Allowed

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. Sh. Jagtar Singh and Others

DRT16 Jul 2025OA/703/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of a loan defaulting by three borrowers. The tribunal granted joint and several liability with costs and fixed a uniform simple interest rate of 8% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Declaration of liability to pay Rs.49,08,124.42p jointly and severally with simple interest @8.00%p.a.; Authorization for recovery via sale of hypothecated vehicles or attachment of personal assets.

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Jagtar Singh and Others — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.703/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 28.05.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 16.07.2025

¶6

HDFC Bank Ltd, having its Registered Office at Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, (West) Mumbai- 400013, Having its Branch Office at Patiala, Punjab and Also at, HDFC Bank House, Plot No. I-15, Sector101, Alpha City, Mohali, Punjab Through its Authorized Representatives Sh. Rajendra Prasad.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Jagtar Singh S/o Sh. Narang Singh R/o Village Laloda, Tehsil Nabha (Rural), District Patiala- 147201.

¶10

Sh. Narang Singh S/o Sh. Rulia Singh R/o Village Lalauda, P.O. New Rakhra, Patiala- 147201

¶11

Sh. Harjinder Pal S/o Sh. Meghraj R/o Village Malewal, Patiala147202.

¶12

….……Defendants

¶13

Advocates:

¶14

Argued by Sh. Amit Rishi, counsel for the applicant

¶15

Defendants already ex-parte

¶16

FINAL ORDER

¶17

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.49,08,124.42p (Rupees Forty Nine Lacs Eight Thousand One Hundred Twenty Four & Forty Two Paise Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Rajendra Prasad, Authorized Representatives of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Copy of Board Resolution dated 15.04.2023, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶18

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendants had approached the applicant for the grant of Loans of Rs. 6,81,761/-,

¶19

2 OA/703/2025 HDFC BANK VS JAGTAR SINGH AND OTHERS

¶20

Rs.24,16,440/- and Rs.25,66,093/- Lacs for purchase of Vehicles vide application forms dated 31.08.2020 and 05.05.2023, which are Annexures A2 & A3 to this OA.

¶21

The applicant sanctioned the Loans of Rs.6,81,761/-, Rs.24,16,440/- and Rs.25,66,093/- Lacs for purchase of Vehicles and terms and conditions were accepted by the defendants.

¶22

Defendants had hypothecated their movable assets i.e. vehicles detailed as under:

¶23

I. Mahindra Bolero B4 BS 6 bearing registration no. PB11CW9100, Chassis No.MA1XK2XKXL5H46602 Engine No. XKL6H36431;

¶24

II. Tractor Model Name MALKIT 997 bearing registration no. PB11DD5481, Chassis No. MAT997L22888 Engine No.PLHM409391;

¶25

III. Tractor Model Name MALKIT 997 bearing registration no. PB11DD5491 Chassis No. MAT997L22885 Engine No. PLHM409378;

¶26

vide Loan cum hypothecation cum guarantee agreement dated 31.05.2023, which is Annexure A6 to this OA. Documents executed:- Agreement for auto loan dated 31.08.2020, which is Annexure A4 to this OA; Irrevocable Power of Attorney, which is Annexure A5 to this OA; Demand Notice dated 07.05.2025 along with postal receipts, which is Annexure A7 to this OA; Statements of Accounts along with certificate under Bankers Books Evidence Act, which are Annexures A8 to A10 to this OA and Delhi High court Judgment, which is Annexure A11 to this OA.

¶27

The loan accounts became irregular and were classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan accounts there was a debit of Rs.49,08,124.42p, which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notices but they did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 6. The defendants were served notices to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte on 11.07.2025.

¶28

3 OA/703/2025 HDFC BANK VS JAGTAR SINGH AND OTHERS

¶29

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Rajendra Prasad, Authorized Representativ e, HDFC Bank Limited, h as been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record. 9. It was argued by learned counsel that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case. From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A11 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant for availing of the loan facilities which were granted to them and for that they had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. The defendants failed to pay back the loans as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, accounts of the defendants were classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.49,08,124.42p (Rupees Forty Nine Lacs Eight Thousand One Hundred Twenty Four & Forty Two Paise Only) along with interest from the defendants, jointly

¶30

and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the accounts.

¶31

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @ 8.55%p.a. in One Loan Account and @13.50% p.a. in other two accounts from the date of application till the realization.

¶32

The Tribunal is of the considered opinion that sometimes in appropriate cases the prerogative of mercy is the brightest jewel in the crown of the Judge. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case including nature of the hypothecated vehicles, undertaking of the defendants, quantum of loan and prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yester years, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @8.00%p.a. in all the loan accounts from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amounts ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶33

¶34

OA/703/2025 HDFC BANK VS JAGTAR SINGH AND OTHERS

¶35

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.49,08,124.42p (Rupees Forty Nine Lacs Eight Thousand One Hundred Twenty Four & Forty Two Paise Only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00%p.a. in all the loan accounts from the date of filing of OA till the date of realization of the amount. Accordingly, the applicant shall be entitled to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of hypothecated vehicles of the defendants in execution proceedings if not sold earlier under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. If the dues of the applicant still remain unsatisfied, it shall be entitled to recover the same by attachment and sale of personal assets of the defendants. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶36

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶37

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶38

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 16.08.2025. 15. Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant and be sent to defendants through registered/speed post and this order be also uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal and record be consigned. Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal. Dated: 16.07.2025.

¶39

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. Sh. Jagtar Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. Sh. Jagtar Singh and Others

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

State Bank of India versus Sh. Harmel Singh Alias Harmail Singh

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Suresh Kumar and Another

State Bank of India versus Sh. Surinder Singh

Gurmeet Kaur and Others versus Union Bank of India

Central Bank of India versus M/S Jass Enterprises and Another

Axis Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Gurpreet Singh and Another