Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Ms Neeraj Electronics

DRT10 Sept 2025TA/1078/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by HDFC Bank Ltd. to recover a loan principal amount of Rs. 33.80 lakhs. The court proceeded ex-parte against absent defendants and directed recovery with future interest at 12%. The judgment also issued a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 33,80,272.85 with future interest at 12% p.a. and issuance of recovery certificate.

Hdfc Bank versus Ms Neeraj Electronics — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No.1078 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

T.A. No. 1078 of 2023

¶5

HDFC Bank Ltd.

¶6

Department for Special Operations

¶7

5th Floor, Ansal Classique Tower Plot No.1, J Block, Community Centre

¶8

Opposite Surya Continental, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027 Applicant

¶9

ersus

¶10

M/s Neeraj Electronics

¶11

hrough its Proprietor

¶12

/180, Petrol Pump Road,

¶13

eeta Colony East elhi-110031.

¶14

Late Sh.Neeraj Sharma s/o Sh.Dinanath Sharma /180, Petrol Pump Road, eeta Colony East

¶15

elhi-110031.

¶16

hrough its legal heirs: i) Sh.Dinanath Sharma (father of late Sh.Neeraj Sharma) 7/180, Petrol Pump Road,

¶17

Geeta Colony East Delhi-110031

¶18

ii) Mrs.Veena Sharma (Mother of late Sh.Neeraj Sharma) 7/180, Petrol Pump Road, Geeta Colony East Delhi-110031.

¶19

iii) Mrs.Ritu Sharma w/o late Sh.Neeraj Sharma) 7/180, Petrol Pump Road, Geeta Colony East Delhi-110031. ; Mrs. Ritu Sharma w/o late Sh.Neeraj Sharma) r /180, Petrol Pump Road, eeta Colony East elhi-110031. Defendants

¶20

¶21

T.A. No.1078 of 2023

¶22

Present: Shri Rishi Gupta, Counsel for applicant bank

¶23

Date of Institution: 08.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 10.09.2025

¶24

FINAL ORDER

¶25

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 08.09.2022 through Shri Ankush Saini, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Banks and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.33,80,272.85 (Rupees Thirty Three Lacs Eighty Thousand Two Hundred Seventy Two and Paisa Eighty Five only) as on 31.07.2022 along with pendentelite and future interest @18.00% per nnum with monthly rest from 31.07.2022 till the date of realization and costs.

¶26

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of efendant no.1 through its proprietor being defendant no.2 vide oan application dated 19.01.2018 along with KYC documents, he applicant bank sanctioned MEOD facility for a total sum of

¶27

s.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lacs only) on 26.02.2018 • 10.50% interest per annum against personal guarantees of efendant no.2 and 3. On the request of defendants, limit was enewed on 12.03.2019 and 06.03.2020.

¶28

That in order to avail the said loan facility, the defendants xecuted Sole Proprietorship Declaration to Constitution, pplication for Overdraft Facility against Card Receivables, verdraft Agreement along with Loan Agreement, Deed of ypothecation, Irrevocable Power of Attorney and Amendment

¶29

¶30

T.A. No.1078 of 2023

¶31

Agreement, PF Debit Authority Letter dated 26.02.2018. Further in addition, Letter of Personal Guarantees dated 13.03.2018 by defendant no.2 and 3 was executed. The defendant no.1 through defendant no.2 executed Addendum Agreement on 19.06.2020 in favour of applicant bank.

¶32

That in order to secure the credit facility, the defendants through its proprietor and guarantor hypothecated the card receivables in favour of applicant bank. The legal heirs / representatives being defendant no.2 (i) to (iii) of proprietor have been impleaded after his death as they are jointly and everally liable along with defendant no.3.

¶33

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facility, the defendant failed to omply with the terms and conditions despite several requests nd reminders. The defendant failed to pay the outstanding ues in time to the applicant bank, ultimately, the applicant. The pplicant bank classified the account as NPA on 28.09.2021 ut no amount repaid by the defendant. The applicant bank ssued Loan Recall Notice dated 13.07.2022 calling upon them o clear the dues as on 30.06.2022 with interest but no esponse, hence the applicant bank has approached this ribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶34

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and • espite of proper service the defendants have chosen to bsent from the proceedings. As per order dated 14.05.2025, he defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as they have of appeared before the Tribunal and even no written tatement, evidence and affidavit of assets has been filed on ehalf of the defendants.

sci

T.A. No.1078 of 2023

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Ankush Saini, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as Board Resolution Exh.AW1/1, Death Certificate of defendant no.2 Exh.AW1/2, Loan Application Form with KYC Exh AW1/3, Sanction Letter Exh.AW1/4, Exh.AW1/14 & Exh.AW1/16, Sole Proprietorship Declaration Exh.AW1/5, Application for Overdraft Facility against Card Receivables, Overdraft Agreement and Loan Agreement Exh.AW1/6(colly), Deed of Hypothecation Exh.AW1/7, Irrevocable Power of ttorney Exh.AW1/8, Letter of Personal Guarantee

¶39

Exh.AW1/9, Amendment Agreement Exh.AW1/10, Request for cceptance of Instructions Exh.AW1/11, PF Debit Authority

¶40

Letter Exh.AW1/12, Renewal Request Exh.AW1/13 & Exh.AW1/15, Addendum Agreement Exh.AW1/17, Loan Recall Notice & Exh.AW1/18(Colly), Certified under Banker's Books Evidence Act & Exh.AW1/19(Colly).

¶41

The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments

¶42

ade in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the

¶43

pplicant bank is based on the documents and the same have een duly approved.

¶44

The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and

¶45

here is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant ank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts.

¶46

As per the provision of Section 19(20) of the Recovery of ebts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 which

¶47

s analogous to Section 34 of CPC, on filing of the suit/claim, he contract between the parties comes to an end and the ourt/Tribunal has a discretion to award the same depending pon the circumstances of each case. Same principle has been

¶48

aid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bank

sc,

T.A. No.1078 of 2023

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

¶53

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

¶54

ORDER

¶55

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the pplicant bank within a period of 30 days, a sum of s.33,80,272.85 (Rupees Thirty Three Lacs Eighty Thousand wo Hundred Seventy Two and Paisa Eighty Five only) as on 1.07.2022 along with costs, pendentelite and future interest • 12.00% per annum with monthly rest from the date of filing •f this O.A. till the date of realization, failing which the aforesaid mount shall be recovered from the sale of movable and mmovable properties of the defendants..

¶56

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

¶57

III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery officer, DRT I, Delhi on 10.11.2025

¶58

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

¶59

50(—

¶60

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

¶61

Dictated and pronounced in open court) ated: 10.09.2025

¶62

Hdfc Bank v. Ms Neeraj Electronics

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Ms Neeraj Electronics

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

Bank of India versus Vishesh Enterprises

Bank of India versus J P Apparels

Canara Bank versus M/S R B Builders and Ors.

Anil versus State Bank of India

Maharaj Singh Sindhu versus Iifl Home Finance Limited

Punjab National Bank versus Madhav Murari Garg