Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Mohd.Aarif

DRT28 Jul 2025OA/923/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this original application under Section 19 of the RBI Act, the bank sought recovery of defaulted personal loan dues from the defendant who was absent. The court proceeded ex-parte, found the bank's case proved by documentary evidence, and allowed the application directing payment of principal, interest, and costs.

What did the court decide?

Directing the defendant to pay Rs.21,70,614.53 with 10.75% interest and costs via sale of properties and issuance of recovery certificate.

Hdfc Bank versus Mohd.Aarif — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

O.A. No. 923 of 2022

¶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.923 of 2022

¶5

HDFC Bank Limited Retail Assets Collection 1st Floor, Tower A, Plot No.31, Najafgarh Road Industrial Area Shivaji Marg, Moti Nagar, New Delhi-110015

Applicant

Versus

Mohd. Aarif

S/o Shabbir Ahmed 218 and 219, Top Floor, Left Side, J-Extn. Near Jain Mandir, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi- 110092

¶10

Also at: Branch Manager of LOOKS Salon Private Limited D-3, Shopping Centre, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi- 110057

¶11

Also at: LOOKS Salon Pvt. Ltd. 17A/22, Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi- 110005 Defendant

¶12

Present: Md. Sarik, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶13

Date of Institution: 14.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 28.07.2025 FINAL ORDER

¶14

O.A. No. 923 of 2022

¶15

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank before DRT-I Delhi on 14.10.2022 through its authorized representative under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.21,70,614.53 /- (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Seventy Thousand Six Hundred Fourteen and Paisa Fifty Three only) as on 23.09.2022 along with pendentelite and future interest @10.75% per annum from 23.09.2022 till its realization along With costs.

¶16

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the defendant vide loan application dated 21.02.2020, the applicant bank sanctioned a personal loan for a sum of Rs.17,90,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Lacs Ninety Thousand only) as on 23.09.2022 ©10.75% per annum interest which was rqDayable in 48 equated monthly installments of Rs.46,046/( Zupees Forty Six Thousand Forty Six Only) each on^{7th day of} every calendar month spanning from 07.04.2020 to 07.03.2024. Further it is submitted that on the request of the defendant the repayment schedule was extended for a period of 32 months and thereafter the loan was to be repaid in 80 monthly installments of Rs.42,952 (Rupees Forty Two Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Two Only) each, which was p^{ayable on 7thday of every calendar month spanning from} 07.04.2020 to 07.11.2026.

¶17

In order to avail the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendants submitted and executed Loan Application along with terms and conditions dated 25.02.2020, Statement of Account and Foreclosure Report dated 23.09.2022 with the applicant bank.

0.A. No. 923 of 2022

41 It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions of sanction and failed to regularize the account with the applicant bank. Ultimately, the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 07.04.2022 as per RBI guidelines and issued loan recall notice dated 26.09.2022 but defendants have failed to comply with the notice, hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶22

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendant and despite of proper service, the defendant has chosen to remain absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 16.01.2025, 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.

¶23

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Smt. Swath' Vajjhala, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the Original/Copy documents as the Board Meeting, Loan Application, True Copy of PAN Card, True Copy of Aadhar Card, Online Terms and Conditions with Schedule Cum Key Fact Statement, Original Disbursal Report, Statement of Account, Foreclosure Report, Notice, Postal receipts and Certificates under section 65B OF Indian Evidence Act and under section 2A OF Banker Books Evidence Act as Exhibit AW1/1 to Exhibit AW1/12

¶24

The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments made in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the

¶25

0.A. No. 923 of 2022

¶26

applicant bank is based on the documents and the same have , been duly approved.

¶27

8, The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and there is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant bnk and the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts.

¶28

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

¶29

ORDER

¶30

I, allow this OA and direct the defendant to pay to the applicant bank within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.21,70,614.53/- (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Seventy Thousand Six Hundred Fourteen and Paisa Fifty Three only) as on 23.09.2022 along with pendente lite and future interest

¶31

10.75% per annum from 23.09.2022 till the date of realization and costs. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendant.

¶32

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

¶33

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 06.10.2025.

¶34

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

Sd-

O.A. No. 923 of 2022

2-o

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

¶40

(1]p$ictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 28.07.2025

¶41

Hdfc Bank v. Mohd.Aarif

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Mohd.Aarif

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

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sai Enterprises

Idbi Bank versus Anand Kumar

Axis Bank versus Ajeet Kumar

Sri Anant Kumar Agarwal versus Icici Bank Limited

Gopal Dass versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Harjinder Singh