Allowed

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Mr. Mohd Nadeem

DRT4 Jul 2025OA/777/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the bank's original application for recovery of a ₹31.80 lakh credit card and loan dues. The defendant was proceeded ex-parte for absence. The Tribunal fixed interest at 12% p.a. and directed issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Allowed OA; directed defendant to pay principal Rs. 31,80,586.02 plus interest at 12% p.a. and costs within 30 days; recovery certificate to be issued.

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Mr. Mohd Nadeem — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

O.A. No. 777 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.777 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

Mr. Mohd Nadeem R-153, R-Block, Ramesh Park Behind Badhi Masjid Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092

¶10

Also at:

¶11

Proprietor of Collection Art R-189, R Block, Ramesh Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092

¶12

Defendant

¶13

Present: Ms Amita Kumari, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶14

Date of Institution: 20.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 04.07.2025

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank before DRT-I Delhi on 20.09.2023 through Sh.Rajeev Kumar, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 against the defendant for recovery of Rs.31,80,586.02 (Rupees Thirty One Lacs Eighty Thousand

O.A. No. 777 of 2023

Five Hundred Eighty Six and paisa Two only) along with pendentelite and future interest @18% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing this application till the date of realization along with costs.

¶21

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the defendant, the applicant bank sanctioned Credit Card facility bearing No.000457262)00000(9599 having credit limit of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lacs only). That from time to time, under the aforesaid Credit card account, the Defendant availed several financial facilities such as Insta Loan and Smart EMI loans, and post NPA of the Credit Card account, all the outstanding of these loans was adjusted in the credit card dues.

¶22

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facility, the defendant failed to comply with the terms and conditions of sanction and failed to regularize the account with the applicant bank. Ultimately, the applicant bank issued a legal notice dated 01.07.2023 but the defendant failed to regularize the account and hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶23

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 03.01.2025, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as they have not appeared before the Tribunal and even written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have not been filed by the defendant.

¶24

¶25

O.A. No. 777 of 2023

¶26

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Rajeev Kumar, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as Board Resolution Ex.AW-1/1, Card Application Form Ex.AW-1/2, Card Member's Agreement and Most Important Terms and Conditions (MITC) Ex.AW-1/3 (Colly), Standard Terms and Conditions to the Insta Loan and Jumbo Loan Ex.AW-1/4(Colly)„ Notice along with Postal Receipts Ex.AW-1/5(Colly), Delivery Reports Ex.AW-1/6(Colly), Certified Statement of Accounts along with Loaded Balance Sheet under Bankers' Book of Evidence Act Ex.AW-1/7(Colly).

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

O.A. No. 777 of 2023

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

ORDER

¶35

I, allow this OA and direct the defendant to pay to the applicant bank, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.31,80,586.02 (Rupees Thirty One Lacs Eighty Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Six and Paisa Two 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.

¶36

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

¶37

(III)^{Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery} Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 03.09.2025.

¶38

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

¶39

.5at-

¶40

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

¶41

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 04.07.2025

¶42

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Mr. Mohd Nadeem

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Mr. Mohd Nadeem

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

Smt. Manisha Wd/O Surendra Thamke versus Aavas Financiers Ltd.

Neeraj Kumar versus Indian Bank

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Surender

Bank of India versus M/S Sbs Garments

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Taj Packaging

Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. versus Sh. Munish Kumar Guliani