Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Mukesh Kumar Kedia

DRT14 Jan 2025TA/759/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's original application for recovery of outstanding loan dues of Rs. 21.78 lakhs. Proceeding ex-parte due to the defendant's absence, the tribunal awarded principal, interest at 12% p.a., and costs, directing asset realization if unpaid.

What did the court decide?

Allowed OA; directed respondent to pay Rs. 21,78,713.03 + 12% p.a. interest + costs within 30 days; recovery certificate issued.

Hdfc Bank versus Mukesh Kumar Kedia — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No.759 of 2022

¶2

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

¶3

Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sharma T.A. No. 759 of 2022
HDFC Bank Limited Plot No.31, Najafgarh Industrial Area
Tower A, 1st Floor, Shivaji Marg Moti Nagar, New Delhi-110015 Applicant
Versus
Sh.Mukesh Kumar Kedia Proprietor Balaji Enterprises L-2/46, Gali No.10, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110052
Also at:
104, Shree Swami Tower, Mehul Nagar, Jam Nagar, Bilaspur, Chhatisgarh-495001 Defendant
Present: Ms Purnima, Counsel for the applicant bank
Date of Institution: 29.05.2019
Date of Pronouncement: 14.01.2025 FINAL ORDER

¶4

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 29.05.2019 through Shri Ritesh Kumar, 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.21,78,713.03 (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Seventy Eight Thousand Sev6n Hundred Thirteen & paisa Three only) as on

¶5

T.A. No.759 of 2022

¶6

20.05.2019 along with pendentelite and future interest @16.00% per annum with monthly rest from 20.05.2019 till the date of realization and costs.

¶7

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant vide loan application dated 19.09.2017, the applicant bank sanctioned Business Loan of Rs.20.00 lacs (Rupees Twenty Lacs only) on 23.09.2017 @16.00% interest per annum to be repayable in 36 equated monthly installments of Rs.70,314/-.

¶8

That in order to avail the loan facility, the defendant submitted Loan application on 19.09.2017 and executed Loan Agreement accepting the terms and conditions dated 23.09.2017 with the applicant bank.

¶9

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facility, the defendant failed to comply with the terms and conditions and despite several requests and reminders, failed to pay the outstanding dues and monthly installments in time to the applicant bank. The applicant bank terminated the agreement and issued recall loan notice dated 20.05.2019 to adjust the outstanding dues but defendant failed to comply with the notice. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶10

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendant and despite proper service, the defendant has chosen to absent from the proCeedings. As per order dated 13.06.2022, defendant has been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared before the Tribunal and even no written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have been filed by the defendant.

¶11

T.A. No.759 of 2022

¶12

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Ritesh Kumar, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as Power of Attorney Exhibit i,W1/1, Original Loan Application Exhibit AW1/2, Pan Card Exhibit AW1/3, Loan Agreement with Terms and Conditions with Schedule Exhibit AW1/4(colly), Disbursal Report Exhibit AW1/5, SI Debit Authorization Exhibit AW1/6, Statement of Account Exhibit AW1/7, Foreclosure Report Exhibit AW1/8, Loan Notice Exhibit AW1/9, Email Notice Exhibit AW1/10, Postal Receipts Exhibit AW1/11 to AW1/12, Speed Post Report End returned Envelop Exhibit AW1/13 & AW1/14. Certificate under 65B of Indian Evidence Act Exhibit AW1/15, Certificate under Section 2A of Bankers' Books Evidence Act Exhibit AW1/16.

¶13

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 proved.

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

T.A. No.759 of 2022

¶17

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.

¶18

In the light of the above discussions and documents on record, the Original Application deserves to be allowed.

¶19

ORDER

¶20

I, allow this OA and direct the defendant to pay to the applicant bank within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.21,78,713.03 (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Seventy Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Thirteen & paisa Three only) as on 20.05.2019 along with pendentelite and future interest @12% per annum with monthly rests from 20.05.2019 and costs, failing which the amount be realized from the sale of movable and immovable assets of the defendant.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 14.01.2025

Hdfc Bank v. Mukesh Kumar Kedia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Mukesh Kumar Kedia

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

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Hiteshi Enterprises

Central Bank of India versus M/S D.S. Impex

Karnataka Bank Limited versus M/S the Global Fashion Culture

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Raj Bala Bhardwaj

Canara Bank versus M/S Reenak Footwear

Central Bank of India versus Sh.Inderjeet Singh