Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Raj Kumar

DRT27 Aug 2025OA/2043/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the bank's application under Section 19 RDB Act to recover Rs.41,58,301.92 with interest. The bank proved the loan advanced and outstanding dues via evidence. The court issued a recovery certificate for sale of mortgaged and personal properties.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; recovery of Rs.41,58,301.92 with interest permitted; Recovery Certificate issued; disposal of sale proceeds directed.

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Raj 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: 2043/2022 Date of Institution: 28.10.2022 Date of Decision: 27.08.2025

¶4

HDFC Bank Limited at Pundri, Kaithal, Haryana

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Sh. Raj Kumar s/o Sh. Ranbir Singh, r/o Teontha, Pundri, Kaithal, Haryana

¶8

Sh. Ajay Kumar s/o Sh. Ranbir Singh, r/o Teontha, Pundri, Kaithal, Haryana

¶9

Sh. Surender Singh s/o Sh. Zile Singh, r/o Teontha, Pundri, Kaithal, Haryana

¶10

Sh. Ranbir Singh s/o Sh. Ami Singh, r/o Teontha, Pundri, Kaithal, Haryana

¶11

Smt. Meena Rani w/o Sh. Ranbir Singh, r/o Teontha, Pundri, Kaithal, Haryana ……….Defendants

¶12

Advocates

¶13

Sh. Amit Rishi, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants- ex parte .

¶14

OA for the Recovery of Rs.41,58,301.92/- with interest @12% per annum with half yearly rests from 28.10.2022.

¶15

ORDER

¶16

HDFC Bank Limited (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.41,58,301.92/- with interest against Sh. Raj Kumar and others (defendants).

¶17

Bank’s case is that on 23.06.2017, it had granted a loan of Rs.20.90 Lacs in the form of C.C Limit and Rs.4.20 Lacs in the form of DOD Facility to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for agricultural purpose. Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 stood as guarantors. To secure the loans,

¶18

¶19

Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had mortgaged their agricultural land (fully detailed in para No.5.8 of the application). The C.C was chargeable to interest @12% per annum with half yearly rests and DOD Facility was chargeable to interest @15.25% per annum with half yearly rests. On 16.07.2022, a sum of Rs.41,58,301.92/- was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶20

On 14.06.2023, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 19.08.2023, defendant Nos. 1 to 4 were proceeded ex parte and Vide order dated 27.12.2023, defendant No. 5 was proceeded ex parte

¶21

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Sh. Jatinder Mishra, Authorized Officer 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 loan of Rs.25.10 Lacs and on 16.07.2022, a sum of Rs.41,58,301.92/- was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.41,58,301.92/- (Rupees Forty One Lacs Fifty Eight Thousand Three Hundred One and Ninety Two Paisa Only) with interest @12% per annum with half yearly rests from 28.10.2022, 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.5.8 of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants.

¶22

¶23

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 04.10.2025 , 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 . 10. A Copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to the Recovery Officer as well as the parties. Pronounced in the open Court. (A S Narang) Dated: 27.08.2025 Presiding Officer DRT-2, Chandigarh (Additional charge)

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Raj Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Raj 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

State Bank of India versus Sh Resham Singh @ Sher Singh

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Swaran Singh

Indian Overseas Bank versus Sh. Baldev Singh Arora (Now Deceased)

Federal Bank versus Sreekumar K

State Bank of India versus M/S Raghav Oil Mills and Ors.

Manoj Cm versus Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.