Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. U P Surgical Agencies

DRT9 Dec 2025OA/339/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT Lucknow allowed the applicant bank's original application for recovery of dues arising from a defaulted vehicle loan. The court held that the bank proved execution of loan and security documents, established default, and awarded recovery including a recovery certificate and power to sell assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued for Rs.36,11,602.36 plus interest; respondents directed to pay; assets made saleable.

Hdfc Bank versus U P Surgical Agencies — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT LUCKNOW

¶2

Present: Pravas Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

¶3

Case No. Original Application No.339 of 2023

¶4

Dated: 09.12.2025

¶5

HDFC Bank, having Branch at 17/4-A, 1't Floor, Nikhilesh Palace, Ashok Marg, Lucknow-226001, UP.

¶6

........Applicant Bank

¶7

Versus

¶8

UP Surgical Agencies, through its proprietor 12 DR Souza Road Lalbagh, Lucknow226001, UP-India.

¶9

Bobby Kalra, S/o Yash Pal Kalra, 50-B, Singar Nagar, Alambagh, Near Suneye Hospital, Lucknow-226005, UP.

¶10

....... Defendants

¶11

Ld. Counsel for the applicant-bank: Mr. Ritesh Goel, Advocate. Ld. Counsel for the defendants: Mr. Azam Shafeequi, Advocate.

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

This Original Application has been filed by the applicant Bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993,againstthe defendants for the recovery of Rs.36,11,602.36/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lac, Eleven Thousand, Six Hundred Two and Paisa Thirty Six Only) together with pendent-lite and future interest, costs and other reliefs etc.

¶14

The brief facts of case:- the defendant no.1 is proprietorship firm, of which, the defendant no.2 is proprietor. The defendants vide loan application dated 12.12.2019 approached the applicant-bank for grant of

¶15

;

¶16

2 O.A. No.339 of 2023

¶17

Vehicle Loan of Rs.50 lac, for purchaser of Mercedes Benz E220, which was duly considered and sanctioned by the applicant-bank vide sanction letter dated 29.6.2017 on certain terms and conditions (Annexure No.A-2) to this original application.

¶18

In order to secure the aforesaid credit facility of Rs.50 lac, the defendants had executed and signed Auto Premium Loan and Certificate of Registration in favour of the applicant-bank on 21.12.2019 (Annexure No.A-3 & Annexure No.A-4) to this original application.

¶19

To avail the aforesaid credit facility, the applicant-bank had opened a loan account in the name of defendant no.1/firm in order to maintain the credit facility.

¶20

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 03.01.2023 by the applicantbank as per RBI guidelines (Annexure No.A-5), therefore, the applicantbank issued Recall Notice dated 15.02.2023 (Annexure No.A-6)/ butJ the defendants stated no-response and failed to repay the same and the loan account of the defendant no.1/firm is still un-liquidated, hence/ this Original Application has been instituted.

¶21

As per books of the bank maintained in the usual and ordinary course of banking business, an outstanding of Rs.36,11/602.36/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lac, Eleven Thousand, Six Hundred Two and Paisa Thirty six Only) including interest upto 08.02.2023 were lying due for payment/ which they

¶22

O.A. No.339 of 2023

¶23

¶24

did not pay despite repeated requests and demands. The applicant Bank has filed the copy of Statement of Account (Annexure No.A-7) to this original application.

¶25

. The cause of action for filing the present application arose firstly when the abovementioned credit facility was sanctioned by the applicantbank and necessary documents were executed by the defendants. The cause of action further arose on 15.02.2023 when the applicant-bank had issued recall notice recalling the defendants to repay the dues of the applicant-bank, but, the defendants failed to pay the same.

¶26

The summons was served upon the defendants through registered post. The defendants appeared before this Tribunal to contest the case, but, failed to file any WS, hence, opportunity to file WS was closed by this Tribunal vide order dated 21.4.2025, thus, the case proceeded against the defendants.

¶27

From perusal of the record, it is evident that the defendants were provided fair opportunities to contest the claim of the bank. As the defendants opted to contest the case, the bank is legally entitled to the amount as claimed in Original Application on the basis of documents and pleading submitted by it.

¶28

in support of the case Shri Saurabh Singh, Legal Manager of the applicant Bank has supported its case on affidavit.

¶29

On a careful scrutiny of the evidence on affidavit and Annexure marked as (Annexure No.A-1 to Annexure No.A-7 to this original application), it stands proved that the defendants had availed the credit

-//

O.A. No.339 of 2023

facility 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 establishes that defendants had utilized the above loan facility as granted to them. The applicant bank has maintained the Books of account in the ordinary course of banking business showing disbursal of the loan amount. It further shows that bank had regularly credited the amount paid by the defendants in the books of account. The Bank had also charged interest from time to time and the entries is relevant u/s 4 of the Bankers Book Evidence Act. It is also proved that the applicant bank’s claim is within limitation against the defendants, therefore, the defendants are liable to pay the dues.

¶34

Accordingly, the defendants are directed to pay the balance dues to the applicant bank within a period of two months from the date of judgment failing which the applicant bank will be entitled to sell the hypothecated assets as well as personal properties of the defendants.

¶35

The applicant-bank has claimed interest @8.50% per annum in the above loan account together with pendent lite and future interest on contractual rate till the actual date of its realization and costs. On the basis of the foregoing discussion, interest of justice will be served if pendent-lite and future interest is granted @8.00% per annum in the above loan account with monthly rest on reducing balance from the date of filing of the O.A. till the date of realization with costs.

¶36

1 find that the bank has proved the execution of loan documents in its favour. In the result, the Original Application succeeds against the

¶37

¶38

5 O.A. No.339 of 2023

¶39

defendants with costs. The defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the dues of the applicant-bank and the hypothecated assets as well as the personal properties are liable to be sold.

¶40

15.It is, therefore, ordered:-

¶41

(i) That the Original Application No.339 of 2023 of the applicant bank for issuance of Recovery Certificate to the tune of Rs.36,11,602.36/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lac, Eleven Thousand, Six Hundred Two and Paisa Thirty Six Only) together with future and pendent lite interest @8.00% per annum in the loan account from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 27.3.2023 till the loan is fully liquidated and costs succeeds and is hereby allowed against the defendants.

¶42

(ii) The defendants are directed to pay the dues within a period of two months from the date of judgment, failing which the applicant bank will be entitled to recover the same from the secured assets, personal movables and immovable assets of the defendants.

¶43

(iii) The applicant-bank is entitled to recover aforesaid amount by sale of hypothecated assets (if not sold earlier under the provisions of the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act 2002). The amount, if any, already recovered by sale of hypothecated assets or otherwise shall be adjusted towards the debt and only the balance amount shall be recoverable. If the dues of the applicant-bank still remain unsatisfied, the same shall be recovered by

¶44

¶45

O.A. No.339 of 2023

¶46

attachment and sale of the personal movable and immovable assets of the defendants.

¶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 10.02.2026 before R.O., DRT, Lucknow.

¶49

Judgment is pronounced in the open court.

¶50

Dated : 09.12.2025

¶51

ffF

¶52

(Pravas Kumar SingfTJ Presiding Officer

¶53

(Veeresh)

Hdfc Bank v. U P Surgical Agencies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. U P Surgical Agencies

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

Ramesh Chandra Patwa versus Canara Bank

Axis Bank versus Mohd Shadab

Central Bank of India versus Smt Satyawati Singh

Punjab National Bank versus M/s Varsha Entertainment World

Yes Bank versus Mr Tariq Ali

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sanjeev Kumar