Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Tulsyan Cans Cardboards Pvt. Ltd.

DRT10 Sept 2025OA/342/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed HDFC Bank's recovery application. After the defendants failed to appear, the Tribunal declared an ex-parte order in favor of the bank, granting a recovery certificate for the claimed amount with interest. The respondents were held jointly and severally liable.

What did the court decide?

Order allowing applicant's claim and issuing a recovery certificate directing defendants to pay Rs. 36,06,03,754.37 plus interest at 18% p.a. with monthly rest from 1.4.2023.

Hdfc Bank versus Tulsyan Cans Cardboards Pvt. Ltd. — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I KOLKATA

¶2

PRESENT: -SHRI AMBUJA MOHAN DAS PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

O.A. No.OA 342 of 2023

¶4

DATE OF DELIVERY OF ORDER :10^th September ,2025

¶5

HDFC Bank Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, carrying on banking business under License Granted by Reserve Bank of India and registered under Banking Regulation Act, 1949, having its Registered Office at HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai 400 013, and amongst others, one of its offices at Jardine House, 1st Floor, 4, Clive Row, PS-Hare Street, Kolkata - 700 001.

¶6

… … Applicant

¶7

-versus-

¶8

TULSYAN CANS & CARDBOARDS PVT LTD, a company incorporated under the relevant provisionsof the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 5A, Robinson Street, Kolkata-700017, West Bengal.

¶9

SATYA NARAYAN TULSYAN (DIRECTOR/GUARANTOR),son of Ganesh Lall Tulsyan, residing and/or carrying on business at 5A, Robinson Street, Kolkata-700017, West Bengal.

¶10

UPEN TULSYAN(DIRECTOR/GUARANTOR), son of Satya Narayan Tulsyan, residingand/or carrying on business at 5A, Robinson Street, Kolkata- 700017, West Bengal.

¶11

AXIS DEALER(P) LTD (CORPORATE GUARANTOR), a company incorporated underthe relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 5A, Robinson Street, Kolkata-700017, West Bengal.

¶12

IDEA VINIMAYPVT LTD, (CORPORATE GUARANTOR) a company incorporated under therelevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 5A, Robinson Street, Kolkata700017, West Bengal.

Rina S.

....Defendants:

Counsel for the Applicant Bank: Ms. Kuheli Deb. Counsel for the Defendants: None appears. Set ex-parte on 7.8.2025

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

The present Recovery Application is filed by the HDFC Bank, carrying on business of Banking all over India including from its Branch Office at Jardine House, 1st Floor, 4, Clive Row, PS-Hare Street, Kolkata - 700 001, for recovery ofRs.36,06,03,754.37p., with interest @ 18% p.a. with monthly rest from 1.4.2023 against the Defendants till payment and/or realization. The Defendants are the borrower/guarantor/mortgager.

¶19

The service of summons was effected upon the Defendants in usual mode of postal service.. Despite giving sufficient time, subsequently the Defendants neither appeared nor filed the Written Statement to controvert the claim of the Bank. Hence, the defendants are declared exparte on 07/08/2025.

¶20

The Applicant in support of its contention filed Evidence on Affidavit duly affirmed by Mr. Soubhadra Dey, authorised signatoryof the Bank annexing the various documents which are exhibited.

¶21

I have perused the documents and Evidence and heard the Ld. Advocate for the Bank. By the said evidence on affidavit the Applicant could prove its claim and documents. The claim of the Bank is within the limitation and within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Hence, the claim of the Bank should be allowed with cost.

¶22

In the above circumstances it is ordered :

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

i) Claim of the Applicants is allowed with cost. ii) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.36,06,03,754.37p., with interest @ 18% p.a. with monthly rest from 1.4.2023against the Defendants till payment or realization.

¶25

iii) It is declared that the claim is secured by hypothecation

¶26

¶27

Rina S.

¶28

of moveable and mortgage of immoveable property described in the Schedule of immoveable property as described in the Schedule in the OA at page 42.

¶29

iv) Let, a certificate be issued accordingly.

¶30

v) Ld. Recovery Officer shall realize the amount as per the Recovery Certificate from the defendants in accordance with law.

¶31

vi) Ld. Registrar of this Tribunal is directed to deliver recovery certificate in term of the final order/judgment for recovery of the sum against the defendants in favour of the Applicant Bank under Section 19 (22) of the Recovery of Debts due to the Bank and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 now known as Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993.

¶32

vii) The parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer-II on 11/11/2025 for further action in accordance with law in the event the entire amount is not paid by the said date.

¶33

Accordingly, the Original Application being O.A. No.342 of 2023 is allowed and stands disposed of. All the IAs, filed in connection with this OA, are also disposed of.

¶34

Copy of the Judgment/Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s website.

¶35

File be consigned to the Record Room.

¶36

(Dictated to P.S., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the day 10^th September,2025)

¶37

Place: Kolkata ( Ambuja Mohan Das ) Date:10^th September,2025 Presiding Officer

¶38

¶39

Rina S.

¶40

Page No.-	Order Sheet (continuation)
Case No. OA	342 of 2023 HDFC BANK LIMITED – VS- TULSYAN CANS & CARDBOARDS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
Date of the order	Order with signature Office action with date and dated signature of parties when necessary
10^th September 2025	Ld. Advocate, Ms. Kuheli Deb, appeared for the Applicant Bank. None is present on behalf of the Defendants. Matter was heard in open Court on 7.8.2025. The detailed order in three pages annexed separately. The gist of the order is as follows: O R D E R i)Claim of the Applicants is allowed with cost.
	ii)TheDefendants are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.36,06,03,754.37p., with interest @ 18% p.a. with monthly rest from 1.4.2023 against the Defendants till payment or realization. iii)It is declared that the claim is secured by hypothecation of moveable and mortgage of immoveable property described in the Schedule of immoveable property as described in the Schedule in the OA at page 42. iv)Let, a certificate be issued accordingly.
	v)Ld. Recovery Officer shall realize the amount as per the Recovery Certificate from the defendants in accordance with law. vi)Ld. Registrar of this Tribunal is directed to deliver recovery certificate in term of the final order/judgment for recovery of the sum against the defendants in favour of the Applicant Bank under Section 19 (22) of the Recovery of Debts due to the Bank and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 now known as Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. vii)The parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer -II on 11/11/2025 for further action in accordance with law in the event the entire amount is not paid by the said date. Accordingly, the Original Application being O.A. No.342 of 2023 is allowed and stands disposed of. All the IAs, filed in connection with this OA, are also disposed of. Copy of the Judgment/Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s website. File be consigned to the Record Room. (Dictated to P.S., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the day10^thSeptember,2025)
	Place: Kolkata (Ambuja Mohan Das) Date:10^th September,2025Presiding Officer

¶41

¶42

Rina S.

Hdfc Bank v. Tulsyan Cans Cardboards Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Tulsyan Cans Cardboards 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

Hdfc Bank versus Ratan

Ms R L Dutta Co. versus Punjab National Bank

Hdfc Bank versus We R Enterprise through Its Proprietor Shyamal Sarkar

Icici Bank Limited versus Ranjit Kumar Singh and Anr.

Sandip Agrawal versus Hdfc Bank

Sandip Agrawal versus Hdfc Bank