Allowed

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Mr. S. Sridharan S/o Mutthaiya Sankara Subbuthevar

DRT18 Mar 2024TA/686/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Recovery Tribunal allowed an application by HDFC Bank Limited for realization of dues from two defendants adjudged personally and jointly and severally liable for an outstanding commercial vehicle loan, granting a recovery certificate. Interest with monthly rests was reduced to simple interest.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for aggregate sum of Rs.28,39,108.98p with simple interest at reduced rates; defendants jointly and severally liable;

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Mr. S. Sridharan S/o Mutthaiya Sankara Subbuthevar — DRT (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 18^th day of March, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

TA No.686 of 2022

¶6

(Originally filed before DRT-I Chennai as OA No.155 of 2020 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.686 of 2022)

¶7

HDFC Bank Limited No.128, Nelson Manickam Road East West Centre, Ground Floor Aminjikarai, Chennai – 600 029

¶8

Also having office at “CEEBROS”, 110, 4^th Floor Nelson Manickam Road Aminjikarai, Chennai – 600 029 Represented by its Authorised Signatory Mr. P. Nirmalraj …Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

Mr. S. Sridharan S/o Mutthaiya Sankara Subbuthevar No.87/2, Mela Street, Vadakarai Gangaikondan, Tirunelveli – 627 352 Also at No.87/3, South Street Vadakari, Gangaikondan Tirunelveli – 627 352

¶11

Mr. S. Venkala Pandi S/o Sridaran No.87/3, South Street, Vadakarai Gangaikondan, Tirunelveli – 627 352 …Defendants Counsel for the Applicant Bank : Mr. T.K.M. Sai Krishnan Defendants : Ex- parte

¶12

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

This application is filed by the applicant bank under Section 19(1) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.28,39,108.98p together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing of the application till the date of realization in full along with costs of this application and schedule mentioned properties.

¶15

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

¶16

The case of the applicant can be encapsulated as follows: -

¶17

(a) The defendants approached the applicant bank vide application dated 15.11.2017 for grant of Commercial Vehicle Loan and the applicant considering the said request sanctioned a sum of Rs.38,11,220/- under Loan Account No.82899197. The 1^st defendant executed necessary loan documents on 28.11.2017 and the 2^nd defendant executed guarantee agreement on the same day.

¶18

(b) The loan amount was disbursed to the dealer directly viz., TV Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Private Limited for purchase of AL 3121 Registration No. TN96/8980 with Engine No. HVEZ701765 and Chassis No. MB1JAVLD8HRJV2489.

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

regularized or to pay back the amount and hence the loan account was classified as NPA and the applicant issued legal notice on 14.10.2019 demanding a sum of Rs.28,39,108.98p due as on 30.09.2019.

¶22

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

¶23

The defendants continuously remained absent and hence were called absent and set ex-parte on 25.05.2023.

¶24

The applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who had sworn to a Proof Affidavit in terms of the pleading in the OA and also produced Exhibits A-1 to A-7 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶25

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

¶26

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter: -

¶27

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

¶28

(ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶29

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶30

¶31

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 OA is outstanding in the account, which the applicant is entitled to get recovered from the defendants and their assets (including the hypotheca). The claim of the applicant is well within the period of limitation and there is no capitalization of penal interest.

¶32

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

¶33

During the pendency of the TA the applicant filed a part satisfaction memo stating therein that the applicant has realized a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- by sale of hypothecated commercial vehicle and prayed for recording part satisfaction of the TA claim. This Tribunal vide its proceedings dated 29.2.2024 recorded part satisfaction of the TA claim for a sum of Rs.11,00,000/-

¶34

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: -

¶35

(a) TA No.686 of 2022 stands allowed.

¶36

¶37

(b) Applicant is permitted to realize an aggregate amount of Rs.28,39,108.98p/- with future and pendentelite interest @9% p.a., simple from the defendants jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the OA till realization, after deducting all the amounts received by them during the pendency of TA, and also by selling the other assets of the defendants. It is made clear that the amount of Rs.11,00,000/- realized by the applicant by sale of the hypotheca be given credit to the loan account on its respective date.

¶38

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

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.

¶42

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 18^th day of March, 2024)

¶43

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

¶44

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Mr. S. Sridharan S/o Mutthaiya Sankara Subbuthevar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Mr. S. Sridharan S/o Mutthaiya Sankara Subbuthevar

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

State Bank of India versus M/s First Frame Media and Entertainment Solutions

Punjab National Bank versus Mr. R. Nagarajan

M/s City Union Bank Limited versus Mr. K. Sakthivel

Idbi Bank Limited versus Mr. S. Karunakaran

Union Bank of India versus Mr K Ramalingam and Fifty Others

Canara Bank versus M/s Indo Shoes