Allowed

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Mr. K. Saravanakumar

DRT4 Mar 2024TA/761/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a transfer application filed under Section 19(1) of the RDB Act, the Tribunal allowed the bank's application for issuance of a Recovery Certificate against the defendants for commercial vehicle loan defaults, holding the evidence un-rebutted and within limitation.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs.49,02,870.46P plus future interest at 10.75% and 10.55% p.a. Costs of proceedings awarded to the applicant.

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Mr. K. Saravanakumar — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI Dated this 4^th day of March, 2024 PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶2

T.A.No.761of 2022

¶3

(Old OA.No.292/2020-DRT-I, Chennai)

¶4

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

¶5

And also having office at: “Ceebros”, 110, 4^th Floor, Nelson Manickam Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai – 600 029 …Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Mr. K. Saravanakumar, Son of Karuppaiah, No: 3/38, Balaji Street, Thiruverumbur, Trichy – 620 013 2. Mrs. K. Gandhimathi, W/o. Karuppaiah, No. 3/38, Balaji Street, Thiruverumbur, Trichy – 620 013 ...Defendants Counsel for Applicant : M/s.T. K. M. Sai Krishnan Defendants : Exparte ……

¶8

ORDER

¶9

The Application is filed Under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of

¶10

DebtsAnd Bankruptcy Act,1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery

¶11

¶12

Certificate for a total sum of Rs.49,02,870.46Pdue under the 6 Commercial Vehicle Loan Accounts along with future interest and costs.

¶13

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

¶14

The Applicant Bank contends thatCommercial Vehicle Loan credit facilities to the tune of Rs.26,54,000/-, Rs. 7,00,000/-, Rs. 21,60,000/, Rs. 5,00,000/-, Rs. 26,00,000/- and Rs. 7,00,000/- were availed by the 1^st Defendant and the 2^nd Defendant stood as guarantor.

¶15

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

¶16

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. Since there was failure from the side of defendants, the Applicant Bank invoked the default clause in the agreement and repossessed the hypothecated vehicles and sold the same, following the procedure and the amount so realized was credited to the account. It is also stated that all the efforts of the Applicant Bank to make the defendants pay back the balance due

¶17

¶18

amounts failed and the Applicant Bank is forced to file this Application.

¶19

Summons was taken out and as defendants failed to enter appearance, theywere set exparte on02.01.2024.

¶20

The Applicant Bank let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A28.

¶21

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration.

¶22

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

¶23

ii. What orders are to be passed?

¶24

Both these issues are decided together.

¶25

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.

¶26

In view of the above:

¶27

i. TA. No: 761of 2022 stands allowed.

¶28

ii. Applicant Bank is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.49,02,870.46P(Rupees Forty Ninelakhs Twothousand

¶29

Eighthundred Seventy and Forty Six PaiseOnly/-)together with

¶30

¶31

future and pendentelite interest @ 10.75% p.a. (simple) on Rs. 21,63,089.53P and @ 10.55% p.a. (simple) on Rs. 27,39,780.93Pfrom the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendants jointly, severally and personally.

¶32

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

¶33

iv. 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

v. 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, this4^th day of March, 2024)

¶38

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

¶39

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Mr. K. Saravanakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Mr. K. Saravanakumar

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 M/s.a.v.Constructions

Indian Overseas Bank versus Shahul Hameed

State Bank Of India versus K. Thanikachalam

City Union Bank Limited versus M/s. Mars Enterprises

State Bank of India versus Murugan Thailan Murugesan

Karur Vysya Bank versus Palanisamy