Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. M/S. Hari Enterprises

DRT12 Nov 2025OA/797/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of dues under the RDB Act. Having proved execution of loan documents and default by defendants, the court directed repayment within two months or enforcement through asset sale. A recovery certificate was issued with restrained orders against asset transfer.

What did the court decide?

Repayment of Rs.66,92,885.80 within two months with interest; entitlement to sell hypothecated and personal assets; issuance of recovery certificate; injunction against alienation of properties.

Hdfc Bank versus M/S. Hari Enterprises — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW

¶2

Date of order or proceeding	I Order with signature of court	Officeaction taken with date
O.A.No.797/2023 12.11.2025	The Judgment is signed and pronounced on separate sheets. Separately attachedin06 sheets. Order be uploaded on the Tribunal’s website.
	(Dictated) b (PravasKurXarSingh) PresidingOfficer
	(Mugish)

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT LUCKNOW

¶4

Present: Pravas Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

¶5

Case No. Original Application No.797 of 2023

¶6

Dated: 12.11.2025

¶7

HDFC Bank Limited, having Branch at 17/4-A, lst Floor, Nikhilesh Palace, Ashok Marg, Lucknow – 226001, U.P. ....... Applicant-bank

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s Hari Enterprises through its Proprietor Mr. Nitin Kumar First Floor, 693 Sadarpur, Ghaziabad, Kavi Nagar, Uttar Pradesh 201002.

¶10

Mr. Nitin Kumar S/o Narender Pal, House No.693, Sadarpur Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad, Kavi Nagar, Uttar Pradesh – 201002.

¶11

Mrs. Jat Pooja D/o Yashpal Singh, House No.693, Sadarpur Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad, ......Defendants Uttar Pradesh – 201002.

¶12

Ld. Counsel for Applicant-bank: Shri Ritesh Goel, Advocate

¶13

Ld. Counsel for the Defendants: None.

¶14

JUDGEIVIENT

¶15

This Original Application has been filed by the Applicant-bank under

¶16

¶17

Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendants for the recovery of Rs.66,92,885.80/- (Rupees Sixty Six Lacs, Ninety Two Thousand, Eight Hundred Eighty Five and Paisa Eighty Only) together with pendent-lite and future interest, costs and other reliefs etc.

¶18

The brief facts of case are that the defendants No.1 is a proprietorship

¶19

firm of which defendant no.2 is the proprietor and the defendant No.3 is a

¶20

O.A. No.797 of 2023

¶21

¶22

guarantor. The defendants had approached the Applicant-bank for financial assistance. The Applicant-bank considered the request of the defendants and sanctioned Credit Facility of Rs.48,68,375/- for purchase of CEMID EQUiPMENTS (THCM EX 200-EXCAVATOR) was executed on 25.09.2020 and another sanctioned of Rs.13,13,000/- for purchase of CEMID EQUIPMENTS (THCM SUPER B215 ROCK) was executed on 12.10.2020 (Exhibit No. A-2) to this Original Application.

¶23

To secure aforesaid credit facilities, defendants had executed and signed various security documents in favour of the Applicant-bank. The defendant No.3 signed and executed Guarantee Agreement dated 25.09.2020 and on 12.10.2020 (Exhibit No.A-3) to this Original Application.

¶24

To avail the aforesaid credit facility, the Applicant-bank had opened two loan accounts in the name of defendant No.1 in order to maintain the credit facilities.

¶25

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 account of the defendant no.1/firm was classified as NPA on 30.12.202 1 by the bank as per RBI guidelines (Exhibit No. A-4), thereafter the Applicant-bank issued Recall Notice dated 31.05.2023 to the defendants (Exhibit No. A-5), but, the defendants stated no-response and they failed to repay the same and the loan accounts of the defendants are still un-liquidated, hence, this Original Application has been instituted.

¶26

As per books of the bank maintained in the usual and ordinary course

¶27

of banking business, an outstanding of Rs.66,92,885.80/- (Rupees Sixty Six

¶28

O.A. No.797 of 2023

¶29

¶30

Lacs, Ninety Two Thousand, Eight Hundred Eighty Five and Paisa Eighty Only) including interest upto 31.05.2023, were lying due for payment, for which the defendants are jointly and severally liable to repay the same, which they did not pay despite repeated requests and demand. The Applicant-bank filed the Statement of loan Accounts. (Exhibit No.A-6) to this Original Application.

