Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Ashok Kumar

DRT26 Nov 2025OA/1052/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT-I, Chandigarh allowed an Originating Application filed by HDFC Bank Ltd. for the recovery of a loan of Rs. 20,65,618.47 p plus interest. The court found the bank's case proved on recorded evidence, issued a Recovery Certificate, and directed distribution of proceeds from the hypothecated vehicle.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; Recovery Certificate issued; distribution of sale proceeds of hypothecated vehicle directed.

Hdfc Bank versus Ashok Kumar — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 1052 of 2022 Date of Institution: 12.05.2022 Date of Decision: 26.11.2025 HDFC Bank Ltd. having its branches all over India and a branch at Plot ……..Applicant Vs.

¶4

HDFC Bank Ltd. having its branches all over India and a branch at Plot no.28, HDFC Bank House, Industrial Area, Phase 1, Chandigarh.

¶5

Ashok Kumar s/o Sh. Machhi Ram r/o Ward no.6, Opposite RSD College, Guru Nanak Avenue, Ferozepur, Punjab.

¶6

2^nd Address: c/o Jai Maa Dharm Kanda, Border Road, Near Gurudwara Sahib, Ferozepur City, Punjab.

¶7

……….Defendant

¶8

Advocates

¶9

Sh. K.P.S. Dhillon, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendant - ex parte .

¶10

OA for the Recovery of Rs.20,65,618.47p with interest @7.80% per annum with monthly rests from 12.05.2022. ORDER

¶11

HDFC Bank Ltd. (Bank) has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of Rs.20,65,618.47p with interest against Sh. Ashok Kumar (defendant).

¶12

Bank’s case is that on 21.10.2020, it had granted a loan of Rs.18,78,907/- to defendant for vehicle purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant had hypothecated vehicle (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). The loan was chargeable to interest @7.80% per annum with monthly rests. On 29.03.2022, a sum of Rs.20,65,618.47p was due from the defendant. Despite repeated requests, defendant did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶13

On 16.06.2022, summons was sent to the defendant by registered post, which was duly served. However, defendant did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 07.03.2024, he proceeded was ex parte .

¶14

¶15

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Authorised Officer along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-6.

¶16

I have perused the evidence on the record. I am of the considered view that the Bank has proved its case that it had advanced the loan of Rs.18,78,907/- and on 29.03.2022, a sum of Rs.20,65,618.47p was due.

¶17

Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.20,65,618.47p (Rupees Twenty Lacs Sixty Five Thousand and Six Hundred Eighteen and Forty Seven Paise Only) with interest @7.80% per annum with monthly rests from 12.05.2022, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of hypothecated vehicle fully detailed in para No.3A of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendant.

¶18

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

¶19

Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.

¶20

Party is directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 01.01.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the hypothecated vehicle as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) of the Act .

¶21

A Copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to the Recovery Officer as well as the party.

¶22

Pronounced in the open Court. (A S Narang) Dated: 26.11.2025 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh Amanpreet (Law Researcher)

Hdfc Bank v. Ashok Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Ashok Kumar

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

Parthas Textiles versus Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited

Dcb Bank versus Arun Sharma

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Bansal Foods

Ajay Kashyap versus Piramal Capital

Ajith Gopidas versus the Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd.

Jose George versus State Bank of India