Allowed

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. M/S Jas Cement Store and Others

DRT6 Jun 2025OA/1165/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an Original Application under the RDBFI Act, 1993, the DRT allowed the bank's claim for recovery of a defaulted loan. The Tribunal reduced the claimed interest rate to uniform simple interest at 8% p.a. while recognizing the security provided by mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.20,01,873.97p jointly and severally with simple interest at 8% p.a. from the date of filing till realization via sale of mortgaged properties.

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S Jas Cement Store and Others — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1165/2023

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BYMRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 06.09.2023

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 06.06.2025

¶6

HDFC Bank Limited, a banking company, incorporated under Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at: HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel-(West), Mumbai-400013, Maharashtra having one of its Branch Amritsar through its duly authorized signatory and Authorized Officer Sh. Sunil Kalra, working as Senior Manager currently posted at Plot No. I-15, 3^rd Floor, Alpha IT City, Sector 101, Mohali (Pb) 160062.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s Jas Cement Store, a proprietorship firm through its Proprietor Mr. Baldev Singh having its place of Business situated at Kapurthala Bye Pass Chowk, Goindwal Sahib, Tarn Taran 143422.

¶10

Mr. Baldev Singh S/o Mr. Bakhsish Singh R/o H.No. 15, Khela, Tehsil Khadur Sahib, District Amritsar now District Tarn Taran 143117.

¶11

2^nd Address: C/o M/s Jas Cement store, Kapurthala Bye pass Chowk, Goindwal Sahib, Tarn Taran 143422.

¶12

Smt. Rajwinder Kaur W/o Sh. Baldev Singh S/o Mr. Bakshish Singh R/o H. No. 15, Khela, Tehsil Khadur Sahib, District Amritsar Now District Tarn Taran 143117.

¶13

….……Defendants

¶14

Advocates:

¶15

Argued by Sh. Rahul Garg, Advocate proxy for Sh. Harinder Kumar, Advocate for the applicant Defendants are ex parte

¶16

FINAL ORDER

¶17

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.20,01,873.97p (Rupees Twenty Lacs One Thousand Eight Hundred

¶18

¶19

OA NO.1165-2023

¶20

HDFC BANK LIMITED VS M/S JAS CEMENT STORE AND OTHERS

¶21

Seventy Three and Paise Ninety Seven only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Sunil Kalra, Senior Manager of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Board Resolution dated 16.07.2022, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶22

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant no. 1 through defendant no. 2 had approached the applicant for the grant of ODAP Limit of Rs.25.00 Lacs vide Loan Application dated 08.04.2015, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. Further, the defendant no 1 through defendant no. 2 had approached the applicant from time to time for its renewal of Rs. 17.91 Lacs. Further, the defendant no. 1 through defendant no. 2 had approached the applicant for grant of GECL Loan of Rs.02.69 Lacs.

¶23

The applicant sanctioned the ODAP Limit of Rs. 18.00 Lacs vide Sanction Letter dated 27.04.2015, which is Annexure A3 to this OA. Further the applicant sanctioned its Renewal from time to time of Rs. 17.91 Lacs vide Renewal Sanction Letters dated 20.04.2016, 28.04.2016, 20.6.2017, 25.09.2017, 30.12.2017, 09.03.2018 and 31.03.2018, which are Annexures A14, A15, A18 and A21 to A24 to this OA. Further, applicant sanctioned GECL Loan of Rs.02.69 Lacs vide Sanction Letter dated 13.11.2020, which is Annexure A28 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶24

Defendant no. 2 had mortgaged his immovable properties i.e. commercial property measuring 05 Marla 96 Sq.ft. situated at Village Goindwal Sahib, Tehsil Khadoor Sahib & Distt. Tarn Taran, Punjab vide Equitable Mortgage of Sale Deed bearing vasika no.115 dated 14.05.2014 along with its translation, which is Annexure A13 to this OA.

