Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Visa Koje Trade Exim Pvt. Ltd.

DRT26 Mar 2025TA/2990/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this debt recovery matter, the Tribunal allowed the bank's Original Application for recovery of outstanding dues of approximately Rs. 7.82 crore. The court awarded interest at 12% per annum and directed recovery via sale of mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Respondents to pay Rs. 7,82,36,034.58 with future interest at 12% p.a. from 01.08.2017; recovery certificate issued forthwith.

Hdfc Bank versus Visa Koje Trade Exim Pvt. Ltd. — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 2990 of 2022

¶2

Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi 4th floor, Jeevan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi

¶3

Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sharma

¶4

T.A. No. 2990 of 2022

¶5

HDFC Bank Limited

¶6

Department for Special Operations 2nd Floor, Indian Express Building

¶7

9-10, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg ITO, New Delhi-110002

¶8

Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

M/s Visa Koje Trade Exim Pvt. Ltd. Through its directors B-91 First Floor, Shankar Garden Vikas Puri, Delhi-110018

¶11

Mr. Vipin Kumar Gupta R/o B-51A, Shankar garden Vikas Puri, Delhi-110018

¶12

Mr. Amit Gupta

¶13

R/o 31- Mandir wali Gali

¶14

Azadpur, New Delhi-33

¶15

Mrs. Usha Bedi

¶16

R/o 47/28, Upper Ground Floor

¶17

Block-47, East Patel Nagar

¶18

New Delhi-110008

¶19

Mrs. Gunjan Goel

¶20

R/o 253, Sangam Apartment

¶21

Zone-2, 4-5, West Enclave

¶22

Pitampura, Delhi-110034

¶23

Mrs. Savita Gupta

¶24

173, Site-II, Vikas Puri

¶25

New Delhi-110018

¶26

M/s Anita Infotech

¶27

B-4, 3rd Floor, Shankar Garden

¶28

Vikas Puri, New Delhi-110018 Defendants

¶29

T.A. No. 2990 of 2022

¶30

Present: Shri Ronnie S Barara, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶31

Date of Institution: 16.08.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 26.03.2025

¶32

FINAL ORDER

¶33

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank before �Delhi on 16.08.2017 and then transferred to DRT-I Delhi through Sh. Ankush Saini, authorized representative of the applicant bank under. Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.7,82,36,034.58/- (Rupees Seven Crores Eighty Two Lacs Thirty Six Thousand Thirty Four and paisa Fifty Eight only ) along with pendentelite and future interest @18% per annum from 01.08.2017 till the date of realization along with costs.

¶34

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the defendant no.1 which was converted as private limited company from proprietorship concern of defendant no.6 w.e.f. 01.04.2013 in the name of M/s Visa Koje Inc. vide loan application dated 25.04.2013 and 16.05.2013, the applicant bank sanctioned Working Capital facility of Rs.14,50,00,000/(Rupees Fourteen Crores Fifty Lacs only) on 15.05.2013 within which Cash Credit of Rs.950.00 Lacs and ILC/FLC of Rs.500.00 Lacs @12.80% interest per annum. On the request of defendant no.1, the applicant bank sanctioned Adhoc CC limit Rs.200.00 Lacs on 20.08.2013 and Rs.350 Lacs on 30.12.2013. The applicant bank renewed the credit facilities from time to time lastly on 06.06.2016 as Cash Credit limit for Rs.650.00 lacs @11.40% interest per annum in favour of defendant no.1.

¶35

T.A. No. 2990 of 2022

¶36

The limits were sanctioned against hypothecation of stocks, book debts and mortgage of properties. The defendant no. 2 to 6 stood as personal guarantors and defendant no.7 as Corporate Guarantor for the credit facilities sanctioned in favour of the Defendant no.1 by the applicant bank.

¶37

In order to avail the loan facility, the defendant submitted loan application and renewal requests and executed Demand Promissory Notes, Sanction Letters, Letter of Continuing Security, Master Facility Agreement, Letter of Hypothecation, Power of Attorneys, Declarations-cum-identity, Memorandums for Recording Past Transaction for Creation of Mortgage, Declaration-cum-identity, Board Resolutions and MOE, Undertaking, Letters of Continuing Guarantees, Memc:andum relating to Charge over Fixed Deposits, Joint Deed of Indemnity, Letter of Continuity, Supplementary Agreement, Supplementary Letter of Hypothecation, Amendment Agreement and Undertaking cum Indemnity Agreement on various dates.

