Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. M/s.L W Bottings Private Limited

DRT25 Mar 2024TA/248/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This an application under Section 19(1) of the RDB Act for a recovery certificate. The DRT found the bank's evidence un-rebutted and admissible. The claim was within limitation. The application was allowed with a recovery certificate directed to be issued.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate to be issued for Rs. 26,82,126.79 plus interest; 2nd defendant held personally liable; costs awarded.

Hdfc Bank versus M/s.L W Bottings Private Limited — Consumer Protection | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI Dated this 25^th day ofMarch, 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

T.A.No.248of 2023

¶4

(Old OA.No.29/2021-DRT-I, Chennai)

¶5

HDFC Bank Ltd., 1st floor, ‘Ceebros”, 110, Nelson Manickam Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai – 600 029

¶6

…Applicant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

M/s L&W Bottlings Pvt. Ltd., 63/38, 5th floor, Prasanth Apartments, Plot No. 139, 63, Gandhi Nagar, `1st Main road Adyar, Chennai – 600 020.

¶9

Sanjay Mohan S/o. Mohan Plot No. 18, 4th main road, VGP Golden, Sea View Layout 2nd part, Palavakkam, Chennai – 600041 …Defendants Counsel for Applicant : M/s.S. Namasivayam and Co. Defendant : Exparte ……

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The Application is filed Under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of DebtsAnd Bankruptcy Act,1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery

¶12

Certificate for a total sum of Rs.26,82,126.79Pdue underthe Auto

¶13

¶14

Premium Loan A/calong with future interest and costsand for sale of schedule mentioned property.

¶15

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

¶16

The Applicant Bank contends thatan Auto Premium Loan credit facility of Rs.42,00,000/- was availed by the defendants. It is also stated that the facilities are secured by hypothecationof schedule mentioned properties.

¶17

It is also stated that the above facilities were availed after execution of necessary loan documents by the defendants on 29.09.2016, obliging to repay the amount promptly and regularly, without fail.

¶18

The Applicant Bank further contends that despite availing the credit facilities by obliging to pay back the amounts, the defendants failed in compliance of the same and all the efforts of the Applicant Bank to make the defendants pay back the amounts failed, forcing the Applicant Bank to file this Application.

¶19

Summons was taken out and as defendants failed to enter appearance, they were set exparte on 06.06.2022.

¶20

The Applicant Bank let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A8.

¶21

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration.

¶22

¶23

i. Whether the Applicant Bank had proved the TA claim?

¶24

ii. What orders are to be passed?

¶25

Both these issues are decided together.

¶26

The Applicant Bank’s evidences remain un-rebutted and hence proved. The documents produced by the Applicant Bank are found to be admissible and are sufficient to prove the TA claim. Hence the Applicant Bank is found to be entitled for the TA claim. The TA claim is made within limitation and there is no capitalization of penal interest.

¶27

In view of the above:

¶28

i. TA. No: 248of 2023 stands allowed.

¶29

ii. Applicant Bank is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.26,82,126.79P(Rupees Twenty SixLakhs Eighty TwoThousand OneHundred Twenty Six and Seventy Nine Paisa Only)together with future and pendentelite interest @ 9.26% p.a. (simple)from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendants jointly and severallyand also proceeding against their assets including the hypotheca.

¶30

iii. It is made clear that the 2^nd defendant is personally liable for all the amounts due.

¶31

¶32

iv. It is further ordered that any amount remitted or realized during the course of the proceedings, shall be given due credit to the loan account of the defendants.

¶33

v. A Recovery Certificate is to be drawn and issued to the Recovery Officer to enable recovery of the amounts as per the above terms.

¶34

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

¶36

(Dictated to PA-2, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 25^th day ofMarch, 2024)

¶37

Sd/- (T. RAJESH)

¶38

PRESIDING OFFICER DRT–II, CHENNAI

¶39

Hdfc Bank v. M/s.L W Bottings Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. M/s.L W Bottings Private Limited

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

Hdfc Bank versus Kathiresan Kailasappan

Canara Bank versus Mr J Arul

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited versus Sri Simma Associates

Bamk of Baroda versus S. Indira

Indian Overseas Bank versus Muthukumar

Bank of Baroda versus . G. Rajesh