¶31

The cause of action for filing the present application arose firstly on 25.09.2020 & 12.10.2020 when the aforesaid credit facility were sanctioned by the Applicant-bank and the same were availed by the defendants and necessary documents were executed by the defendants. The cause of action further arose on when recall Notice dated 31.05.2023 was sent to the defendants, recalling the entire outstanding dues and they failed to pay the same.

¶32

The summons were served upon the defendants through registered post, the defendants through counsel appeared before this Tribunal on 12.10.2023, but no written statement has been filed, hence, the opportunity to file the written statement is closed. The case is proceeded against the defendants.

¶33

From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the defendants were provided with 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 is as to whether bank is legally entitled to the amount as claimed in Original Application on the basis of documents and pleading submitted by it.

¶34

¶35

O.A. No.797 of 2023

¶36

In support of the case Shri Saurabh Singh, Legal Manager of the Applicant-bank has filed an affidavit.

¶37

On a careful scrutiny of the evidence on affidavit and Exhibits marked as Exhibit No.A-1 to Exhibit No.A-6, it is proved that 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 show that defendant had utilized the above loan facilities as granted to them. The Applicant-bank had maintained the Books of account in the ordinary course of banking business showing disbursal of the loan amount. The Bank had also charged interest from time to time and the entries are relevant u/s 4 of the Banker Books of Evidence Act. It is also proved that the Applicant-bank’s claim is within limitation against defendants, therefore, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the dues.

¶38

Accordingly, the defendants are directed to pay the balance dues to the Applicant-bank within a period of 2 months from the date of judgement failing which the Applicant-bank will be entitled to sell the hypothecated assets and personal assets/ properties of the defendants.

¶39

The Applicant-bank has claimed [email protected]% and [email protected]% per annum with monthly rest w.e.f. 31.05.2023 till the date of realization and costs. On the basis of foregoing discussion, interest of justice will be served if pendent- lite and future interest is granted @8% above the loan accounts per annum with monthly rest reducing balance from the date of filing of the O.A. till the date of realization with costs.

¶40

¶41

5 O.A. No.797 of 2023

¶42

1 find that the bank has proved the execution of loan documents and creation ofhypothecation in its favour. In the result, the Original Application succeeds as proceeded against the defendants with costs. The bank has proved the loan execution of loan documents in favour of the bank and availment of credit facility. The liability of the defendant Nos.1 to 3 are joint and several and hypothecated asset as well as the personal properties are to be sold.

¶43

It is, therefore , ordered

¶44

(i) That the Original Application No.797 of 2023 of the Applicant bank for issuance of Recovery Certificate to the tune of Rs.66,92,885.80/(Rupees Sixty Six Lacs, Ninety Two Thousand, Eight Hundred Eighty Five and Paisa Eighty Only) along with the interest @8% per annum with monthly rest from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 31.07.2023 till the loan is fully liquidated and costs succeeds proceeded against the defendants.

¶45

(ii) The defendants are directed to pay the dues within a period of two months from the date of judgement, failing which the Applicant-bank will be entitled to recover the same from the secured assets, personal movables and immovable assets of the defendants.

¶46

(iii) The Applicant–bank is entitled to recover aforesaid amount by sale of hypothecated assets (if not sold earlier under the provision of the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act 2002). The amount, if any already recovered by sale of any hypothecated assets or otherwise shall be recoverable, if the dues of the Applicant-bank still remain unsatisfied, the same shall

¶47

6 O.A. No.797 of 2023

¶48

be recovered by attachmeht and sale of the personal movable assets

¶49

of the defendant jointly and severally.

¶50

(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.

¶51

(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 29.01.2026 before R.O., DRT, Lucknow.

¶52

(vi) The Applicant-bank is directed to file a memo of cost for preparing Recovery Certificate u/s 19(22) of the Recovery of Debts Bankruptcy Act, 1993 .

¶53

Judgment is pronounced in the open court.

¶54

Dated: 12.11.2025

¶55

\r (Pravas Kumat-Singh) Presiding Officer

¶56

(MK)

Hdfc Bank v. M/S. Hari Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. M/S. Hari Enterprises

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

Mrs Ramshri Shukla versus Union Bank of India

Canara Bank versus Sumit Kumar Sharma

Mr Vartika Sharma versus Hdfc Bank

Vaishno Prasad Mishra versus Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd.

Union Bank of India versus Shri Ashtefaq Husain Farooqui

Mohammad Salman versus Hero Housing Finance Ltd.