Allowed

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Ms Pureon Bazar Retail Private Limited

DRT4 Nov 2025OA/595/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by HDFC Bank against private and individual co-borrowers for recovery of a loan. The bank proved execution of loan documents and outstanding dues. The Tribunal directed the defendants to pay dues within two months and issued a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued for Rs 29,35,776.52 with 10% interest; defendants directed to pay within two months or face sale of assets; restraint on dealing with properties.

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Ms Pureon Bazar Retail… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL

¶2

LUCKNOW

¶3

Dateoforderor proceeding	Order with signature of court		Officeaction takenwith date
O.A. No. 595/2023 04.11.2025 St.No.02	The Judgment is signed pronounced on separate sh Separatelyattachedin07sheets. Order be uploaded on the Tribu website. (Dictated)	and eets. nal’s
	(PravasKumarSi PresidingOffic (Manoj)	ngh) er

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT LUCKNOW

¶5

W=====1•rl

¶6

Present: Pravas Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

¶7

Case No. Original Application No. 595 of 2023

¶8

Dated : 04.11.2025

¶9

HDFC Bank Limited, having its office at: HDFC Bank Limited, 17/4-A, lst Floor, Nikhilesh Palace, Ashok Marg, Lucknow226001, U.P. and Registered office at: HDFC Bank Limited, HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013, Through its Authorized Representative: Mr. Saurabh Singh, ........Applicant Bank Versus 1. M/s Pureon Bazar Retail Pvt. Ltd , through its Directors, 15/18,Sector -15. Indra Naxgar, Near Munsipuliya, Lucknow226016, Uttar Pradesh. 2. Mr. Ram Kumar Srivastava (Co-borrower) S/o Radhey Shyam Srivastava R/o 6/1, Vaishnav Khand, Sector-6, Gomti Nagar, Near Shaheed Path, Lucknow226010, Uttar Pradesh Also at:Mr. Ram Kumar Srivastava M/S Pureon Bazar Retail Pvt. Ltd. through its Directors-15/18, Sector-15, Indira r Naga r, Near Munsipuliya, Lucknow\C\ 226016, Uttar Pradesh ......defendants

¶10

Counsel for applicant-bank: Shri Ritesh Goel, Advocate Counsel for the defendants: Ex-parte.

¶11

2 O.A. No. 595 of 2023

¶12

JUDGEMENT

¶13

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 29,35,776.52 (Rupees Twenty Nine Lacs, Thirty Five Thousand, Seven Hundred Seventy Six and paise Fifty Two only) together with pendentelite and future interest, costs and other reliefs etc.

¶14

The brief facts of case are that the defendants No.1 through its Director defendant no. 2 approached the applicant bank for financial assistance in the shape of credit facility (Business Loan). The applicant bank considered the request of the defendants and sanctioned /disbursed the Credit Facility of Rs. 35.00 lacs on 05.02.2022.

¶15

To secure aforesaid credit facility, defendants had executed and signed various security documents in favour of the applicant-bank on 04.02.2022 loan and security documents.

¶16

To avail the aforesaid credit facility, the applicant-bank opened

¶17

loan account in the name of the defendant No.1.

¶18

After availing the abovementioned credit facility from the applicant-bank, the defendants failed to maintain financial discipline and also failed to comply with the terms and conditions of agreement as required in the matter. The applicant-bank made all possible efforts through oral persuasion and letters etc. The defendants was reminded

¶19

¶20

O.A. No. 595 of 2023

¶21

many times by several applications by the applicant-bank to regularize the loan account, but the defendants kept mum and have not come forward to make any efforts regarding payment of dues but the loan account of the defendants were remained irregular and the defendants did not care to deposit the amount to adjust/ regularize the account despite various assurances given by defendants Consequently, the loan accounts of the defendant No.1 were classified as N.P.A. on 06.03.2023 by the applicant-bank as per RBI guidelines, therefore, the applicantbank issued recall notice Dated 20.04.2023 to the defendants and requested for repayments, but the Defendants did not paid their heed to the same, hence, this Original Application has been instituted (Annexure A-5).

