Phoenix Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr. Ketan Ashwinkumar Vaidya

Phoenix Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd.

…Appellant

Mr. Ketan Ashwinkumar Vaidya

…Respondent

Case No: Appeal No. 57/2022

Date of Judgement: 11/12/2023

Judges:

Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson

For Respondent: None.

 Download Court Copy CLICK HERE

Facts:

The case revolves around a personal loan of ₹5,50,500 taken by Mr. Ketan Ashwinkumar Vaidya (Respondent) from ABN AMRO Bank NV. The loan was to be repaid in 60 instalments of ₹13,681 each, commencing from 01/04/2008 and ending on 02/03/2013. The Respondent executed an agreement concerning the loan apart from a Demand Promissory Note. On 02/12/2010, the Respondent issued three cheques totaling ₹41,043 towards defaulted instalments. On 04/08/2013, another cheque for ₹13,681 was issued by the Respondent towards the outstanding dues, which was dishonored on 30/08/2013 due to insufficient funds. ABN AMRO Bank was substituted with the Royal Bank of Scotland NV vide a notification from the Reserve Bank of India dated 19/03/2010. The debt was assigned to Phoenix Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant) on 30/04/2012. The Appellant recalled the debt on 25/10/2013 by issuing a notice demanding repayment. However, the Respondent failed to respond. The Appellant filed an Original Application (O.A.) No. 650 of 2016 with the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Mumbai (D.R.T.) for the recovery of ₹10,17,537, along with future interest at 2% per month from the date of filing the O.A. till realization. The Respondent remained ex parte, and the Ld. Presiding Officer dismissed the O.A., stating that the claim was barred by limitation and that the cheques relied upon by the Applicant were issued in the name of ABN AMRO when the said bank was not in existence from 19/03/2010. The Ld. Presiding Officer also observed that the cheques were filled up at a later date, which attracts offenses under the Indian Penal Code, and intended to initiate criminal proceedings against the officer of the Appellant institution.

Arguments by the Parties:

The Respondent remained ex parte and did not present any arguments.

Cases Cited:

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. vs. Anuj Kumar Tyagi 2015 SCC OnLine Del 14130

Bir Singh vs. Mukesh Kumar (2019) 4 SCC 197

Sections and Laws Referred:

Article 55 of the Limitation Act, 1963

Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Indian Penal Code (referred to but not explicitly mentioned)

The court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment/order of the D.R.T. in O.A. No. 650 of 2016. The court directed the Respondent/Defendant to pay the Appellant/Applicant a sum of ₹10,17,537, together with future interest at the rate of 2% per month from the date of filing the O.A. till realization, and ordered the issuance of a Recovery Certificate accordingly.