh Industrial Area Tower A, 1st Floor, Shivaji Marg Moti Nagar, New Delhi-110015

¶6

Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s Vandana Designer Studio 1 M Floor, 6137, Block No.1 Street No.5, Dev Nagar Karol Bagh New Delhi-110005

¶9

Also at:

¶10

129, Jamna Apartments, Sector 9, Rohini, Delhi-110085

¶11

Defendant

¶12

Present: Shri Amita Kumari, counsel for the applicant bank

¶13

Date of Institution: 20.10.2022

¶14

Date of Pronouncement: 21.12.2024

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 20.10.2022 through Shri Ms. Swathi Vajjhala, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.24,97,309.20 (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Ninety Seven Thousand Three Hundred Nine & paisa Twenty only) as on 07.10.2022 along with pendentelite and future interest @18.00% per annum with monthly rest

¶17

O.A. No.938 of 2022

¶18

from the date of filing of this application till the date of realization and costs.

¶19

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant vide loan application dated 13.02.2019, the applicant bank sanctioned Business Loan of Rs.21.90 lacs (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Ninety Thousand only) on 27.02.2019 @17.00% interest per annum to be repayable in 68 equated monthly installments of Rs.97,640/-.

¶20

That in order to avail the loan facility, the defendant submitted Loan application on 13.02.2019 and executed Loan Agreement accepting the terms and conditions dated 27.022019 with the applicant bank.

¶21

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facility, the defendant failed to comply with the terms and conditions and despite several requests and reminders, failed to pay the outstanding dues and monthly installments in time to the applicant bank. The applicant bank terminated the agreement and issued demand notice/reminders and finally issued recall loan notice dated 07.10.2022 to adjust the outstanding dues but defendant failed to comply with the notice. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶22

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendant and 5. despite proper service, the defendant has chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 04.12.2023, defendant has been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared before the Tribunal and even no written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have been filed by the defendant.

¶23

O.A. No.938 of 2022

¶24

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Ms Swathi Vajjhala, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as Board Resolution Exhibit AW1/1, Original Loan Application Exhibit AW1/2, Original Loan Agreement Exhibit AW1/3, Legal Notice with Postal Receipts Exhibit AW1/4(colly), Delivery Reports Exhibit AW1/5(colly), Statement of Account with Foreclosure Report Exhibit AW1/6(Colly).

¶25

The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments made in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the applicant bank is based on the documents and the same have been duly proved.

¶26

The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and there is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant bank and the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts.

¶27

As per the provision of Section 19(20) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 which is analogous to Section 34 of CPC, on filing of the suit/claim, the contract between the parties comes to an end and the Court/Tribunal has a discretion to award the same depending upon the circumstances of each case. Same principle has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra & Others. Taking stock of all the circumstances and keeping in view that there is a drastic fall in rates of interest globally and domestically, I am of the opinion that interest of justice will be served if the interest at the rate of 12% p.a. is awarded.

¶28

G.A. No.938 of 2022

¶29

In the light of the above discussions and documents on record, the Original Application deserves to be allowed.

¶30

ORDER

¶31

I, allow this OA and direct the defendant to pay to the applicant bank within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.24,97,309.20 (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Ninety Seven Thousand Three Hundred Nine & paisa Twenty only) as on 07.10.2022 along with pendentelite and future interest @12% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing of this application and costs failing which the amount be realization from hypothecated stock etc. In case of shortfall I default, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable assets of the defendant.

¶32

(II) The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi.

¶33

(III)^{Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery} Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 19.02.2025.

¶34

(IV)^{Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be} sent to all concerned free of cost.

¶35

(GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶36

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 21.12.2024

Hdfc Bank v. Vandana Goyal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Vandana Goyal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Kumar B versus PNB Housing Finance Ltd.

Bank of Baroda versus M/s The Bakery Box

Munna Singh versus Bank of Baroda

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Sabir

Union Bank of India versus Pushpa Devi

Punjab National Bank versus Shri Anand Sharma