Allowed

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. Anjaneya Enterprises

DRT1 Aug 2025OA/1015/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of loan dues. The court held defendants liable for repayment and directed issuance of Recovery Certificate, allowing sale of assets under SARFAESI Act if dues remain unsatisfied within two months.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued; defendants directed to pay dues plus 10% future interest within two months; sale of assets authorized if unpaid.

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Anjaneya Enterprises — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2025)

DEBTS RECOVERY TRI]

LUCKNO

Date of order or Order with signature of court Iffice action
lroceedin! lken with date
CTNo. 1015/m
01.08.2025 an
The Judgment is I signI
pronounced on separate shebts. sI )aratel
attached in 07 sheets.
Order be uploaded onI the T
website.
Dictated}
(Prava; Kuma?Singh)
PresiHing Officer
(Manoj)

¶5

¶6

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBl NAL AT LU :NOW

¶7

br
resent: Pravas Kumar Singh, ’residing Offic
:ase No. Original Application [o. 1015 of 20 :2
Dated: 01.08.20
HDFC BANK LIMITED HAVING ITS B
AT 17/4-A, lst floor, NIKHILESH P
ASHOK MARG, LUCKNOW-226001.
IiI ant Bank
Versus
1. ANJANEYA ENTERPRISES, THROU
PROPRIETOR, R/0 5/87 IIM ROAD
VIRENDRA PRATAP, INTER C dLLE
RAIPUR LUCKNOW, SECTORC- d2602
(U.P.
2. RD
ARVIND PATHAK, 5/87 IIM ROAD
VIRENDRA PRATAP INTER COLLEGE ,IPU
LUCKNOW/ LUCKNOW/ UTTAR PR1 DESH
226021
3. RASHMI PANDEY, A- 72 HARIHAR IAGA
INDIRA NAGAR, LUCKNOW, ITTA
PRADESH-226016

¶8

:elnda nts

¶9

Counsel for $pplicant-bank: Shri Manu Dixit Advocate Counsel for the defendants: Sh. Shahabud din, Advocate JUDGEMENT 1. This driginal Application has been iled by the al pbicant Bank c+ Act, 1993, under Secti dn 19(1) of the Recovery of De^{ts & Bankrup1} against the defendants for the recovery of IS. 1,20,13,47 \I- (Rupees One Crore tWenty Lacs Thirteen Thousand our ndred Eaqd Seventy-

¶10

¶11

ro. 1015 of 2022

¶12

d future inter4s costs and Five only) +ogethe, with pendent-lite an

¶13

other relief£ etc.

¶14

The brief facts of case are that the defendanjs No.1 is a proprietorship firm of which defendant no 2 is the sol 'ob rietor. The defendant no.2 on behalf of defendant no 1 approachedt applicant bank for financial assistance in the shape of Cl ercia !hicle Loan nder Credit Line and additional working Capital Term Loan Eerge Guarantee Fcheme. The applicant bank c Jnsidered the de uest of the defendantsJand sanctioned credit facility +cility of Rs. 1,49l+5,500/cuted and 3. To sejure aforesaid credit facility, d fendants had eIc signed vari8us security documents in favo r of the applic§n 'bank. 4. To avbil the aforesaid credit facilitie: the applican b nk opened loan accou Xt in the name of the defendan' No.1 5. After availing the abovementione 11 cred :iII Ii from the appticant-bbnk, the defendants failed to maintain fina4ci II discipline and also fajled to comply with the terms and conditions o' agreement ink i all do ;ible efforts as requireq in the matter. The applicant-b ed ldants IS reminded through or+1 persuasion and letters etc. TI many time! by several applications by the applicant-bank 0 regularize the loan a&count, but the defendants ke )t mu and not come forward to make any efforts regarding P y ment of du i ut the loan account of the defendants were remained irregular and defendants did not caRe to deposit the amount to adjust/to deposit the amount to adjust/ :gularize :he account

¶15

did not caRe to deposit the amount to adjust/to deposit the amount to adjust/

¶16

( \a

¶17

O.Al No. 1015 of 2022

¶18

despite vari6us assurances given by defendbnts Consequ4n +ly, the loan accounts of the defendant No.1 were ctassiFied as P.A. ,;nj2r.05.2022 by the applicant-bank as per RBI guidelinqs, thel r applicant bank issued notice Dated 28.09.2022 ( Exhibit No l to the

¶19

defendants and requested for repayments,but the Defeng4nts did not paid their heed to the same, hence, this OFiginal Applica+ian has been instituted

¶20

As pe+ books of the bank maintaine b in the usual abd ordinary course of banking business, an outstaNding df R: .,to, 13,475/ (Rupees –ode Crore Twenty Lacs Thirteen lhousahd Fo Hbndred and Seventy Fiv4 only) including intl ISt upto 28.0: 1022, lying due for payment, for which the defI lants arq jointly and s+v+rally liable to repay thi same, which they did not pay despi epeatqd requests and demand. The applicant bank filed the qtatem8nt of ldad1 Accounts (Exhibit No.4-5)

¶21

7 The cause of action for filing the presbnt applicatiol ose firstly when the a+oresaid credit facility were s4nctio a >y }h+ applicant Bank and the same were availed by the defendants ahdnecessary

¶22

documents rere executed by the defendants. he ca Jsa of action further arosb on when demand Notice dt, 022 wa 'nt to the

