Allowed

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Baba Alakh Ram Educatio

DRT23 Jan 2024OA/95/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT allowed an ex-parte application by HDFC Bank to recover Rs. 21.52 lakhs from three defendants who defaulted on vehicle loans and GECL term loans. The Tribunal fixed uniform simple interest at 8.25% and ordered recovery hypothecation or asset sale.

What did the court decide?

Relief for recovery of Rs. 21.52,715.54 plus costs and simple interest at 8.25% p.a.; Recovery Certificate issued.

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Baba Alakh Ram Educatio — Specific Performance | DRT (2024)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.95/2022

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 11.01.2022

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 23.01.2024 HDFC Bank Limited, having its Registered Office at Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013 and also at Plot No.28, HDFC Bank House, Industrial Area, Phase 1, Chandigarh through its authorized representative, Sh. Rajendra Prasad ……..Applicant Versus 1. Baba Alakh Ram Education through its president, Sh. Jagsir Singh, VPO Biroke Kalan, District Mansa-151502 (Borrower) 2. Colonel Academy through its principal Sh. Jagsir Singh, VPO Biroke Kalan, District Mansa-151502 (Co-Borrower) 3. Sh. Jagsir Singh S/o Sh. Darshan Singh, R/o VPO Biroke Kalan, Near Govt School, District Mansa-151502 (Guarantor) ………Defendants Advocates: Argued by Ms. Dipti Toni, counsel proxy for Sh. Gagandeep Toni, counsel for the applicant Defendants are ex-parte FINAL ORDER 1. Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.21,52,715.54p (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Fifty Two Thousand Seven Hundred Fifteen and Fifty Four Paisa only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Rajendra Prasad, Authorized Representative of the applicant bank, who is competent to institute the Original

¶6

¶7

Application vide Power of Attorney dated 16.10.2021, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶8

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendants had approached the applicant bank for the grant of two Vehicle loans of Rs.8.05 Lacs each vide Loan Application dated 24.06.2019, which is Annexure A2 to this OA and further for the grant of GECL Limit (Term Loan) of Rs.2.94 Lacs.

¶9

The applicant Bank sanctioned the two Vehicle loans of Rs.8.05 Lacs each and further sanctioned GECL Limit (Term Loan) of Rs.2.94 Lacs vide Sanction Letter dated 20.08.2020, which is Annexure A4 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶10

Defendant Nos.1 and 2 had hypothecated its movable properties detailed as:-

¶11

a) Vehicle namely TATA 909 BUS having Engine No.VY800475, Chassis No.E7A00254 and bearing Registration No.PB31L7678; and

¶12

b) Vehicle namely TATA 912 BUS having Engine No.VY800062, Chassis No.E7A00109 and bearing Registration No.PB31L7673; vide Loan facility-cum-Hypothecation dated 20.08.2020, which is

¶13

Annexure A5 to this OA.

¶14

Documents executed: - Agreement for loan and guarantee, Supplemental letter-cum-Guarantee and Declaration-cum-undertaking all dated 16.09.2019, which are Annexures A3, A6 and A7 to this OA; Legal notice dated 28.12.2021, which is Annexure A8 to this OA; Original postal receipts dated 30.12.2021, which are Annexures A9 to A11 to this OA and Statements of accounts, which are Annexures A12 to A14 to this OA. 5. The loan accounts became irregular and were classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan accounts there was a debit of Rs.21,52,715.54p, which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notices but they did not repay the outstanding

¶15

¶16

amount, therefore, the applicant bank requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶17

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 29.12.2023.

¶18

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Rajendra Prasad, Authorized Representative, HDFC Bank Limited has been filed.

¶19

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶20

It was argued by learned proxy counsel that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant bank had proved its case. From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A14 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 loans 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.21,52,715.54p (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Fifty Two Thousand Seven Hundred Fifteen and Fifty Four Paisa only) along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the accounts.

¶21

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has claimed interest @8.25%p.a. in GECL Limit and @11.04%p.a. in Vehicle loans from the date of filing of this application till the realization.

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

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 @8.25%p.a. in all 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.

¶25

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.21,52,715.54p (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Fifty Two Thousand Seven Hundred Fifteen and Fifty Four Paisa only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @8.25%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.

¶26

Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶27

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶28

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 09.02.2024.

¶29

Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant bank 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.

¶30

Pronounced by me in the Open Tribunal.

¶31

Dated: 23.01.2024

¶32

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

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Baba Alakh Ram Educatio

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Baba Alakh Ram Educatio

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

Indian Bank versus Sh. Joginder Singh

Canara Bank versus Sh. Balwinder Singh

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Baldev Singh

Bank of India versus M/s Sheel Auto Industries Pvt. Ltd.

H.D.F.C Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Rakbir Singh

Punjab National Bank versus Smt. Jogta