¶25

Documents executed:- D.P. Note, Master Facility Agreement, Letter of continuing security and Deed of Indemnity all dated 27.04.2015, which are Annexures A4 to A7 to this OA; Declaration, which is Annexure A8 to this OA; Loan Takeover Letter dated 23.04.2015, which is

¶26

3 OA NO.1165-2023

¶27

HDFC BANK LIMITED VS M/S JAS CEMENT STORE AND OTHERS

¶28

Annexure A9 to this OA; Letter of continuity guarantee dated 27.04.2015, which is Annexure A10 to this OA; Memorandum of equitable mortgage and Declaration cum undertaking dated 27.05.2015, which are Annexures A11 to A12 to this OA; D.P. Note and Amendment agreement dated 07.05.2016, which are Annexures A16 to A17 to this OA; D.P. Note and Amendment agreement dated 20.06.2017, which are Annexures A19 to A20 to this OA; D.P. Note and Amendment agreement dated 31.03.2018, which are Annexures A25 to A26 to this OA; Addendum dated 06.03.2020, which is Annexure A27 to this OA; Facility cum hypothecation agreement, Memorandum recording equitable mortgage and Supplementary letter of continuing guarantee dated 13.11.2020, which are Annexures A29 to A31 to this OA; Valuation report dated 29.04.2015, which is Annexure A32 to this OA; Statement of Accounts, calculation chart certified under Banker Books evidence Act, 1891 (Colly) which are Annexures A33 & A35 to this OA; Memorandum of interest which is Annexure A34 to this OA and Recall notice dated 05.07.2022, which is Annexure A36 to this OA.

¶29

The loan accounts became irregular and were classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in both the loan accounts there was adebit of Rs.20,01,873.97p, which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notices but they did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 6. The defendants were served notices to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte on 04.06.2025.

¶30

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Sunil Kalra, Senior Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd h as been filed. 8. Heard arguments and perused record. 9. It was argued by learned proxy counsel that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted,

¶31

¶32

OA NO.1165-2023 HDFC BANK LIMITED VS M/S JAS CEMENT STORE AND OTHERS

¶33

the applicant had proved its case. From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A36 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant for availing of the loan facilities which were granted to them and for that they had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the applicant. The defendants failed to pay back the loans as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, accounts of the defendants were classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.20,01,873.97p (Rupees Twenty Lacs One Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Three and Paise Ninety Seven only) along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the accounts.

¶34

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @18.00%p.a. plus penal interest @2%p.a. with monthly rests from 22.06.2023 till the realization.

¶35

The Tribunal is of the considered opinion that sometimes in appropriate cases the prerogative of mercy is the brightest jewel in the crown of the Judge. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case including nature of the mortgaged property, undertaking of the defendants, quantum of loans and prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yester years, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @8.00%p.a. in both the loan accounts from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly. 11. In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.20,01,873.97p (Rupees Twenty Lacs One Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Three and Paise Ninety Seven only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00%p.a. in both the loan

¶36

¶37

OA NO.1165-2023

¶38

HDFC BANK LIMITED VS M/S JAS CEMENT STORE AND OTHERS

¶39

accounts from the date of filing of OA till the date of realization of the amount. Accordingly, the applicant shall be entitled to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of hypothecated/mortgaged properties of the defendants in execution proceedings if not sold earlier under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. If the dues of the applicant still remain unsatisfied, it shall be entitled to recover the same by attachment and sale of personal assets of the defendants. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶40

Any other application pending stands disposed of. 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 30.06.2025. 15. Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant and be sent to defendants through registered/speed post and this order be also uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal and record be consigned.

¶41

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal .

¶42

Dated: 06.06.2025

¶43

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. M/S Jas Cement Store and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. M/S Jas Cement Store and Others

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 Sky Blue International and Another

Icici Bank Limited versus Bharpur Singh Gurcharan Singh and Others

State Bank of India versus M/S Randhawa Traders and Another

Bank of India versus Sh. Iqbal Singh and Others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Beant Singh and Others

Indian Overseas Bank versus Sh. Gurmail Singh and Another