Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Tamaraparani Enterprises and Reality Pvt. Ltd.

DRT27 Mar 2024TA/541/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the transfer application filed by HDFC Bank Ltd. for recovery of loan dues. Despite defendants being absent, the undisputed evidence established the debt. The Tribunal awarded recovery of the principal amount along with simple interest instead of compound interest.

What did the court decide?

Applicant permitted to realize Rs.32,30,392.51p with simple interest @10% p.a. and recover costs.

Hdfc Bank versus Tamaraparani Enterprises and… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 27^th day of March, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

TA No.541 of 2023

¶6

(Originally filed before DRT-I Chennai as OA No.555 of 2019 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.541 of 2023)

¶7

M/s HDFC Bank Ltd.,

¶8

Represented by its Senior Manager Having Office at “Retail Asset Division” No.110, Ceebros Building 4^th Floor, Nelson Manikkam Road Aminjikarai, Chennai – 600 029 …Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

M/s Tamarabarani Enterprises and Reality Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Diretor, Mr. Kathir Kamaraj 33/34, 2^nd Street, Anjugam Nagar Jafferkhanpet, Chennai Tamil Nadu - 600 083

¶11

Also at No.16/37, Raja Annamalai Puram Mandavelopakkam Compound West Avvai Nagar North, Chennai Tamil Nadu – 600 028

¶12

Mr. Kathir Kamaraj. K No.16/37, Raja Annamalai Puram Mandavelopakkam Compound West Avvai Nagar North, Chennai

¶13

Tamil Nadu – 600 028 …Defendants

¶14

Counsel for the Applicant Bank : M/s D. Sathyaraj, S. Sheik Ismail & J. Prince Defendants : Ex- parte

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

This application is filed by the applicant bank under Section 19(1) of Recovery of

¶17

Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of

¶18

¶19

Rs.7,26,927.39p together with interest at the rate of 11.04% per annum with monthly rests being the amount due under loan account No.81810974; a sum of Rs.4,34,404.78p together with interest at the rate of 11.06% per annum with monthly rests being the amount due under loan account No.81864099 & 81864091 and a sum of Rs.20,69,060.34p together with interest at the rate of 11.01% per annum being the amount due under loan account Nos.82029568, 82029569 & 82029567 from the date of filing of the TA till the date of realization in full along with costs of this application and for of schedule mentioned properties.

¶20

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

¶21

The case of the applicant is as follows: -

¶22

(a) The 1^st defendant represented by its Director, the 2^nd defendant approached the applicant on 4.1.2016 for grant of credit facilities for purchase of CAT Excavator 320-NONREGD and the applicant considering the said request sanctioned a loan of Rs.57,15,000/- on 5.1.2016. The 1^st defendant represented by the 2^nd defendant executed necessary loan document on 5.1.2016.

¶23

(b) The 1^st defendant represented by its Director, the 2^nd defendant again approached the applicant on 4.2.2016 for grant of credit facilities for purchase of Atlas COPCO HYD Breakers and the applicant considering the said request sanctioned a loan of Rs.45,20,000/-. The 1^st defendant represented by the 2^nd defendant executed necessary loan document on 4.2.2016.

¶24

¶25

(c) Again, The 1^st defendant represented by its Director, the 2^nd defendant approached the applicant on 30.03.2016 for grant of credit facilities for purchase of MAN 25.280 TIPPER and the applicant considering the said request sanctioned a loan of Rs.89,25,654/-. The 1^st defendant represented by the 2^nd defendant executed necessary loan document on 30.03.2016.

¶26

(d) The defendants after availing the credit facilities, purchased the above mentioned Commercial Vehicles, the details of which are more fully described in Schedule to the TA.

¶27

It is further stated that even though the defendant had obliged to repay the amount promptly and regularly, they failed to do so resulting in default in repayment and hence the account was classified as NPA.

¶28

It is contended by the applicant that the applicant’s officials had on many occasions approached the defendants requesting them to regularize the account and despite the same no effort was made by the defendants to get the account regularized or to pay back the amount. Hence the applicant issued a legal notice on 05.02.2019 calling upon the defendants to clear the outstanding dues.

¶29

It is also the case of the applicant that despite repeated reminders and requests the defendants failed to make the repayment forcing the applicant to file this TA seeking recovery of the amount due in the account with further interest and costs.

¶30

¶31

The defendants though represented by a Ld. Counsel did not choose to file their reply statement and hence the chance for filing reply statement was closed on 21.06.2022 and as the defendant remained absent they were called absent and set ex-parte on 02.01.2024.

¶32

The applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who had sworn to a Proof Affidavit in terms of the pleading in the TA and also produced Exhibits A-1 to A-14 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶33

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and considered the contentions as taken in the TA in the light of documentary evidence and proof affidavit.

¶34

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter: -

¶35

(i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the TA claim as against the defendants?

¶36

(ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶37

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶38

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendants remained ex-parte. The evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed. The evidences put forth by the applicant were found admissible. From the statement of accounts as produced by the applicant, it is evident that the amount as claimed in the TA is outstanding in the account, which the applicant is entitled to get recovered from the defendants and their

¶39

¶40

assets. The claim of the applicant is well within the period of limitation and there is no capitalization of penal interest.

¶41

In view of the fact that the subject loan is a loan for purchase of commercial vehicles and the applicant has charged interest at contractual rates till the date of filing of the TA and further as the interest rates have come down the Tribunal is inclined to reject the interest with monthly rests and award simple interest at reduced rates.

¶42

In view of the afore mentioned discussions, the only conclusion this Tribunal can draw is that the applicant had clearly proved the disbursement of the loan, which the applicant is entitled to realize. Hence, TA is disposed off in the following manner: -

¶43

(a) TA No.541 of 2023 stands allowed.

¶44

(b) Applicant is permitted to realize an aggregate sum of Rs.32,30,392.51p with future and pendente lite interest @10% p.a., simple from the defendants jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the TA till realization, after deducting all the amounts received or recovered by them during the pendency of TA, and also by selling the schedule mentioned properties (hypotheca) and other assets of the defendants.

¶45

¶46

¶47

(d) Applicant is permitted to realize cost of the proceedings and shall file cost memo within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order.

¶48

(e) The Recovery Certificate shall be drawn up and issued to the Recovery Officer in terms of this final order.

¶49

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.

¶50

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 27^th day of March, 2024)

¶51

Sd/(T. RAJESH ) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, CHENNAI

¶52

Hdfc Bank v. Tamaraparani Enterprises and Reality Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Tamaraparani Enterprises and Reality Pvt. Ltd.

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 G. Edison

Bank of Baroda versus Jayakandan

State Bank of India versus Mr. S. Natarajan

State Bank of India versus Paramesh

State Bank of India versus Sri Vivekananda Builders

Canara Bank versus Mr. S. Pannerselvam