Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. M/S Marg Darshak Development Projects and Consulting Pvt. Ltd.

DRT26 Sept 2025OA/245/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of dues arising from a business loan. The court held that the defendants failed to prove their defenses regarding competency and forgery. It directed repayment with specified interest and future recovery measures including asset sale.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued for Rs. 54,92,299.97 with 7% pendent lite interest; payment ordered within two months; contingent right to sell assets and attachment invoked.

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Marg Darshak Development Projects and… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW

¶2

a proceeding			Officeaction taken with date
O.A. No.245/2024 26.09.2025	The Judgment is signed pronounced on separate sheets. Separ attachedin06 sheets. Order beuploadedon theTribu website. (Dictated) (Pravas Kumar PresidingOffic	and ately nal’s Singh) er
	(MK)

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT LUCKNOW

¶4

Present: Pravas Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

¶5

Case No. Original Application No.245 of 2024

¶6

Dated: 26.09.2025

¶7

HDFC Bank Limited, having Branch at 17/4A, lst Floor, Nikhitesh Palace, Ashok Marg, Hazratganj, Lucknow, U.P. – 260001.

¶8

....... Applicant-bank

¶9

Versus 1. M/s Marg Darshak Development Projects Consulting Pvt. Ltd. Through Directors – Arup Jyotirai Baruah & Rahul Jessel Mittra 118 Dayal Farms Ganeshpur Rehmanpur Deva Road Chinhat, Kunvar Global School Lucknow, U.P. – 226010. 2. Arup Jyoti Rai Baruah S/o Sarat Rai Barooah Being Director, C-1804, 18th Floor, Tower C, GH-01/B Grand Ajnara Sector 74 Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. – 201301. 3. Rahul Jessel Mittra S/o Malay Kanti Mittra, B- 303, Amarpali Awadh Apartments Hal Lucknow, U.P. – 226016. Defendants

¶10

Ld. Counsel for Applicant-bank: Shri Deepak Singh Lalhipore, Advocate Ld. Counsel for the Defendants: Shri D. P. S. Rathore, Advocate

¶11

JUDGEMENT

¶12

This Original Application has been filed by the Applicant-bank under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendants for the recovery of Rs.54,92,299.97/- (Rupees Fifty Four Lacs, Ninety Two Thousand, Two Hundred Ninety Nine and Paisa Ninety Seven

¶13

O.A. No.245 of 2024

¶14

¶15

Only) together with pendent-lite and future interest, costs and other reliefs etc

¶16

The brief facts of case:- The defendants approached the Applicantbank for financial assistance. The Applicant-bank considered the request of the defendants and sanctioned Business Loan of Rs.50.00 lacs vide its sanction letter dated 04.12.2020 on certain terms and conditions (Annexure No. A-2) to this Original Application.

¶17

To secure aforesaid credit facility, defendants had executed and signed various security documents in favour of the Applicant-bank, a copy of which is being annexed as (Annexure No.A-3) to this Original Application.

¶18

To avail the aforesaid credit facility, the Applicant-bank had opened loan accounts in the name of defendant No. 1 in order to maintain the credit facilities.

¶19

After availing the aforesaid credit facility, the defendants failed to maintain financial discipline and also failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, consequently, the loan account of the defendant no.1/firm was classified as NPA on 06.04.2022 by the bank as per RBI guidelines, thereafter the Applicant-bank issued Recall Notice dated 05.02.2024 to the defendants (Annexure No. A-5), but, the defendants stated no-response and they failed to repay the same and the loan accounts of the defendants are still un-liquidated, hence, this Original Application has been instituted.

¶20

As per books of the bank maintained in the usual and ordinary course of banking business, an outstanding of Rs.54,92,299.97/- (Rupees Fifty Four Lacs, Ninety Two Thousand, Two Hundred Ninety Nine and Paisa Ninety

¶21

O.A. No.245 of 2024

¶22

Seven Only) including interest upto 05.02.2024, were lying due for payment, for which the defendants are jointly and severally liable to repay the same, which they did not pay despite repeated requests and demand. The Applicant-bank filed the Statement of loan Accounts. (Annexure No.A-4) to this Original Application.

¶23

The cause of action for filing the present application arose firstly on 04.12.2020 when the aforesaid credit facility were sanctioned by the Applicant-bank and the same were availed by the defendants and necessary documents were executed by the defendants. The cause of action further arose on when recall Notice dated 05.02.2024 was sent to the defendants, recalling the entire outstanding dues and they failed to pay the same.

¶24

It appears that the defendant No.1 & 2 appeared before the Tribunal on 17.05.2024 on receipt the copy of the OA on 21.05.2024, but written submission has been filed on 07.08.2024 that is after statutory period for filling the written statemen and without filing any condonation of delay. Technically it cannot be examined by the Tribunal. However, I have considered the submission as written submissions in order to avoid any miscarriage of justice. It is stated that (a) that the defendant No.1 was not competent to take any debt. (b) The defendant No.2 has claimed that his

¶25

signature have been forged on the documents of the bank.

