Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. M/S Hiteshi Enterprises

DRT13 Jan 2025TA/2857/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed HDFC Bank Limited's Original Application for recovery of over Rs. 8.51 crores against M/s Hiteshi Enterprises and five respondents. The court proceeded ex-parte, awarded interest at 12% p.a., and directed recovery from mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay Rs. 8,51,04,198.34 plus interest at 12% p.a. from 01.08.2021 with recovery from hypothecated/mortgaged properties.

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Hiteshi Enterprises — Specific Performance | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 2857 of 2022

¶2

Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi 4th floor, Jeevan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi
Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sh	arma
T.A. No. 2857 of 2022
HDFC Bank Limited Department for Special Operations 5thFloor, Ansal Classique Tower Plot No.1, J Block, Community Centre Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027	Applicant
Versus
1.M/s Hiteshi Enterprises Through its proprietor B-68, Chanakya Place Opp. Mata Chanan Devi Hospital New Delhi-110059
Also at: 3rd Floor, Vardhman Tower Dwarka, Sector-7, New Delhi-110075
2.Ms Hiteshi Prakasher (Guarantor/Mortgagor) Proprietress M/s Hiteshi Enterprises B-4/311C, Keshavpuram, Onkar Nagar New Delhi-110035
Also at: QP-76,3rdFloor, Pitampura Delhi-110034
3.Ms Tejasvi Prakash (Guarantor/Mortgagor) Proprietress M/s Hiteshi Enterprises B-4/311C, Keshavpuram, Onkar Nagar New Delhi-110035
Also at: 187-A, 1st Floor, Kohat Enclave Pitampura, Delhi-110034
4.Sh.Chander Prakash (Guarantor)
B-4/311C, Keshavpuram, Onkar Nagar New Delhi-110035

¶3

T.A. No. 2857 of 2022
5. Ms Anita Yadav (Guarantor/Mortgagor) C-56, DDA Flats, Golf View Apartments Saket, New Delhi-110017
Also at: Flat No.150-A, 1st Floor, Rachna III-A Sector-3, Vaishali Ghaziabad, UP-201010 Defendants
Present: Mr Rishi Gupta, Counsel for the applicant bank
Date of Institution: 07.10.2021
Date of Pronouncement: 13.01.2025
ORDER

¶4

This original application has been filed by the applicant on 07.10.2021 filed before DRT-III Delhi and then transferred to DRT-I, Delhi through Shri Neeraj Mahajan, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.8,51,04,198.34 (Rupees Eight Crores Fifty One Lacs Four Thousand One Hundred Ninety Eight and paisa Thirty Four only) as on 31.07.2021 along with pendentelite and future interest @18% per annum with monthly rests from 01.08.2021 till the date of actual realization ith costs.

¶5

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of efendant no. 2 being sole proprietorship concern of defendant o.1 in the business of manufacturing of readymade garments ide their loan application dated 17.05.2017, the applicant ank sanctioned Cash Credit limit of Rs.200.00 lacs (Rupees wo Crores Only) on 29.06.2017 @MCLR+1.85% interest plus % penal interest which was renewed and enhanced from time

¶6

5d-

¶7

T.A. No. 2857 of 2022

¶8

to time lastly on 23.11.2020 aggregating for Rs.765.85 lacs out of which Rs.600.00 lacs as Cash Credit, WCTL-GECL of Rs.124.85 lacs and WCDL for Rs.41.00 lacs @9.20% & @8.25% interest against hypothecation of stocks, book debts and equitable mortgage of properties owned by defendant no.2, 3 and 5. The defendant no.2 to 5 stood as personal guarantors to secure the credit facil:ties sanctioned by applicant bank to defendant no.1. The defendants agreed to charge interest @18% for default in payment of interest by applicant bank.

¶9

In order to avail the said loan facilities, the defendant no.1 submitted loan application and executed Master Facility Agreement, Amendment Agreement, Deec of Hypothecation of Stocks & Book Debts, Power of Attorney, Letter of Continuing Guarantees, Demand Promissory Note, Deed of Indemnity, Networth Certificates dated 29.06.2017 to 23.11.2020 or whenever the facilities were enhanced/ sanctioned along with Supplementary Agreements, Supplementary Letter of Hypothecation, Power of Attorney for Hypothecated Book Debts, Supplementary Letters of Guarantee in favour of applicant bank.

