Allowed

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Seema Jain

DRT25 Sept 2025OA/683/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by HDFC Bank Limited against defendants for recovery of loan dues totaling over Rs. 1 crore with interest and costs, holding the defendants jointly and severally liable.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay dues; bank entitled to sell mortgaged assets; recovery certificate to be issued; injunction on transfer of assets.

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Seema Jain — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

\ a

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT LUCKNOW

¶3

Present: Pravas Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

¶4

Case No. Original Application No.683 of 2023

¶5

Dated: 25.9.2025

¶6

HDFC Bank Limited, Department of Special Operations First Floor, Pranay Towers, Darabari Lal Sharma Marg, Lucknow226001.

¶7

........Applicant Bank

¶8

Versus

¶9

Seema Jain, W/o Lokesh Kumar Jain, Proprietor of Udaymaan Industry. Address at: R/a Rambagh, Near Pul, Baghpat Road, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh-250002. Also At: H.No.-F183, Second Floor, Delhi Road, Saraswati Lok, Near Ram Lila Ground, Meerut, UP-250002.

¶10

Lokesh Kumar Jain, S/o Mahendra Kumar Jain, R/o H.No.-F183, Second Floor, Delhi Road, Saraswati Lok, Near Ram Lila Ground, Meerut, UP-250002. Also At: Municipal No.20/22-A, Khasra No.1759, Rambagh, Baghpat Road, Near Maliyana Pul, Meerut, UP-25001.

¶11

Defendants

¶12

Ld. Counsel for the applicant-bank: Mr. Lex Indis, Advocate. Ld. Counsel for the defendants: None.

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

This Original Application has been filed by the applicant Bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the

¶15

defendants for the recovery of Rs.1,09,26,453.11/-(Rupees One Crore,

¶16

¶17

O.A. No.683 of 2023

¶18

Nine Lac, Twenty Six Thousand, Four Hundred Fifty Three and Paisa Eleven Only) (Rs.78,80,639.75/- in Cash Credit Loan Account), (Rs.13,95,226.09/in GECL-WCTL Loan Account), (Rs.9,13,792.39/- in EEG-TL Loan Accunt4514) & (Rs.7,36,794.88/- in EEG-TL Loan Account-4518) together with pendent-lite and future interest, costs and other reliefs etc.

¶19

The brief facts: The defendant no.1 is proprietor of M/s. Udaymaan Industry and the defendant no.2 is guarantor. The defendants vide loan application dated 29.4.2019 approached the applicant-bank for grant of Cash Credit Facility of Rs.65 lac, which was duly considered and sanctioned by the applicant-bank vide sanction letter dated 28.5.2019 on certain terms and conditions (Annexure No.2 to Annexure No.4) to this original application.

¶20

To secure the aforesaid credit facility, the defendants had executed and signed various security documents in favour of the applicant-bank on 28.5.2019 like Master Facility Agreement, Deed of Hypothecation and Power of Attorney (Annexure No.5 to Annexure No.7) to this original application.

¶21

Further, in order to secure the repayment of bank dues, the defendant no.2 had created mortgage of his immovable property i.e. Municipal No.20/22-A, Khasra No.1759, Rambagh, Baghpat Road, Near Maliyana Pul, Meerut, UP-25001 as detailed in the petition, in favour of the bank. The applicant-bank had also annexed search report as well as valuation report of the said property (Annexure No.8, Annexure No.9 and

¶22

Annexure No.12 Colly) to this original application.

9\r
<br>

O.A. No.683 of 2023

Again, at the request of the defendants, the applicant-bank sanctioned GECT-TL Loan of Rs.13,02,140/- & EEG-WC Term Loan of Rs.8.34 lac and Rs.6.50 lac, for which, the said defendants had further executed and signed various security documents in favour of the applicantbank and also extended the creation of mortgage (Annexure No.17 to Annexure No.25) to this original application.

¶27

To avail the aforesaid credit facilities, the applicant-bank had opened four loan accounts in the name of Udaymaan Industry in order to maintain the credit facilities.