¶26

1 find that any evidence in support of its contention has not been filed, per contra the applicant bank has filed all the relevant documents including the loan application in order to prove of its case. It is a trite law that after discharging initial burden of proof, the onus shifts upon the

¶27

O.A. No.245 of 2024

¶28

¶29

defendants for prove their contention. I find that and hold that the contention of the defendants as raised in the written submission is non-nest. 10. The only point of consideration before this Tribunal is as to whether bank is legally entitled to the amount as claimed in Original Application on the basis of documents and pleading submitted by it ?

¶30

In support of the case Shri Saurabh Singh, Authorized Officer of the

¶31

Applicant-bank has filed an affidavit.

¶32

On a careful scrutiny of the evidence on affidavit and Exhibits marked as Annexure No.A-1 to Annexure No.A-5, it is proved that defendants had availed the credit facilities from the Applicant-bank by executing loan and security documents detailed as above in favour of the Applicant-bank. A perusal of the application, evidence and documents relied upon clearly show that defendant had utilized the above loan facilities as granted to them. The Applicant-bank had maintained the Books of account in the ordinary course of banking business showing disbursal of the loan amount. The Bank had also charged interest from time to time and the entries are relevant u/s 4 of the Banker Books of Evidence Act. It is also proved that the Applicant-bank’s claim is within limitation against defendants, therefore, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the dues.

¶33

Accordingly, the defendants are directed to pay the balance dues to the Applicant-bank within a period of 2 months from the date of judgement failing which the Applicant-bank will be entitled to sell the hypothecated assets and personal assets/ properties of the defendants.

¶34

O.A. No.245 of 2024

¶35

¶36

The Applicant-bank has claimed interest@8% per annum with monthly rest w.e.f. 06.02.2024 till the date of realization and costs. On the basis of foregoing discussion, interest of justice will be served if pendentlite and future interest is granted @7% per annum with monthly rest reducing balance from the date of filing of the O.A. till the date of realization with costs.

¶37

1 find that the bank has proved the execution of loan documents and creation of mortgage in its favour. In the result, the Original Application succeeds as proceeded against the defendants with costs. The bank has proved the loan execution of loan documents in favour of the bank and availment of credit facility. The liability of the defendant Nos.1 to 3 are joint and several hypothecated asset as well as the personal properties are to be

¶38

sold.

¶39

It is, therefore , ordered

¶40

(i) That the Original Application No.245 of 2024 of the Applicant bank for issuance of Recovery Certificate to the tune of Rs.54,92,299.97/(Rupees Fifty Four Lacs, Ninety Two Thousand, Two Hundred Ninety Nine and Paisa Ninety Seven Only) along with the interest @7% per annum with monthly rest from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 07.03.2024 till the loan is fully liquidated and costs succeeds as proceeded against the defendants.

¶41

(ii) The defendant Nos.1 to 3 are directed to pay the dues within a period of two months from the date of judgement, failing which the

b\X_

O.A. No.245 of 2024

Applicant-bank will be entitled to recover the same from the secured assets, personal movables and immovable assets of the defendants.

¶46

(iii) The Applicant–bank is entitled to recover aforesaid amount by sale of hypothecated assets (if not sold earlier under the provision of the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act 2002). The amount, if any already recovered by sale of any hypothecated assets or otherwise shall be recoverable, if the dues of the Applicant-bank still remain unsatisfied, the same shall be recovered by attachment and sale of the personal movable assets of the defendant jointly and severally.

¶47

(iV) The defendants are hereby restrained by means of injunction from depleting, transferring, encumbering, alienating or in any way dealing with their properties/estates without first paying the claim of the Applicant-bank.

¶48

(V) Let Recovery Certificate be issued immediately u/s 19(22) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 by fixing 15.12.2025 before R.O., DRT, Lucknow.

¶49

(Vi) The Applicant-bank is directed to file a memo of cost for preparing Recovery Certificate u/s 19(22) of the Recovery of Debts Bankruptcy Act, 1993 .

¶50

Judgment is pronounced in the open court.

¶51

Dated: 26.09.2025

¶52

(

¶53

(Pravas Kumar S,,_gh) Presiding Officer

¶54

(MK)

Hdfc Bank v. M/S Marg Darshak Development Projects and Consulting Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. M/S Marg Darshak Development Projects and Consulting Pvt. Ltd.

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

Canara Bank versus Ms Revel Industries

Canara Bank versus Mr Ayodhya Prasad

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Seema Jain

Bank of Baroda versus Ms Isha Pharma and Surgicals

Icici Bank Limited versus Ms Vap Infosolutions

Mohd Rihan versus Hinduja Housing Finance Limited