Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Kandaswamy Rajalakshmi

DRT12 Feb 2024TA/10/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the transfer application filed by HDFC Bank Ltd against the defendant for recovery of a SelfEmployed Professional loan. The bank proved its claim through uncontroverted documentary evidence while the defendant remained ex parte.

What did the court decide?

Allowed TA No. 10/2023; permitted recovery of Rs. 37,53,060.80P with simple interest at 11.75% p.a.; issued Recovery Certificate; allowed cost of proceedings.

Hdfc Bank versus Kandaswamy Rajalakshmi — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI Dated this 12^th day of February, 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

T.A. No. 10 of 2023 (Old OA. No. 243/2021-DRT-I, Chennai)

¶4

HDFC Bank Ltd, IFSC CODE: -HDFC0000441 PAN NO: AAACH2702H Represented by its Authorized Signatory, Mr. P. Nirmalraj, “Ceebros”, No: 110, 4^th Floor, Nelson Manickam Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai-600029 … Applicant

¶5

¶6

Ms. Kandaswamy Rajalakshmi (PAN No: ACHPR6040C) Villa No.195, Casa Grand, Phase II, Thalambur, Chennai-603103. .. . Defendant Counsel for Applicant : M/s. Deepa Harigovind Defendant : Exparte

..…

ORDER

The above Transfer Application is filed under section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act seeking recovery of Rs.37,53,060.80P (Rupees Thirty Seven Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand Sixty and Eighty Paise only)with further interest from the date of filing of the TA and also by allowing the same to be recovered from the defendantand his assets.

¶11

The above original application is filed before the DRT-I and stood transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as above.

¶12

The case of the Applicant Bank can be encapsulated as follows:

¶13

The defendant approached the Applicant Bankand availed a SelfEmployed Professional loan for Rs.35,00,000/-.

¶14

It is also stated that theabove facilities were availed after execution of necessary loan documents by the defendant, obliging herself to repay the amount promptly and regularly, without fail in 60 monthly installments of Rs.77,414/-

¶15

Even though the defendant had obliged themselves to repay the amountpromptly and regularly, she failed to do so resulting defaults in the account and the same being declared as NPAon 06.12.2020.

¶16

¶17

The Applicant Bank’s officials had on many occasions approached the defendant, requesting her to regularize the account and despite the same, no effort was made by the defendant to get the account regularized over to pay back the amount. Even as no repayment was made despite repeated requests, the Applicant Bankhad on 10.02.2021,caused to issue a legalnotice requiring repayment of the amount due in the account.

¶18

It is also the case of the Applicant Bank that despite repeated reminders and requests, the defendanthad failed to make the repayment forcing the Applicant Bank to file this TA seeking recovery of the amount due in the account with further interest and cost.

¶19

Even as the defendant failed to enter appearance, she was setexparte on26.05.2023.

¶20

The Applicant Bank had let in evidence through AW1 who had sworn to

¶21

a Proof Affidavit in terms of the pleadings in the TA and also produced ExhibitsA1 to A9and got the same marked in evidence.

¶22

Heard the counsel for the Applicant Bank and considered the contention as taken in the TAin the light of documentary evidence and proof affidavit.

¶23

¶24

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter.

¶25

i) Whether the Applicant Bank had succeeded in proving the TA claim?

¶26

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶27

Boththese issues are gone into and decided together.

¶28

The case put forth by the Applicant Bank in the Application remainsunrebutted as defendant remain exparte. The evidences tendered by the Applicant Bank remainsuncontroverted and undisputed. The evidences put forth by the Applicant Bank were found admissible. From the statement of accounts as produced by the Applicant Bank, it is evident that the amount as claimed in the TA is outstanding in the account, which the Applicant Bank is entitled to get recovered from the defendant personally and her assets. The claim of the Applicant Bank is well within the period of limitation and there is no Capitalization of penal interest.Since the TA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at agreed rate which is on the higher side, the pendentelite and future interest is awarded at simple rate.

¶29

In view of the finding as entered above

¶30

i) TA No: 10/2023 stands allowed.

¶31

¶32

ii) Applicant Bank is permitted to recover anamount of Rs.37,53,060.80P (Rupees Thirty Seven Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand Sixty and Eighty PaisaOnly)with future and pendentelite interest @ 11.75%p.a. (simple)from the date of filing of the TA till realization from thedefendant personallyand her assets after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the TA.

¶33

iii) Recovery Certificate is to be drawn and issued to the Recovery officer to enable recovery of the amounts as per the above terms.

¶34

iv) Applicant Bank is allowed to realize cost of the proceedings for which cost memo is to be filed in 7 days’ time from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

¶35

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶36

terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶37

(Dictated to PA-2, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 12^th day of February, 2024)

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

¶40

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT–II, CHENNAI

¶41

Hdfc Bank v. Kandaswamy Rajalakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Kandaswamy Rajalakshmi

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

Canara Bank versus M/s.Subish Plastics

Indian Overseas Bank versus Mr. v. Pachamuthu

Bank of India versus Veeralakshmi

Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank) versus Palkannan

Indian Bank versus Rare India Exim Pvt. Ltd.

Indian Bank versus Mr. S. Parthasarathy