Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Mr. Bapurav Pandurang Chandagude

DRT7 Feb 2025OA/548/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Original Application filed by HDFC Bank Limited for recovery of dues, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune, allowed the application ex-parte. After adjusting prepayment and cheque bouncing charges, the court directed defendants to pay Rs.32,00,917 with future interest.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay reduced claim amount of Rs.32,00,917 plus future interest at 8.25% p.a.; recovery certificate issued.

Hdfc Bank versus Mr. Bapurav Pandurang Chandagude — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on: 13.03.2022 Registered on: 18.05.2022 Decided on: 07.02.2025 Duration: Y M D 02 10 24

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.548/2022.

¶3

HDFC BANK LIMITED ,

¶4

Banking Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its Branch Office inter alia at 21/6, Ground Floor, MIT Marathon, Bund Garden, Pune-411 001.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. Mr. Bapurav Pandurang Chandgude

¶8

R/at-Post Dandwadi Supa, Taluka Baramati, District Pune-412 204.

¶9

Mr. Dipak Chandrakant Jagdale R/at Post Gavthan MurtiModhave Tal-Baramati, District Pune-412 304. …Defendants

¶10

APPEARANCES

¶11

For the Applicant Advocate – Pradip Yadav. For the Defendant Ex parte

¶12

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 32,71,961.19Ps.

¶13

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 7^th February 2025)

¶14

Applicant Bank has filed present application for recovery of sum of Rs.32,71,961.19Ps. as on 17.02.2022

(OA No.548/2022)

Page 1 of 5

[ANIL]

together with pendilite and future interest @08.25% p.a. from 18.02.2022 till the date of filing of the Original and thereafter till and or Application payment repayment/realization from the defendants.

¶19

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶20

Defendants approached to the Applicant Bank for granting Equipment Loan of Rs.27,71,500/- and Emergency Loan of Rs.5,33,000/-. At the request of the defendants, the Applicant Bank sanctioned Equipment Loan of Rs.27,71,000/- and Emergency Loan of Rs.5,33,000/- under the Special Scheme of ECLGS, to the defendants on certain terms of the sanction letter.

¶21

In order to secure the aforesaid Loan facility, Defendants have executed loan and security documents as set out in Para No.5.4 of the Original Application, in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendants agreed to abide by all the terms and conditions mentioned in the Loan Agreement and to pay all the charges and interest leviable in case of any default made by the Defendants in repaying the dues. In addition to this, Defendants have executed Facility-cum-Hypothecation agreement dated 23.11.2020 and hypothecated TATA LPK 3518 RTO NO.MH-42-AQ5995 in favour of Applicant Bank.

(OA No.548/2022)

Page 2 of 5

[ANIL]

The Applicant Bank contended that the Defendants failed to maintain financial and proper discipline committed defaults on regular basis in repayment of installments of Loan and committed breach of the sanction terms.

¶26

Applicant Bank contended that looking into the regular defaults committed by the Defendants, the Applicant Bank has issued Demand Legal Notice dated 06.12.2021 to pay the outstanding amount. But the Defendants failed to pay the said outstanding amount.

¶27

Hence, this application is filed.

¶28

The Defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte as per order dated 04.02.2025 passed below Application (Exhibit1).

¶29

The Applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit (Exhibit-6) of Mr.Amarjit Pandekar and produced on record the Loan Transaction documents at Exhibits.AW-1 to AW-08, which corroborates the case of the Applicant Bank.

¶30

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

(OA No.548/2022)

Page 3 of 5

[ANIL]

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

¶35

The Applicant Bank has claimed prepayment charges of Rs.52,094/- for Loan Account Nos.83950491 and cheque bouncing charges of Rs.7,471/- and Rs.11,479/- for Loan Account Nos.9161957 and 83950491, respectively, which cannot be granted and the same is required to be deducted from the total claim amount. Therefore, the total claim amount of Rs.32,71,961.19Ps is reduced to Rs.32,00,917.19Ps .

¶36

The Applicant Bank has claimed interest @08.25% p.a. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @08.25% p. a. (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶37

Hence, I pass the following order:-

¶38

ORDER

¶39

(A) Original Application No.548/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶40

(B) Defendant No.1 and 2 shall pay sum of Rs.32,00,917/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lakhs Nine Hundred Seventeen only) with future interest @ 08.25% p. a. (simple), from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e.13.03.2022 till

(OA No.548/2022)

Page 4 of 5

[ANIL]

payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order, to the Applicant Bank.

¶45

(C) The adjudicated amount is secured by hypothecating the vehicle TATA LPK 3518 RTO NO.MH-42-AQ-5995 in favour of Applicant Bank, more particularly described in Para No.5.2 of the Original Application.

¶46

(D) The Applicant Bank is entitled to sell the hypothecated vehicle to recover its dues.

¶47

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶48

(F) The Registrar is directed to send the copy of Judgment and Recovery Certificate to the Applicant Bank and the Defendant.

¶49

Sd/Place : Pune (Dilip G. Murumkar) Date: 07.02.2025 Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶50

(OA No.548/2022)

¶51

Page 5 of 5

¶52

[ANIL]

Hdfc Bank v. Mr. Bapurav Pandurang Chandagude

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Mr. Bapurav Pandurang Chandagude

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Federal Bank versus Bharat Shedbale

Union Bank of India versus M/S Dalvi Soaps

Indian Overseas Bank versus Nilesh Ransingh

Canara Bank versus Kamlesh Patankar

Bank of India versus Rajendraprasad Muttilingam Martha

Uco Bank versus Sadashiv Mantur