¶22

As per books of the bank maintained in the usual and ordinary course of banking business, an outstanding of Rs 29,35,776.52 (Rupees Twenty Nine Lacs, Thirty Five Thousand, Seven Hundred Seventy Six and paise Fifty Two only), 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. (Exhibit No.A-6)

¶23

The cause of action for filing the present application arose firstly 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 on 04.02.2022. The cause

O.A. No. 595 of 2023

of action further arose on when Legal recall Notice dt. 20.04.2023 was sent to the defendants, recalling the entire outstanding dues and they failed to pay the same.

¶28

The summons were served upon the defendant through registered post as well as by publication, but the defendants did not appear before the Tribunal to contest their case, hence the matter proceeded ex- parte against the defendants.

¶29

From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the defendants were provided with fair opportunities to contest the claim of the bank. As the defendants opted not to contest the case, so 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 Sh. Saurabh Singh, Legal Manager of the applicant bank has filed an affidavit.

¶31

On a careful scrutiny of the evidence on affidavit and Exhibits marked as Exhibit No.A-1 to Exhibit No.A-6, it is proved that defendants had availed the credit 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 show that defendant had utilized the above loan facility as granted to them. The applicant-bank had maintained the Books of account in the ordinary course of banking business showing

¶32

5 O.A. No. 595 of 2023

¶33

¶34

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.

¶35

Accordingly, the defendants No.1 & 2 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.

¶36

The applicant-bank has claimed interest@15% per annum with monthly rest till the date of realization and costs The contest between applicant-bank and the defendants comes to an end after filing of the O.A. as per the provisions of Section 19(2) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 (as amended from time to time) which is analogous to Section 34 to the CPC, the Tribunal/ Court has direction in awarding pendent-lite and future interest. I am also supported in my view by Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case titled Central Bank of India

¶37

vs. Ravindra and others reported in AIR 2001 SC page 3095. On the basis of foregoing discussion, interest of justice will be served if pendent- lite and future interest is granted @10% per annum with monthly rest reducing balance from the date of filing of the O.A. till the date of realization with costs.

O.A. No. 595 of 2023

1 find that the bank has proved execution of loan documents in its favour. In the result, the Original Application succeeds as exparte against the defendant No. 1 & 2 with costs. The liability of the defendant No. 1 & 2 are joint and several and mortgaged property, hypothecated asset as well as the personal properties are to be sold.

¶42

It is, therefore , ordered

¶43

(i) That the Original Application No.595 of 2023 of the applicant bank for issuance of Recovery Certificate to the tune of Rs 29,35,776.52 (Rupees Twenty Nine Lacs, Thirty Five Thousand, Seven Hundred Seventy Six and paise Fifty Two only) along with the interest @10% per annum with monthly rest from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 01.06.2023 till the loan is fully liquidated and costs succeeds exparte against the defendant No. 1 & 2.

¶44

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

¶45

(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

¶46

-’

¶47

7 O.A. No. 595 of 2023

¶48

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.

¶49

(iV) The defendants are here by 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.

¶50

(V) Let Recovery Certificate be issued immediately u/s 19(22) of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993 by fixing 07.01.2026 before Recovery Officer, DRT, Lucknow.

¶51

Judgement is pronounced in the open court.

¶52

Dated: 04.11.2025

¶53

~\P

¶54

(Pravas Kulddr Singh) Presiding Officer

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Ms Pureon Bazar Retail Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Ms Pureon Bazar Retail Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bank of Baroda versus Sri Krishna Nand Singh

Neha Arora versus Punjab National Bank

Kapil Gupta versus Iifl Home Finance Limited

Indian Bank versus Ms Ss Enterprises

Union Bank of India versus Ms Sunil Forwarding Agency

Modinagar Paper Mills Ltd. versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited