Allowed

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Mr. Sourabh Singh

DRT28 Jul 2025OA/335/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed an application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. The court affirmed the bank's claim for the principal sum but awarded future interest at a reduced rate of 9% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 28,94,146.66p with interest at 9% per annum simple from the date of application till realization.

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Mr. Sourabh Singh — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this the 28^th day of July, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY Presiding Officer

¶4

OA No.335 of 2023

¶5

HDFC Bank Limited No.128, Nelson Manickam Road East West Centre, Ground Floor Aminjikarai, Chennai – 600 029

¶6

Also at “CEEBROS”, 110, 4^th Floor Nelson Manickam Road Aminjikarai, Chennai – 600 029 Represented by its Authorized Signatory Ms. Abirami Nagarajan

¶7

… Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Mr. Sourabh Singh S/o Bhaskar Singh Tower 4, Flat 24, DLF Garden City Thazhambur, Siruseri Near PSBB School, Chennai – 600 130

¶10

Also at Cognizant Technology Solutions Private Limited ASV Suntech Park No.148, OMR Road, Okkiyam Thoraipakkam, Chennai – 600 096

¶11

Also at Flat 1249, Towa Vasto Mahagon Moderne Sec 78, Noida - 201306

¶12

… Defendant

¶13

Counsels on Record / Appeared

¶14

Counsel for Applicant : M/s T.K.M. Sai Krishnan Defendant set ex-parte on 20.12.2023

¶15

¶16

FINAL ORDER

¶17

This application is filed by the applicant bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (formerly Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993) against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.28,94,146.66p together with further interest @11% per annum from the date of application till the date of its realization in full.

¶18

Brief Facts of the Case

¶19

The defendant approached the applicant bank for grant of personal loan vide loan application dated 13.02.2020 and the applicant considering the said request had sanctioned a loan of Rs.23,20,000/- under loan account No.99352085 repayable in 60 Equated Monthly Installments of Rs.50,442/each commencing from 06.04.2020 till 06.03.2025. The defendant executed necessary loan and security documents on 21.02.2020.

¶20

Due to COVID-19 pandemic, the Government of India had advised the Reserve Bank of India to circulate a moratorium period for the deserving borrower. Consequent to the same, the EMI tenure was extended from 06.03.2025 to 06.12.2025.

¶21

The defendant committed default in repayment and hence the applicant issued a legal notice dated 13.08.2022 demanding a sum of Rs.28,94,146.66p as on 11.08.2022 and the said notice returned unserved and the defendant

¶22

¶23

also did not come forward to clear the outstanding dues. Hence the applicant

¶24

has filed the present application for recovery of its dues.

¶25

Progression of the case

¶26

Summons was ordered and the same returned with postal endorsement “Left”. The applicant bank was directed to take out paper publication and the applicant filed proof of paper publication on 07.11.2023 and recorded vide proceedings dated 21.11.2023. As there was no representation on behalf of the defendant on 20.12.2023, the defendant was placed ex-parte on that day.

¶27

Thereafter, the applicant examined Mr. S. Sathish, Authorised Signatory of the bank as AW-1, who deposed to the facts of the case and marked 07 documents and the same were marked as Exhibits A-1 to A-7 on 25.04.2024.

¶28

The applicant bank was heard on 16.07.2025.

¶29

Point for consideration

¶30

With the available material evidence on record, the only point that arises

¶31

for consideration in this application is: -

¶32

Whether the applicant bank is entitled for the recovery of the amount claimed in the application from the defendant? If so, what relief?

¶33

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the applicant bank. Perused the material evidence available on record.

¶34

¶35

Answer to the Point for Consideration

¶36

To prove its claim, the applicant bank examined the above witness AW-1 and got marked seven documents, which are marked as Exhibits A-1 to A-7.

¶37

The proof affidavit of the applicant bank remains unchallenged and the deposition of the witness AW-1 remains unrebutted.

¶38

AW-1 in his affidavit had reiterated the facts on oath and he relied on Exhibits A-1 to A-7. Exhibit A-1 is the Loan Application dated 13.02.2020. Exhibit A-2 is the Loan Agreement towards the Loan Account No.99352085 dated 21.02.2020. Exhibit A-3 is the Legal Notice dated 13.08.2022. Exhibits A-4 to A-6 is the returned envelope of the legal notice. Exhibit A-7 is the statement of accounts.

¶39

There is a corresponding entry in the accounts extract with regard to the loan amount sanctioned having been released under loan disbursement debit. The liability alleged in the application is proved by the documentary evidence at Exhibit A-7. The say of AW-1 goes unrebutted. Therefore, on careful consideration of proof affidavit along with exhibits filed on behalf of the applicant bank, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant bank has proved the OA claim against the defendant. Thus the point for determination is answered in the affirmative.

¶40

¶41

Though the prayer in the OA is for awarding the interest at 11% per annum on the sum adjudged till the date of realization, it is to be noted that the claim of the applicant bank includes the rate of interest and other charges payable as per the contract. The Tribunal already held that the applicant bank is entitled for the amount claimed in the OA. As already stated, the Tribunal has awarded contractual rate of interest as claimed by the applicant bank till the date of filing the OA and in view of the fact that the subject loan being a personal loan and the lending rate had considerably come down, the Tribunal is of the view that the defendant is entitled for a reduced rate of interest. Therefore, under these circumstances, the Tribunal is of the opinion that awarding future interest from the date of filing till the date of realization @ 9% p.a. simple would meet the ends of justice and accordingly the same is considered in awarding the relief.

¶42

For the reasons stated as above, the applicant bank is entitled for recovery of a total sum of Rs.28,94,146.66p together with further interest @9% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of OA till the date of realization.

¶43

In the result, the application is allowed granting recovery certificate as follows:-

¶44

(a) The applicant bank is entitled for recovery of a total sum of Rs.28,94,146.66p together with further interest @9% per annum (simple) from the date of application till the date of its realization against the defendant.

¶45

(b) It is further ordered that any amount remitted or realized, if any, during the course of the proceedings, shall be given due credit to the loan account of the defendant.

¶46

¶47

¶48

The applicant bank is directed to file costs memo within two week of the receipt of this order.

¶49

Issue recovery certificate in favour of the applicant bank in terms of the final order.

¶50

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of Rule 16 read with Rule 2(c) of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶51

Sd/(SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, CHENNAI

¶52

(Dictated to PS, who typed in the system directly, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this 28^th day of July, 2025)

¶53

EXHIBITS MARKED BY APPLICANT BANK

¶54

S. No.	Description of documents	Exhibit No.
1.	Loan application dated 13.02.2020	A-1
2.	Loan Agreement towards the Loan Account No.99352085 dated 21.02.2020	A-2
3.	Legal notice dated 13.08.2022	A-3
4.	Returned cover of the legal notice	A-4
5.	Returned cover of the legal notice	A-5
6.	Returned cover of the legal notice	A-6
7.	Statement of Accounts	A-7

¶55

Sd/(SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, CHENNAI

¶56

¶57

DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTIES

¶58

NIL

¶59

Sd/(SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, CHENNAI

¶60

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Mr. Sourabh Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Mr. Sourabh Singh

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

K Manivannan versus Indian Bank

Renugambal versus Karur Vysya Bank

Kvs Textiles Proprietor v Murugan versus Union Bank of India

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Mr. P. Senthil

Central Bank of India versus M/S. Prabhu Communication

M/S Canara Bank versus Mr. Kishore T Khanna