Allowed

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. Smt. Sukhpal Kaur and Others

DRT8 Oct 2025OA/1050/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the bank's application for recovery of loan dues. The tribunal directed respondents to pay the principal amount along with simple interest at 8% p.a. and granted permission for execution through SARFAESI proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to pay Rs. 22,69,203.08 with 8% simple interest. Granted Recovery Certificate and permission for execution via SARFAESI Act.

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Smt. Sukhpal Kaur and Others — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1050/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BYMRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 25.07.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 08.10.2025

¶6

HDFC Bank Limited, having its registered office at Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, (West) Mumbai-400013 Also at: HDFC Bank House, Plot No. I-15, Sector-101, Alpha IT City, Mohali-160662, Also at: HDFC Bank Branch, Bagha Purana, Moga, Punjab Through its Authorized Representative Sh. Dinesh Kumar.

¶7

……..Applicant Versus

¶8

Smt. Sukhpal Kaur W/o Sh. Baljinder Singh Brar, R/o Mehar Patti, Rode, Bagha Purana, Moga, Punjab-142049.

¶9

Sh. Baljinder Singh Brar, S/o Sh. Karmail Singh, R/o Mehar Patti, Rode, Bagha Purana, Moga, Punjab-142049.

¶10

Sh. Jaswinder Singh Brar, S/o Sh. Sudagar Singh, R/o Nawan, Rode, Bagha Purana, Moga, Punjab-142049.

¶11

………. Defendants

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

Argued by Sh. Sanchit Malik, Advocate proxy for Sh. Rajesh Jangra, Advocate for applicant

¶14

Defendants already ex-parte

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.22,69,203.08p (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Sixty Nine Thousand Two Hundred Three & Eight Paise Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Dinesh Kumar, Authorized Representative of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 17.01.2024, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶17

2 OA NO. 1050/2025 HDFC BANK LTD. Vs SH.SUKHPAL KAUR AND OTHERS

¶18

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendants had approached the applicant for the grant of KCC Limit of Rs.22.50 Lacs & DOD Limit of Rs.10.00 Lacs vide application form dated 08.10.2021, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. Defendant no. 3 stood as guarantor. 3. The applicant sanctioned the KCC Limit of Rs.21.35 Lacs & DOD Limit of Rs.8.15 Lacs vide Sanction letters dated 25.10.2021, which are Annexure A3 (Colly) to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶19

Defendant no. 2 had mortgaged his immovable properties i.e. Land measuring 80K-00M situated at Village Roda 2/111, Tehsil Baghapurana, District Moga, Punjab vide Declaration u/s 4(1) dated 28.10.2021 & Letter to Sub Registrar for Creation of charge, which is Annexure A5 (Colly) to this OA.

¶20

Documents executed : - Loan cum hypothecation cum guarantee agreements for cash credit & DOD Limit dated 25.10.2021, which are Annexure A4 (Colly) to this OA; Loan Recall Notice dated 31.01.2025, along with Postal Receipts, which is Annexur e A6 to this OA and Accounts Statements which are Annexure A7 (Colly) to this OA.

¶21

The loan accounts became irregular and were classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan accounts there was a debit of Rs.22,69,203.08p, which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notices but they did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶22

The defendants were served notices to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte on 23.09.2025.

¶23

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Dinesh Kumar, authorized Representative, HDFC Bank Ltd., h as been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶24

3 OA NO. 1050/2025 HDFC BANK LTD. Vs SH.SUKHPAL KAUR AND OTHERS

¶25

It was argued by learned proxy counsel that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case. From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A7 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant for availing of the loan facilities which were granted to them and for that they had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. The defendants failed to pay back the loans as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, accounts of the defendants was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.22,69,203.08p (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Sixty Nine Thousand Two Hundred Three & Eight Paise Only) along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the accounts.

¶26

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @11.00%p.a. plus penal interest @16% with half yearly rests from 23.01.2025 till the realization.

¶27

The Tribunal is of the considered opinion that sometimes in appropriate cases the prerogative of mercy is the brightest jewel in the crown of the Judge. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case including nature of the mortgaged property, undertaking of the defendants, quantum of loan and prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yester years, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @08.00%p.a. in both the loan accounts from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly. 11. In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of

¶28

4 OA NO. 1050/2025 HDFC BANK LTD. Vs SH.SUKHPAL KAUR AND OTHERS

¶29

Rs.22,69,203.08p (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Sixty Nine Thousand Two Hundred Three & Eight Paise Only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00%p.a. in both the loan accounts from the date of filing of OA till the date of realization of the amount. Accordingly, the applicant shall be entitled to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of hypothecated/mortgaged properties of the defendants in execution proceedings if not sold earlier under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. If the dues of the applicant still remain unsatisfied, it shall be entitled to recover the same by attachment and sale of personal assets of the defendants. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶30

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶31

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶32

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 21.10.2025

¶33

Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant and be sent to defendants through registered/speed post and this order be also uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal and record be consigned.

¶34

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal .

¶35

Dated: 08.10.2025.

¶36

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. Smt. Sukhpal Kaur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. Smt. Sukhpal Kaur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Karamjit Singh and Another

Axis Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Manjeet Singh and Another

Axis Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Hardayal Singh and Another

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Manjit Singh

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Sh. Kashmir Singh

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Raj Kumar and Others