Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Vijay Kumar

DRT8 Aug 2025OA/1309/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application under Section 19 of the RDB Act for recovery of a ₹52,95,646.03 debt with interest against three respondents, finding the case proved despite their absence, and directed issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 52,95,646.03 with interest directed against defendants jointly and severally via sale of mortgaged and personal properties.

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Vijay Kumar — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 1309/2023 Date of Institution: 14.09.2023 Date of Decision: 08.08.2025

¶4

HDFC Bank at Sirsa, Haryana

¶5

……..Applicant Vs. 1. Sh. Vijay Kumar S/o Sh. Ramesh Kumar, r/o Khuyian Malkana, Dabwali, Sirsa, Haryana-125104 2. Smt. Shilpa Rani W/o Sh. Vijay Kumar, r/o House No. 522, Khuyian Malkana, Dabwali, Sirsa, Haryana-125104 3. Sh. Moti Lal S/o Sh. Ram Kishan, r/o Khuyian Malkana,(293) Dabwali, Sirsa, Haryana-125104 …….Defendants Advocates Sh. Amit Rishi, Counsel for the applicant bank Defendants- ex parte OA for the Recovery of Rs.52,95,646.03p with interest @13% per annum with half-yearly rests from 14.09.2023. ORDER

¶6

HDFC Bank (Applicant Bank) has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of Rs.52,95,646.03p with interest against Sh. Vijay Kumar and Others (defendants).

¶7

Bank’s case is that on 02.12.2020, it had granted loans of Rs.31.60 Lacs in the form of Cash Credit Facility, Rs.5.80 Lacs in the

¶8

¶9

form of Cash Credit Facility-I and Rs.4.90 Lacs in the form of Cash Credit Facility-II to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for agricultural purpose. Defendant Nos. 3 stood as guarantor. To secure the loans, the defendant No. 1 had mortgaged his property (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). The loans were chargeable to interest @13% per annum with monthly rests in Cash Credit Facility and @16% per annum with monthly rests in Cash Credit Facility-I and II. On 28.04.2023, a sum of Rs.52,95,646.03p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶10

On 07.10.2023, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 05.12.2023, they were proceeded ex parte .

¶11

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Sh. Jatinder Mishra, Assistant Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-11. 5. 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 total loan of Rs.42.30 Lacs and on 28.04.2023, a sum of Rs.52,95,646.03p was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.52,95,646.03p (Rupees Fifty Two Lacs Ninety Five Thousand Six Hundred Forty Six and Three Paisa Only) with interest @13% per annum with half-yearly rests from 14.09.2023, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of all the defendants would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged property(ies) fully detailed in para No.3A of the application as well as

¶12

¶13

from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants.

¶14

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

¶15

Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 19.09.2025 , who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgage property(ies) and standing crops as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) of the Act .

¶16

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

¶17

Pronounced in the open Court (A S Narang) Dated: 08.08.2025 Presiding Officer DRT-2, Chandigarh (Additional charge)

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Vijay Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Vijay Kumar

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

Joy M P versus Muvattupuhza Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Pm Sasi versus State Bank of India

Canara Bank versus M/S Fine Foot Care Rep by Its Proprietrix Mrs. Asha Banu

Sri Narayan Chandra Pramanik Prop of Ms Birbhum Engineering Works versus Bank of India

Punjab National Bank (Oriental Bank of Commerce) versus Harbinder Singh

Union Bank of India versus M/S Magan Enterprises