Delhi High Court
Abhinav Nanda vs Hdfc Bank Ltd on 14 July, 2015
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3832/2015
% Judgment dated 14th July, 2015
ABHINAV NANDA ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Tarun Diwan, Advocate.
versus
HDFC BANK LTD ..... Respondent
Through : None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
CM APPL. 6856/2015
1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 3832/2015
3. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 09.02.2015 passed by
the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. The facts which have given rise
to the filing of the writ petition are that an OA was filed by the respondent
bank before the Debt Recovery Tribunal for recovery of a sum of
Rs.12,21,713/-. Financial assistance was granted to the petitioner herein
in the form of overdraft facility of Rs.20,00,000/- and agreement-cum-
pledge-cum-guarantee deed dated 26.09.2000 was executed in favour of
the bank. Loan facilities were granted. The Tribunal allowed the claim of
the bank with interest @ 15% from 25.10.2001 onwards. An appeal was
filed before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal.
4. The prime grievance of the petitioner before the Debts Recovery
Appellate Tribunal against the order dated 24.07.2013 passed by the
Debts Recovery Tribunal was that the petitioner had requested the bank to
sell the shares which were pledged with the bank at the appropriate time.
Since the bank failed to sell the shares as requested by the petitioner, the
petitioner suffered heavy losses. Another ground raised was that the bank
was duty bound to issue notice before sale of shares in the open market so
as to give an opportunity to the petitioner to get a better price. We may
note that the petitioner had raised a counter claim as according to the
petitioner, in case the shares were sold when the petitioner had requested
the bank, the value of the shares was much higher. This plea of the
petitioner was rejected by the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the Debts
Recovery Appellate Tribunal. Identical grounds have been raised by the
petitioner before this Court as well. The stand of the petitioner herein did
not find favour with the Debts Recovery Tribunal as the Tribunal held that
the petitioner had failed to prove the price of the shares at the time of
issuance of the letter to the bank. The petitioner has placed reliance on a
letter dated 03.02.2001 wherein he had written to the bank to sell the
pledged shares. However, the bank failed to act as stated in the letter and
sold the shares at a time when the price of the shares had gone down
drastically which resulted in a loss to the petitioner. The petitioner had
stated that the market rate of the Penta Media was Rs.270/- per share and
the value of the Silver Line was Rs.255/- per share when the letter dated
03.02.2001 was issued. Both the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the Debts
Recovery Appellate Tribunal have held that the petitioner did not adduce
any evidence to show what was the market rates of the shares on the date
when the letter of 03.02.2001 was issued.
5. In the absence of any evidence in support of the plea with regard to the
price of the shares, we find that there is no infirmity in the order of the
Debts Recovery Tribunal and the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal as
the onus was on the petitioner to prove the price of the shares at the
appropriate time. Resultantly, we find no grounds to interfere in this writ
petition; the same is accordingly dismissed.
CM. APPL 6855/2015(stay)
6. In view of the order passed above, the application stands disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
JULY 14, 2015
sc/pst
