Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Guru Kirpa Commission Agent

DRT5 Aug 2025OA/2002/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex parte application under the RDB Act, the Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed HDFC Bank's claim for recovery of Rs.34.90 lakhs plus interest, noting the establishment of loan advance and non-repayment, and directed issuance of a Recovery Certificate and sale of mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.34,90,944/- with interest at 9.65% per annum;Issue of Recovery Certificate;Sale of mortgaged and personal properties.

Hdfc Bank versus Guru Kirpa Commission Agent — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 2002/2022 Date of Institution: 23.09.2022 Date of Decision: 05.08.2025

¶4

HDFC Bank Limited having its branches all over India and a branch at Plot No.28, HDFC Bank House, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh.

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Guru Kirpa Commission Agent, VPO Kalanour, Distt. Gurdaspur, through its proprietor Sh. Ranjit Singh.

¶8

Ranjit Singh at #100, Village Ruliana, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur, Punjab.

¶9

……….Defendants

¶10

Advocates

¶11

Ms. Pinki proxy counsel for Sh. Gagandeep Toni, Counsel for the applicant bank.

¶12

Defendants - ex parte vide order dated 10.05.2023 .

¶13

OA for the Recovery of Rs.34,90,944/- with interest @9.65% per annum with monthly rests from 23.09.2022.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

HDFC Bank Limited has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of Rs.34,90,944/- with interest against Guru Kirpa Commission Agent and another (defendants).

¶16

Bank’s case is that on 01.07.2014, it had granted a loan of Rs.20.00 Lacs to defendant No.1 through its proprietor i.e. defendant No.2 in the form of ODAP facility for Working Capital/Business purpose. The limit was renewed from time to time and lastly on 22.06.2018, at Rs.20.00Lacs. To secure the loan, Defendant no. 2 had mortgaged his property (fully

¶17

¶18

detailed in para No.3A of the application). The loan was chargeable to interest @9.65% per annum with monthly rests. Thereafter on 10.06.2020, on the request of the defendants, the applicant bank granted an Additional Working Capital /Term Loan under the Emergency Credit Line Guarantee Scheme (ECLGS) for Rs.4.06Lacs. On 20.08.2022, a sum of Rs.34,90,944/- was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶19

On 19.10.2022, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 10.05.2023, they were proceeded ex parte .

¶20

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Sh. Rajendra Prasad, Authorized Officer along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-28.

¶21

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.24.06 Lacs and on 17.09.2022, a sum of Rs.34,90,944/- was due.

¶22

Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.34,90,944/- (Rupees Thirty Four Lacs Ninety Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Four Only) with interest @9.65% per annum with monthly rests from 23.09.2022, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of both the defendants would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged property fully detailed in para No.3A of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants.

¶23

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

¶24

Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.

¶25

¶26

Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 15.09.2025, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgaged land as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) of the Act . 10. A Copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to the Recovery Officer as well as the parties.

¶27

Pronounced in the open Court. (A S Narang) Dated: 05.08.2025 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

Hdfc Bank v. Guru Kirpa Commission Agent

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Guru Kirpa Commission Agent

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

Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited versus Nagraj Steel Scrap

State Bank of India versus Sri.Mayur

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Amar Singh

Punjab National Bank versus Tarsem Singh

Punjab National Bank versus M/s Santosh Traders

Ms Arvind Soap and Oils versus Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank