Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Pradeep Kumar

DRT29 Dec 2025OA/764/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed a recovery application filed by HDFC Bank Ltd. against Sh. Pradeep Kumar Saroj. The respondent was absent and proceeded with ex-parte. The bank was directed to recover dues of Rs. 22,71,141.30 plus interest and costs via sale of properties.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 22,71,141.30 with interest and costs; issuance of recovery certificate to Recovery Officer; recovery from sale of properties.

Hdfc Bank versus Pradeep Kumar — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

O.A. No. 764 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.764 of 2023

¶5

HDFC Bank Ltd.

¶6

Retail Assets Collection

¶7

Plot No.31, Najafgarh Industrial Area

¶8

Tower A, 1st Floor, Shivaji Marg, Moti Nagar, New Delhi-110015

¶9

Applicant

¶10

Versus

¶11

Sh.Pradeep Kumar Saroj s/o Sh.Ram Kailash Saroj R/o House no.19/461, Block 19

¶12

Trilok Puri, Near park, East Delhi-91

¶13

Also at:

¶14

Sh.Pradeep Kumar Saroj s/o Sh.Ram Kailash Saroj Directorate of Education

¶15

SBB (Preen Chand) Pocket 2

¶16

Mayur Vihar Phase I, Near Police Station East Delhi-110091

¶17

Also at:

¶18

Sh.Pradeep Kumar Saroj s/o Sh.Ram Kailash Saroj House No.332, Block 25 Trilok Puri, Delhi-110091 Defendant

¶19

Present: Shri Manish Verma, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶20

Date of Reserve: 17.12.2025

¶21

Date of Pronouncement: 29.12.2025

¶22

FINAL ORDER

¶23

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 12.09.2023 through Ms. Swathi Vajjhala, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the

¶24

¶25

O.A. No. 764 of 2023

¶26

defendant for recovery of Rs.22,71,141.30 (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Seventy One Thousand One Hundred Forty One and paisa Thirty only) as on 14.08.2023 along with pendentelite and future interest @10.25% per annum from 14.08.2023 till its realization along with costs.

¶27

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the defendant, the applicant bank sanctioned Personal Loan for Rs.24,90,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Ninety Thousand only) on 23.05.2022 @10.25% per annum, which was to be repayable in 72 equated Monthly installments of Rs.46,444/each from 06.07.2022.

¶28

In order to avail the loan facility, the defendant submitted and executed Loan Application, Original Loan Agreement in favour of the applicant bank on 23.05.2022.

¶29

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendant failed to comply with the terms and conditions of sanction and regularize the account with the applicant bank. Ultimately, the applicant bank terminated the facility and issued loan recall notice dated 16.08.2023 but was neglected by the defendant. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶30

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 07.01.2025, 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.

S6/

O.A. No. 764 of 2023

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of Affidavit of Ms. Swathi Vajjhala , authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as Board Meeting, Loan Application Form, True Copy of PAN Card, True copy of Aadhar Card, Online Terms and Conditions of the Loan Agreement along with Schedule cum Key Fact Statement, Original Disbursal Report, Statement of Account, Foreclosure Report, Loan Recall Notice along with postal receipts, Speed Post tracking report, Certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act and Certificate under Section 2A of Banker's Book Evidence Act marked as Ex.AW1/1 to Ex.AW-1/11.

¶35

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.

¶36

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.

¶37

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

¶38

ORDER

¶39

I, allow this OA and direct the defendant to pay to the applicant bank, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.22,71,141.30 (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Seventy One Thousand One Hundred Forty One and paisa Thirty only) as on

¶40

¶41

O.A. No. 764 of 2023

¶42

14.08.2023 together with pendentelite and future interest @10.25% per annum from 15.08.2023 till the date of realization and costs; failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶43

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

¶44

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 27.02.2026.

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 29.12.2025

¶48

Hdfc Bank v. Pradeep Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Pradeep Kumar

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

Jitendra Natthuji Chavhan versus Arvind Sahakari Bank Limited

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Pristine Facility and Management Services Pvt. Lts

Rare Asset Reconstruction Private Limited versus Ms Narayana Processed Food Pvt. Ltd.

Central Bank of India versus Dinesh Chand Alias Dinesh Kumar

Bank of India versus Komal Sharma

Idbi Bank versus F.T.Communication