¶23

defendants, 'ecalling the entire outstanding the same

¶24

d they f4iled to pay

¶25

( <sup>r

¶26

1 P.A} No. 1015 of 2022

¶27

The summons were served UPo& the defen4aht through registered i)ost and the defendants appe bred before tael Tribunal to contest their case by filing written statebent after sta+ujory period, therefore written statement could not be donsidered

¶28

The only point of consideration bbfore Tri8uhat is as to whether bank is legally entitled to the abount as claideb in Original Application on the basis of documents andI pleadi S li bed by it 10. In sUpport of the case Shri Sushil +ingh, Manager ILegal of the applicant danI< has filed an affidavit

¶29

11 On careful scrutiny of the evidehce n affidaJit land Exhibits marked as[Exhibit No.A-1 to Exhibit No.A defendants {,.*.;,,.„.. had availeh the credit facilities from thel applicant-ba lby executing loan and jsecurity documents detailed jas ove in favour of the idence documents applicant- Bank. A perusal of the applicatbon, relied upqn clearly show that defendan' ha ltilized [hb above loan facilities granted to them. The applicbnt-bank had intained the Books of +ccount in the ordinary coursel of bi :ing bqsihess showing disbursal bf the 1,,. am,..t. Th, B,„k dad ,I,o ,h„gad II.t„,st f„m time to time and the entries are relevan+ u/s 4,Qf the dahker Books of bank’ laim is within Evidence Act. It is also proved that the abplica limitation against defendants, therefore,defendants, therefore, :he defendantl -e jointly and

¶30

limitation against defendants, therefore,defendants, therefore, severally liable to pay the dues.

¶31

Accordingly, the defendants No. 1 th 3 are direct+dr to pay the balance dues to the applicant bank within a perio onths from the date of judgement failing which the adplican lnk will be entitled to sell the mortgaged property, hypoth4cated assets d personal assets/ properties of the defendants 13. The applicant-bank has claimed [email protected]' ber annum :he date of with month'ly rest in vehicle loan and @ 9.125% in,,GECL realization and costs. The contest betw4en apblicant-$ k and the defendants comes to an end after filiNg of le O IS per the provisions &f Section 19(2) of the Recovel of Debts addl Bankruptcy to Section Act 1993 (ab amended from time to time) +hich is analogb 34 to the ’c, the Tribunal/ Court has dirbcti01 awarbiHg pendent lite and fu+ure interest. I am also suppo+ted in my viI by Hon’ble

¶32

Supreme C burt in a case titled Central Bahk of India vs.Rbvindra and others rep+rted in AIR 2001 sc page 309b. Of basik Hf foregoing discussion, :interest of justice will be serv4d if pendete- l[it4 and future interest is granted @10% per annum 'ith 0 ie reducing balance frdm the date of filing of the o.A. till tI 0 realization

¶33

with costs

¶34

14 In the result, the Original Applicbtiol ;ucceed: lgainst the defendant No. 1 to 3 with costs. The Iban las prdv 4d the loan

¶35

execution of loan documents in favour df the bank arIdavailing of credit faciIIties. The liability of the defen bant No.1 to -e joint and

¶36

Mi ro. 1015 of 2022

¶37

several and’ hypothecated asset as well as the personal $r+perties are

¶38

to be sold

¶39

It is, therefore , ordered (i) That le Original Application No.10b5 of 2022 of applicant of Rs. Rs bankE for issuance of Recovery CertiFicate to the tI 1,20, 13,475/(Rupees –One Crbre Twent' .a Thirteen Thouband Four Hundred and Seven' Fi' only) alohg with the he date of interest @ 10% per annum with m+nthly rest frol filing of the Original Application i. 19.10.2022 dilllt he loan is fully liquidated and costs succeeds bgainsljthe de+ehdant No. 1 to

¶40

(ii) The defendants are directed to paylthe d is withbnl a period of which the

¶41

two months from the date of juhgement, failil :he s, from the

¶42

appli£ant bank will be entitled to Fecove1 ;sets of the

¶43

secu}ed assets, personal movables 4nd imrpovabll defehdants by

¶44

(iii) The 4pplicant–b,nk i, „,titl,d t, ,4„,„,,f„„,bd,m,..t sale of hypothecated assets (if dot sold earlibrj: under the provjsion of the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Acl 2002). The a lunt, if any alreddy recovered by sale of ady hypptl terI assets or otheFwise shall be recoverable, if thb duel^a lpblicant bank still remain unsatisfied, the sarrhe s He ek overed by

¶45

7 1 ! :! +.4 N,. l015 of 2022 attachment and sale of the personal m9vable bsbets of the defeddant jointly and severally.

¶46

(iV) The dbfendants are here by restraided by:means lot injunction from depleting, transferring, encumbering;alienajinb or in any way dealing with thei, properties/4states, Withouk kjrst paying the claim of the applicant-bank.

¶47

(V) Let Rebovery Certificate be issued imbediat ely u/s hdt22) of the Recoqery of Debts & Bankruptcy Ac+ 1993. by fixing b3.11.2025 befor+ Recovery Officer, DRT, Lucknol Judgement is pronounced in dhe OPen court

¶48

Dated: 01.08.2025 C}' ravas kUmar Sigh) Pre$iding Officer

¶49

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. Anjaneya Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. Anjaneya Enterprises

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

Mr Viplav Sharma versus Icici Bank Limited

M S Al Madinah Food Company versus Punjab and Sind Bank

Sh Sundar Singh versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Hari Krishan Batra versus Axis Bank

Ankur Jain versus Hdb Financial Services Limited

Bank of Baroda versus Ms Gupta Oils