Partly allowed

Hdfc Bank v. M/S. Dhanush Tours and Travels

DRT24 Jan 2025OA/599/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal partly allowed the recovery application filed by HDFC Bank against borrowers involved in a commercial vehicle loan default. The tribunal confirmed the debt but reduced the claim amount after deducting other charges and modified the future interest rate to 9%. The relief to recover excess auction proceeds from the Regional Transport Authority was rejected due to lack of

What did the court decide?

Order for recovery of Rs. 82,29,596 with future interest @ 9% p.a. and issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Hdfc Bank versus M/S. Dhanush Tours and Travels — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on: 28.06.2022 Registered on: 04.07.2022 Decided on: 22.01.2025 Duration: Y M D 02 06 24

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE. (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.599/2022.

¶3

HDFC BANK LIMITED ,

¶4

Banking Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered office at HDFC Bank House, C.S.No.6/242, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai and having Branch Office at 21/6, Ground Floor, MIT Marathon, Bund Garden, Pune – 411 001.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s Dhanush Tours and Travels Prop.–Mr. Swapnil Dhondiram Chothe Partnership Firm having office at – Sr.No.269/1D/4, Sukhvilas Plaza, 1^st Floor, Shop No.1, Malkapur Karad Hotel Rajwada, Satara – 415 539.

¶8

Mrs. Nikita Vijay Chavan Shivajinagar Kale, Tal- Karad, Satara – 415 539

¶9

Mr. Ravindra Hindurav Chavan A/p Shedagewadi, Vihe, Tal-Patan, District Satara- 415 114.

(OA No.599/2022)

Page 1 of 6

[ANIL]

The Regional Transport Authority Regional Transport Office Yashwanthpura, Bangalore -560 022. …Defendants

¶14

APPEARANCES

¶15

For the Applicant For the Defendant

¶16

Advocate – Mr. Pradip Yadav. Ex-parte.

¶17

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 82,96,391.56 Ps.

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

(Delivered on 22^nd January, 2025)

¶20

Applicant Bank has filed present application for recovery of sum of Rs.82,96,391.56Ps. due on 24.06.2022 together with pendilite and future interest @ 11.51% from 25.06.2022 till the actual payment to the Applicant together with costs and expenses incurred.

¶21

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶22

Defendant No.1 is a Partnership Firm (Borrower) and Defendant No.2 and 3 are the Co-borrowers. Defendant No.4 auctioned the hypothecated vehicle and not entertained the charge of the applicant bank.

¶23

Defendant Nos.1 to 3 applied for Commercial Vehicle Loan with the applicant bank. Accordingly, the Applicant Bank sanctioned and disbursed the loan as mentioned below :-

(OA No.599/2022)

Page 2 of 6

[ANIL]

Loan A/c No.	Amount disbursed	Rate of Interest
83860317	Rs.30,00,000/-	11.51% p.a. fixed
83816956	Rs.30,00,000/-	11.51% p.a. fixed

¶28

In order to secure the aforesaid Loan facility, the Defendants have signed and executed loan and security documents as set out in Para No.5.3 of the Original Application, in favor of the Applicant Bank.

¶29

It is further contended that to secure the repayment of the said loan, Defendants executed Letter of Hypothecation of the vehicles i.e. Ashok Leyland RTO No.MH-50-N-1404 and MH-50-N-1440, in favour of the Applicant Bank.

¶30

The Applicant Bank contended that Defendant No.1 did not pay Government RTO Taxes; hence, Defendant No.4 attached the said hypothecated vehicle and sold it in auction. The applicant informed and intimated to Defendant No.4 about the first charge of the applicant bank vide letter dated 21.06.2022 and requested not to sale the vehicle. However, Defendant No.4 not entertained the charge of the applicant bank and proceeded for sale and sold the hypothecated vehicle in auction. So also, declined to refund/pay the excess amount of the vehicle in auction.

(OA No.599/2022)

Page 3 of 6

[ANIL]

The applicant bank contended that the Defendants failed to maintain financial and proper discipline committed defaults on regular basis in repayment of Loans. Therefore, the applicant bank has issued demand legal notice dated 19.11.2019 and recalled the facility and call upon the defendants to pay the outstanding amount. However, in spite of notice, defendants failed to repay the amount.

¶35

Hence, this application is filed.

¶36

The Defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte as per order dated 15.04.2024 passed below Application (Exh.-1).

¶37

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-7, which corroborates the case of the Applicant Bank.

¶38

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

¶39

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

(OA No.599/2022)

Page 4 of 6

[ANIL]

8 . The relief sought by the applicant bank to direct defendant No.4 to refund/pay excess amount recovered from the sale of the vehicles i.e. Ashok Leyland RTO No.MH-50-N-1404 and MH-50-N-1440. But the applicants did not provide any information or documents about excess amount received by Defendant No.4 through the auction of the said vehicles. So also, there is no privity of contract between RTO & Applicant, on record. Therefore, the relief to direct defendant No.4 to refund the excess amount of hypothecated vehicles cannot be granted.

¶44

The Applicant Bank has claimed Rs.21,540/- towards other charges and Rs.45,256/- towards repayment charges, which cannot be granted and the same are required to be deducted from the total claim amount. Therefore, the total claim amount of Rs.82,96,391.56Ps is reduced to Rs.82,29,595.56Ps .

¶45

10 The Applicant Bank has claimed interest @11.51% p.a. for Loan facility availed by the Defendants. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% p.a. (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶46

11 Hence, I pass the following order:-

(OA No.599/2022)

Page 5 of 6

[ANIL]

ORDER

(A) Original Application No.599/2022 is partly allowed with costs. (B) Defendant No.1 shall pay sum of Rs.82,29,596/- (Rupees Eighty Two Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Six only) with future interest @ 9% p.a. (simple), from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 28.06.2022 till payment / realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order, to the Applicant Bank.

¶52

¶53

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

¶54

Place : Pune Date: 22.01.2025

¶55

Sd/(Dilip G. Murumkar) Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶56

(OA No.599/2022)

¶57

Page 6 of 6

¶58

[ANIL]

Hdfc Bank v. M/S. Dhanush Tours and Travels

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. M/S. Dhanush Tours and Travels

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

Yes Bank versus Javed Islam Shaikh

Federal Bank versus Shrikant Patil

Idbi Bank versus Devdas Savekar

Encore Assets Reconstruction Company Private Limited versus Ranjit Jadhav

Bank of India versus Sangramsinh

Bank of India versus Neurostar Hospital Private Limited