¶10

In order to secure the various credit facilities availed by defendant no.1, other defendants created equitable mortgage of their properties by depositing title documents of properties and also executed Memorandums Recording Past Transaction of Creation of Mortgage by Delivery of Title Deeds on 22.08.2017, 22.02.2018, 25.06.2018, 03.05.2019, 17.05.2019, 06.06.2020 and 23.11.2020 viz:

¶11

T.A. No. 2857 of 2022

¶12

Flat No. QP-76, 3rd Floor with roof rights, Pitampura, Opp. NDPL Office, Near TV Tower, Delhi owned by defendant no.2;

¶13

Flat No.187-A, First Floor, Kohat Enclave Metro Station, Pitampura, Delhi owned by defendant no.3;

¶14

Property No.68, Entire 2nd Floor with roof rights, Pocket A, Sector-191 Dwarka, New Delhi owned by defendant no.2; Property No.60A, Block F, Tehsil Sanganer, situated at SEZ Narsingh Pura, Dadhiya Bhiwari, Rajasthan owned by defendant no.2;

¶15

Commercial property being 18A, Block B, Tehsil Sanganer, Gram Jhai Bhiwari, Rajasthan, owned by defendant no.2.

¶16

It has been submitted by the applicant that after availing the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions and despite of several requests and reminders, the defendants failed to regularize the accounts with applicant Bank. The applicant bank declared the account as NPA on 31.03.2021 due to financial indiscipline and loan recall notice was issued on 11.08.2021 calling upon the defendants to pay the entire outstanding dues but the defendants did not clear the dues of the applicant bank.

¶17

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and •espite proper service, the defendants ha.ve chosen to absent rom the proceedings. As per order dated 20.09.2024, the •efendants have been proceeded ex-parte as they have not ppeared before the Tribunal nor written statement, evidence nd affidavit of assets have been filed.

¶18

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its vidence by way of affidavit of Shri Neeraj Mahajan, authorized epresentative of the applicant bank who has proved the

¶19

T.A. No. 2857 of 2022

¶20

documents as Board Resolution, Loan Application Form, Request Letters, Sanction Letters, Master Facility Agreement, Amendment Agreement, Deed of Hypothecation, Power of Attorney, Letter of Continuing Guarantee, Demand Promissory Note, Deed of Indemnity, Networth Certificates, Supplementary Agreement, Supplementary Deed of Hypothecation, Supplementary Letter of Guarantees, Letter of Continuing Security, Declaration cum Indemnity, Memorandums Recording Past Transactions of Creation of Mortgage by Delivery of Title Deeds, Adhoc Sanction, Loan Recall Notice, Reply dated 21.09.2021, Certificate under Bankers Book of Evidence Act, Title Deeds of Properties marked as Exh. AW1/1 to Exh.AW-1/61(colly).

¶21

The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments made in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the applicant bank is based on the documents and the same have been duly approved.

¶22

The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and there is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasona:ile doubts.

¶23

As per the provision of Section 19(20) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 which is analogous to Section 34 of CPC, on filing of the suit/claim, the contract between the parties comes to an end and the Court/Tribunal has a discretion to award the same depending upon the circumstances of each case. Same principle has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra & Others. Taking stock of all the circumstances and keeping in view that there is a drastic fall in rates of interest globally and domestically, I am of the opinion

¶24

T.A. No. 2857 of 2022

¶25

that interest of justice will be served if the interest at the rate of 12% p.a. is awarded.

¶26

In the light of the above discu-_;sions, the Original Application deserves to be allowed.

¶27

FINAL ORDER

¶28

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank, jointly or severally within 30 days, a sum of Rs.8,51,04,198.34 (Rupees Eight Crores Fifty One Lacs Four Thousand One Hundred Ninety Eight and paisa Thirty Four only) along with pendentelite and future interest @12% per annum from 01.08.2021 till the date of realization with costs failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from hypothecated stock, book debts, receivables as well as from sale of mortgaged properties as per details below:

¶29

Flat No. QP-76, 3rd Floor with roof rights, Pitampura, Opp. NDPL Office, Near TV Tower, Delhi owned by defendant no.2;

¶30

Flat No.187-A, First Floor, Kohat Enclave Metro Station, Pitampura, Delhi owned by defendant no.3;

¶31

Property No.68, Entire 2nd Floor with roof rights, Pocket A, Sector-19, Dwarka, New Delhi owned by defendant no.2; Property No.60A, Block F, Tehsil Sanganer, situated at SEZ Narsingh Pura, Dadhiya Bhiwari, Rajasthan owned by defendant no.2;

¶32

Commercial property being 18A, Block B, Tehsil Sanganer, Gram Jhai Bhiwari, Rajasthan, owned by defendant no.2.

¶33

T.A. No. 2857 of 2022

¶34

In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from sale of the moveable and immovable properties of defendants.

¶35

(II) The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi.

¶36

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 17.03.2025.

¶37

(IV) Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be sent to all concerned free of cost.

¶38

(GOVIND BALLA& SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶39

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 13.01.2025

Hdfc Bank v. M/S Hiteshi Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. M/S Hiteshi Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Ms Royal Construction

State Bank of India versus Ms Payal Collection

Punjab National Bank versus Ms Rohit Security Services Pvt. Ltd.

Mukesh Kumar versus Punjab National Bank

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Sbs Concepts Limited

Bank of Baroda versus Sunil Kumar