Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Dinesh Manchanda

DRT18 Dec 2025OA/640/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the applicant bank's application for recovery of dues from the defendant. The court proved the bank's case based on documentary evidence as the defendant was absent. An interest rate of 12% per annum was awarded as being in the interest of justice.

What did the court decide?

Directed defendant to pay Rs. 33,10,378.11 with interest @12% p.a. from filing date till realization within 30 days; failing which, recoverable from sale of properties.

Hdfc Bank versus Dinesh Manchanda — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

O.A. No. 640 of 2023

¶2

Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi 4th floor, Jeevan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi

¶3

Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sharma

¶4

O.A. No.640 of 2023

¶5

HDFC Bank Ltd.

¶6

Plot No.31, Najafgarh Road Industrial Area Tower 'A', 1st Floor, Shivaji Marg Moti Nagar, New Delhi-110015

¶7

Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh.Dinesh Manchanda Proprietor of REPS GYM Plot no.2, First floor State Bank Colony G.T. Karnal Road, Delhi-110033

¶10

Also at:

¶11

Sh.Dinesh Manchanda Plot no.163, DLS, New Town Heights Sector-90, Garhi Harsaru, Gurgaon Haryana-122505

¶12

Also at:

¶13

Sh.Dinesh Manchanda House no.90, 4th Floor Kalyan Vihar, Delhi-110009

¶14

Defendant

¶15

Present: Ms. Purnima, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶16

Date of Reserve: 05.12.2025

¶17

Date of Pronouncement: 18.12.2025

¶18

FINAL ORDER

¶19

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 28.07.2023 through Ms. Swathi Vajjhala, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of

¶20

O.A. No. 640 of 2023

¶21

Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.33,10,378.11 (Rupees Thirty Three Lacs Ten Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Eight and paisa Eleven only) as on 07.07.2023 along with pendentelite and future interest at contractual rates from 07.07.2023 till the date of realization along with costs.

¶22

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the defendant, the applicant bank sanctioned Credit Card facility vide Card Number 000457262xxxxxx7305 (MN number 0001014490003507303) as Insta loan for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on 01.01.2022 and Jumbo Cash loan for a sum of Rs.9,99,999/- on 04.01.2022.

¶23

In order to avail the Credit Card and Insta Loan facility, the defendant submitted application for Credit Card and executed HDFC Bank Regalia Credit Card Cardmember Agreement along with terms and conditions agreed to pay card outstanding amount along with agreed interest towards applicant bank.

¶24

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that defendant defaulted in payment and committed willful defaults by not making payment towards outstanding dues and failed to adhere the financial discipline and committed defaults. The defendant not responded and not acted in terms of notices issued by applicant bank and failed to regularize the card account, the applicant bank issued recall notice dated 23.022023 but the defendant neglected and did not regularize the account and hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶25

O.A. No. 640 of 2023

¶26

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendant and despite of proper service, the defendant has chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 04.04.2025, the defendant has been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared before the Tribunal and even written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have not been filed by the defendant.

¶27

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed documents such as Original Credit Card Application Form, Regalia Credit Cardmember Agreement along with Terms and Conditions and Statement of Accounts marked as page no.1 to 156.

¶28

The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments made in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the applicant bank is based on the documents and the same have been duly approved.

¶29

The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and there is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant bank and the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts.

¶30

As per the provision of Section 19(20) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 which is analogous to Section 34 of CPC, on filing of the suit/claim, the contract between the parties comes to an end and the Court/Tribunal has a discretion to award the same depending upon the circumstances of each case. Same principle has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra & Others. Taking stock of all the circumstances and keeping in view that there is a drastic fall in rates of interest globally and domestically, I am of the opinion

O.A. No. 640 of 2023

that interest of justice will be served if the interest at the rate of 12% p.a. is awarded.

¶35

In the light of the above discussions, the Original Application deserves to be allowed.

¶36

ORDER

¶37

I, allow this OA and direct the defendant to pay to the applicant bank, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.33,10,378.11 (Rupees Thirty Three Lacs Ten Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Eight and Paisa Eleven only) together with pendentelite and future interest @12% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing this application till the date of realization and costs; failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶38

(II) The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi.

¶39

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 16.02.2026.

¶40

(IV) Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be sent to all concerned free of cost.

¶41

¶42

(GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶43

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 18.12.2025

Hdfc Bank v. Dinesh Manchanda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Dinesh Manchanda

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

Paramjeet Singh versus Au Small Finance Bank Limited

Md Anwar Hussain And Ors. Propietor of Ms Madina Cloth Store versus West Bengal Gramin Bank

Suresh Kumar versus Canara Bank

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Deepak Kumar

Jarina Bibi And Ors. Pro of Ms Bhangari Shop versus Indian Bank

Federal Bank versus M/s Ave Maria Industries