Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. M/S. Musali Babasaheb Kalawant Prop Musali Babasaheb Kalawant

DRT22 Jul 2025OA/1023/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an ex-parte recovery application filed by HDFC Bank Limited against a proprietary concern. The bank sought recovery of Rs. 11,55,552/- plus interest after the debtor defaulted on a cash credit facility. The tribunal allowed the application, deducting penal interest and granting future interest at 9% p.a.

What did the court decide?

Defendant directed to pay Rs. 11,10,265/- with future interest at 9% p.a. from 04.04.2018.

Hdfc Bank versus M/S. Musali Babasaheb Kalawant Prop… — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on .. 04.04.2018 Registered on .. 05.09.2022 Decided on .. 22.07.2025 Duration .. Y—M—D 07--03--18

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 1023/2022.

¶3

HDFC Bank Limited,

¶4

A Banking Company within the meaning of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 incorporated and duly registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai 400 013 and branch at – House No. 7-55, Main Road, Janta Chowk, Ichalkaranji 416115, District Kolhapur.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s. Musali Babasaheb Kalawant, Through its proprietor – Mr. Musali Babasaheb Kalawant, 8/222, Vikram Nagar, Ichalkaranji, District Kolhapur 416 115.

¶8

… Defendant

¶9

:- Appearances

¶10

For Applicant Adv Ankit Kulkarni i/b Abhay Nevagi Associates. For Defendant Ex parte.

¶11

Sanap ( OA No. 1023/2022 ) 1 of 5

¶12

Total Claim Amount – Rs.11,55,552/-

¶13

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 22^nd July, 2025)

¶14

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.11,55,552/- together with future interest @18% per annum from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendant.

¶15

Brief facts of the application are as under :-

¶16

The defendant is a proprietary concern of Mr. Musali Babasaheb Kalawant. As per the loan application dated 03.02.2015 of the defendant, the applicant Bank sanctioned the Cash Credit facility of Rs.10,00,000/- to the defendant for working capital vide Sanction Letter dated 07.03.2015.

¶17

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the defendant has executed necessary loan and security documents in favour of the applicant Bank. The defendant has also executed deed of hypothecation of assets in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶18

Thereafter, at the request of the defendant, the cash Credit facility was renewed vide Sanction Letters dated 20.02.2016 and 22.02.2017.

¶19

Sanap ( OA No. 1023/2022 ) 2 of 5

¶20

The applicant Bank contended that the defendant committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the accounts. Hence, on 31.05.2017, the applicant Bank has classified the account of the defendant as Non Performing Asset in accordance with guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. Therefore, on 26.03.2018, the applicant Bank issued legal Notice to the defendant. Despite service of Notice, the defendant failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank.

¶21

Hence, this application is filed.

¶22

The defendant failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte against the defendant as per Order dated 25.04.2025 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶23

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-9) of Neeraj Tiwari, Authorized Officer of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW1-1 to AW1-16 along with list (Exhibit 10), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶24

I have heard arguments of the learned Advocate for the applicant Bank.

¶25

Sanap ( OA No. 1023/2022 ) 3 of 5

¶26

Since the defendant failed to appear and contest the application, I find no reason to disbelieve evidence of the applicant Bank. Therefore, the applicant Bank is entitled for reliefs as claimed.

¶27

The applicant Bank has claimed Penal Interest of Rs.45,287/-, which cannot be granted and the same is required to be deducted from the total claim amount. Therefore, the total claim amount of Rs.11,55,552/- is reduced to Rs.11,10,265/-.

¶28

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @18% per annum. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% per annum (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶29

Hence, I pass the following order.

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

A} Original Application No. 1023/2022 is allowed with proportionate costs.

¶32

B} The defendant shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.11,10,265/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Ten Thousand

¶33

Two Hundred Sixty Five only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 04.04.2018 till full

¶34

Sanap ( OA No. 1023/2022 ) 4 of 5

¶35

payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶36

C} Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶37

D} The Registrar is directed to send the copy of Judgment and Recovery Certificate to the applicant and defendant.

¶38

Sd/( Dilip G. Murumkar ) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date : 22.07.2025 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶39

Sanap ( OA No. 1023/2022 ) 5 of 5

Hdfc Bank v. M/S. Musali Babasaheb Kalawant Prop Musali Babasaheb Kalawant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. M/S. Musali Babasaheb Kalawant Prop Musali Babasaheb Kalawant

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 Vedika Enterprises

Canara Bank versus Mohan

Bank of India versus M/S Torana Sweet Home and Dairy Farm, Prop. Mayur Bajirao Khandve

Canara Bank versus Rama Jadhav

Bank of India versus Shivaji Mahadeo Parkad

Federal Bank versus Shankar