Allowed

M/s. Hdfc Bank Limited v. Mohn Singh

DRT8 Mar 2024TA/775/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the applicant bank’s application for a recovery certificate under Section 19(1) of the RDB Act. The court found the bank’s evidence sufficient to prove the time-barred claim, permitting recovery of the decretal amount, future interest, and sale of hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued; recovery of Rs. 27.71 Lacs plus future interest at 9.93% p.a.; sale of hypothecated assets permitted.

M/s. Hdfc Bank Limited versus Mohn Singh — Company and Corporate | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI Dated this 8^th day of March, 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

T.A.No.775of 2023

¶4

(Old OA.No.449/2018-DRT-I, Chennai)

¶5

M/s. HDFC Bank Limited, ‘CEEBROS’, No. 110, Nelson Manickam Road, 1^st Floor, Aminjikarai, Chennai – 600 029. Having Registered office at: Senapatin Bapat Marg, Lower Parel(W), Mumbai – 400 013

¶6

…Applicant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Mohn Singh, No. 13A, Jawahar Street, Thirupathi Nagar Extension, Kolathur, Chennai – 600 099

¶9

Sudesh No. 13A, Jawahar Street, Thirupathi Nagar Extension, Kolathur, Chennai – 600 099 ...Defendants Counsel for Applicant : M/s.S. Namasivayam Defendants : Exparte

¶10

ORDER

¶11

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

¶12

DebtsAnd Bankruptcy Act,1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery Certificate for a total sum of Rs.22,71,874.22Pdue under4Commercial

¶13

Vehicle Loan Accounts i.e. Rs. 10,01,130.43/-, Rs. 9,30,348.43/-, Rs.

¶14

¶15

1,68,606.68/- and Rs. 1,71,788.68/-along with future interest and costsand for sale of schedule mentioned hypotheca.

¶16

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

¶17

The Applicant Bank contends thatCommercial Vehicle Loan Credit facilities of Rs. 16,00,000/-, 16,00,000/-, 3,00,000/- and 3,00,000/totally amounting to a sum of 38,00,000/- was availed by the First Defendant. The 2^nd Defendant stood a Guarantor. It is also stated that the facilities are secured by hypothecationof schedule mentioned assets.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

Summons was taken out and as defendants failed to enter appearance, theywere set exparte on 08.03.2019.

¶21

¶22

The Applicant Bank let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit

¶23

in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A7.

¶24

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration.

¶25

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

¶26

ii. What orders are to be passed?

¶27

Both these issues are decided together.

¶28

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.

¶29

In view of the above:

¶30

i. TA. No: 775of 2023 stands allowed.

¶31

ii. Applicant Bank is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.27,71,874.22P(Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs Seventy One ThousandEightHundred Seventy Four and Twenty Two PaiseOnly/-)together with future and pendentelite interest @9.93% p.a. (simple)from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendants jointly, severally and personallyand also by proceeding against and selling the

¶32

¶33

schedule mentioned hypotheca and appropriate the sale proceeds towards the decretal dues.

¶34

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 account of the defendants.

¶35

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.

¶36

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.

¶37

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶38

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

¶39

(Dictated to PA-2, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 8^th day ofMarch, 2024)

¶40

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

¶41

M/s. Hdfc Bank Limited v. Mohn Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Hdfc Bank Limited v. Mohn Singh

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 Chakkrapani P

Bank of Baroda versus M/s.Mkr Stores

Bank of Baroda versus Mr R Thulasingam

Canara Bank versus Rajaraman

M/s. Indian Overseas Bank versus Mr. C. Rajasekaran

Laxmi Vilas Bank versus M/s.Super Agencies