¶28

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 accounts of the Udaymaan Industry were classified as NPA on 01.5.2022 by the bank as per RBI guidelines, therefore, the applicant-bank issued Recall Notice dated 16.3.2023 (Annexure No.26), but, the defendants stated no-response and they failed to repay the same and the loan accounts of Udaymaan Industry

¶29

are still un-liquidated, hence, this Original Application has been instituted. 8. As per books of the bank maintained in the usual and ordinary course of banking business, an outstanding of Rs.1,09,26,453.11/-(Rupees One Crore, Nine Lac, Twenty Six Thousand, Four Hundred Fifty Three and Paisa Eleven Only) (Rs.78,80,639.75/- in Cash Credit Loan Account), (Rs.13,95,226.09/- in GECL-WCTL Loan Account), (Rs.9,13,792.39/- in EEGTL Loan Accunt-4514) & (Rs.7,36,794.88/- in EEG-TL Loan Account-4518) including interest upto 19.4.2023 were lying due for payment, which they

¶30

O.A. No.683 of 2023

¶31

¶32

did not pay despite repeated requests and demands. The applicant Bank has filed the copy of Statement of Account (Annexure No.27) to this original application).

¶33

The cause of action for filing the present application arose firstly on 28.5.2019 when the abovementioned Cash Credit Faciltiy facility was sanctioned by the applicant-bank and necessary documents were executed by the defendants. The cause of action further arose on 16.3.2023 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.

¶34

The summons was served upon the defendants through registered post, but, the defendants did not appeared before this Tribunal to cont est the case, hence, the matter was proceed ex-parte against the defendants on 10.4.2024, against which, a recall application was filed by the defendants, which was declined by this Tribunal vide order dated 07.5.2025.

¶35

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 not to contest the case, so only point of consideration before this Tribunal in as to whether the bank is legally entitled to the amount as claimed in Original Application on the basis of documents and

¶36

pleading submitted by it.

¶37

In support of the case Shri Suyash Naaraayan, Senior Manager of the

¶38

applicant Bank has supported its case on affidavit.

¶39

5 O.A. No.683 of 2023

¶40

On a careful scrutiny of the evidence on affidavit and Annexure marked as (Annexure No.A-1 to Annexure No.A-27 to this original application), it stands proved that the defendants had availed the credit facilities 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 facilities as granted to them. The applicant bank has maintained the Books of accounts 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.

¶41

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 mortgage property and personal properties of the defendants.

¶42

The applicant-bank has claimed interest @18.00% per annum in all the above loan Accounts together with pendent lite and future interest 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 @12.00% in the above Loan Accounts per annum with

N' I,,,.py

O.A. No.683 of 2023

monthly rest on reducing balance from the date of filing of the O.A. till the date of realization with costs.

¶47

1 find that the bank has proved the execution of loan documents and creation of mortgage in its favour. In the result, the Original Application succeeds against the defendants with costs. The defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the dues of the applicant-bank and the hypothecated assets/mortgage property as well as the personal properties are liable to be sold.

¶48

It is, therefore, ordered : -

¶49

(i) That the Original Application No.683 of 2020 of the applicant bank for issuance of Recovery Certificate to the tune of Rs.1,09,26,453.11/-(Rupees One Crore, Nine Lac, Twenty Six Thousand, Four Hundred Fifty Three and Paisa Eleven Only) (Rs.78,80,639.75/in Cash Credit Loan Account), ( Rs. 13,95,226.09/in GECL-WCTL Loan Account), ( Rs.9, 13,792.39/- in EEG-TL Loan Accu nt-4514) & (Rs.7,36,794.88/- in EEG-TL Loan Account-4518) together with the interest @12.00% per annum in the loan accounts from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 25.5.2023 till the loan is fully liquidated and costs succeeds and is hereby allowed ex-parte against the defendants.

¶50

(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

¶51

¶52

O.A. No.683 of 2023

¶53

secured assets, personal movabIes and immovable assets of the defendants.

¶54

(iii) The applicant-bank is entitled to recover aforesaid amount by sale of hypothecated asserts/mortgage property (in accordance with law). The amount, if any, already recovered by sale of any hypothecated assets/mortgage property 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 attachment and sale of the personal movable and immovable assets of the defendants.

¶55

(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.

¶56

(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 25.12.2025 before R.O., DRT, Lucknow.

¶57

Judgment is pronounced in the open court.

¶58

Dated: 25.9.2025

¶59

(/~

¶60

(Pravas Kumar Singh) Presiding Officer

¶61

(Veeresh)

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Seema Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Seema Jain

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

Punjab National Bank (United Bank of India) versus M/S Shree Ji Garments

Ms Yashansh Enterprises and Other versus Uco Bank

M S Hnt Manpower Services Ltd. versus Bank of Maharashtra

Canara Bank versus Ms Revel Industries

Canara Bank versus Mr Ayodhya Prasad

State Bank of India versus Ms Nishkriti Foods Private Limited