HDFC BANK vs M/s.NEXRISE PUBLICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED Director Mr A U Mohammed Hanif on 31 December 2021

ORDER

1. This application is filed by the applicant bank under Section 19(1) of Recovery of Debts due and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (formerly Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993) to issue a recovery certificate for a sum of Rs.21,09,734.18p, due as on 13.6.2019 under Business Loan together with interest thereon @15.50% p.a. and all other applicable overdue charges against the defendants jointly and severally from 13.6.2019 till the date of realization in full, along with costs of this application.

2. The facts of the case as stated in the OA, in brief, are as follows:- It is the case of the applicant that the defendants approached the Applicant Bank seeking a Business Loan and the applicant after considering the same sanctioned the said loan facility to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/- under Loan Account Number 54052544. The Defendants have agreed to the terms and conditions of the loan facility and executed the loan agreement dated 17.1.2018. The defendants also executed other necessary loan documents to secure the above said loan. It is further submitted that as per the stipulated terms and conditions of the said loan agreement, the defendants were bound to repay the aforementioned loan amount along with interest at 15.50% per annum in 36 equated monthly instalments of Rs.1,04,732/- each, which would commence from 4.2.2018 and end at 4.1.2021. The defendants availed the said loan for the purpose of their business obligations.

3. It is further submitted that the defendants failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and defaulted in paying the legitimate dues on the respective dates. Hence, the applicant bank issued a legal notice dated 30.4.2019 demanding a sum of Rs.21,71,227.81p as on 30.4.2019 along with interest with effect from the date of the said notice, till realization. Since the said legal notice did not evoke any response from the defendants, the present OA before this Tribunal.

4. Summons were taken out to the defendants and the summons were duly served. As there was no representation for the defendants, service was held sufficient and the defendants were called absent and set exparte on 14.11.2019. The Ld. Counsel for Applicant Bank filed proof affidavit and Exhibits A1 to A11 were marked and thereafter the applicant counsel made his submissions on 21.12.2021 and thereafter the matter stood to this date for passing final orders.

5. The following issues arise for consideration in the matter: - (a) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the liability of the defendants?

(b) What order as to cost of the proceedings need be passed?

These issues are considered together.

6. Heard the Ld. Counsel for the applicant, perused the OA averments and the record placed before the Tribunal.

7. The evidence of the applicant is led by AW1 who has produced the documents Exhibit A1 to A11 along with the proof affidavit. Exhibit A-1 is the certified copy of the Board Resolution dated 19.1.2018. Ex.A2 is the original Loan Application Form dated 9.1.2018. Ex.A3 is the original Board Resolution of 1st defendant dated 17.1.2018. Ex.A4 is the original Loan Agreement dated 17.1.2018. Ex.A5 is the original post dated cheque acknowledgment letter dated 17.1.2018. Ex.A6 is the original Forex unhedged Exposure letter dated 17.1.2018. Ex.A7 is the original declaration submitted by the defendant dated 17.1.2018. Ex.A8 is the original legal notice dated 30.4.2019. Ex.A9 is the original proof of service of the legal notice with respect to 1st defendant dated 2.5.2019. Ex.A10 is the original proof of service of the legal notice in the case of D2 dated 2.5.2019. Ex.A11 is the Statement of Accounts duly certified dated 13.6.2019.

8. The proof affidavit of the applicant bank remained unchallenged and unrebutted. Therefore, on a careful consideration of proof affidavit along with Exhibits filed on behalf of the applicant bank, besides the material placed before the Tribunal, this Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant bank has successfully proved the OA claim against the defendants. Point is answered accordingly.

9. In view of the aforementioned discussions, the only conclusion this Tribunal can draw is that the applicant had clearly proved the disbursement of the loan, which the applicant is entitled to realize. Hence, OA is disposed off in the following manner: - (a) OA No.594 of 2019 stands allowed.

(b) Applicant is permitted to realize a sum of Rs.21,09,734.18p together with interest thereon @15.50% p.a. (simple) against the defendants jointly and severally from 14.6.2019 till the date of realization in full, after deducting the amounts received or realised under SARFAESI Act or otherwise during the pendency of OA, from the defendants, and also by selling the other assets of the defendants.

(c) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amount due and payable to the Applicant Bank, the defendants are personally liable for all such amounts due.

(d) Applicant is permitted to realize cost of the proceedings and shall file cost memo within 7 days from the date of the order.

(e) The Recovery Certificate shall be drawn up and issued to the Recovery Officer in terms of this final order.

10. Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993. (Dictated to Steno(SN), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Virtual Court, through Video Conference on this 31st day of December, 2021)

Sd/-

(T. RAJESH)

PRESIDING OFFICER

(i/c) DRT-I, CHENNAI