¶38

The defendant no.1 vide its Board Resolutions on various dates approved the credit facilities from applicant bank and authorized defendant no.2 to 6, jointly or severally, executed all loan and security documents with the applicant bank.

¶39

That in order to secure the loan facilities, the defendants created equitable mortgage of the following properties on 17.05.2013 along with other properties which were release by the applicant bank subsequently due to reduction in the limits:

¶40

cc"

¶41

T.A. No. 2990 of 2022

¶42

i) Entire upper ground floor without roof rights of property No.47/28, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi owned by defendant no.4;

¶43

ii) HIG Flat bearing no. 253, Category Bon 5th floor, situated in Sangam Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. known as Sangam Apartment, Zone 11-45 West Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi owned by defendant no.5.

¶44

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions of sanction and committed default in payment of principal debt and interest with the applicant bank. Ultimately, • the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 10.11.2016 as per RBI guidelines due to non-adherence of financial discipline by the defendants. As the defendants failed to clear the outstanding dues of the applicant bank, hence approached this tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶45

Notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 dated 20.07.2017 for Rs.7,70,98,410.17 was issued to the defendants by the applicant bank but they failed to clear the dues.

¶46

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite of proper service despite publication in newspapers, the defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per orders dated 08.02.2019, 01.02.2018, 19.05.2022, 18.01.2024 and 18.03.2024, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as they have not appeared before the

¶47

T.A. No. 2990 of 2022

¶48

Tribunal and not filed their evidence despite granted sufficient opportunities.

¶49

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Ankush Saini, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as Copy of the Power of Attorney, Application Form, Letters, Request Letter, Sanction Letters, Board Resolutions, Demand Promissory Notes, Letter of Continuing Security, Master Facility Agreement, Letter of Hypothecation, Power of Attorney, Declaration-cum-Indemnity, MOEs, Undertaking, Letter of Continuing Guarantee, Memorandums relating to Charge over Fixed Deposits, Deed of Indemnity, Undertaking cum Indemnity Agreement, Letter of Renewal/Enhancement, Letter of Continuing Security, Supplementary Agreement, Supplementary Letter of Hypothecation, Power of Attorney, Letter of Continuing Guarantee executed by M/s Jessica Jewels and Fashion Pvt. Ltd., Letter dated 30.12.2013, Supplementary Agreement, Supplementary Letter of Hypothecation, Supplementary Letter of Continuing Guarantee executed by M/s Anita Infotech Pvt. Ltd., Declaration for Defaulters, Title Deeds of Properties Mortgaged, Amendment Agreement, Demand Notice u/s 13(2) dated 20.07.2017, Certified Statement of Account under Bankers Book Evidence Act marked as Ex.AW-1/1 to Ex.AW-1/75(colly).

¶50

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 sar le have been duly approved.

¶51

T.A. No. 2990 of 2022

¶52

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

¶53

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 1-,3s 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 that interest of justice will be served if the interest at the rate of 12% p.a. is awarded.

¶54

In the light of the above discussions, the Original Application deserves to be allowed.

¶55

ORDER

¶56

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pa" to the applicant bank, jointly or severally, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.7,82,36,034.58 (Rupees Seven Crores Eighty Two Lacs Thirty Six Thousand Thirty Four and paisa Fifty Eight only) together with pendentelite and future interest @12% per annum from 01.08.2017 till the date of realization and costs; failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the

¶57

T.A. No. 2990 of 2022

¶58

sale of hypothecated stocks, book debts and mortgaged properties:

¶59

i) Entire upper ground floor without roof rights of property No.47/28, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi owned by defendant no.4;

¶60

ii) HIG Flat bearing no. 253, Category B on 5th floor, situated in Sangam Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. known as Sangam Apartment, Zone 11-45 West Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi owned by defendant no.5.

¶61

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

¶62

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the P9.covery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 26.05.2025.

¶63

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

¶64

541(

¶65

(GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶66

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 26.03.2025

Hdfc Bank v. Visa Koje Trade Exim Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Visa Koje Trade Exim Pvt. Ltd.

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

Canara Bank versus M/S Everest Handmade Paper

Hdfc Bank versus Devendra Pratap Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Ravinder Singh

State Bank of India (E-State Bank of Hyderabad) versus Nitant Kumar

Icici Bank Limited versus Jaswant Singh

Bank of India versus Rakesh Kumar