Allowed

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Arvind Singh

DRT24 Dec 2025TA/1101/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench allowed the original application filed by the applicant banks for recovery of Rs.80,19,842.29 along with interest from the sole defendant. The defendant failed to appear, and the tribunal proceeded ex parte, finding the bank's evidence unchallenged.

What did the court decide?

Directed the defendant to pay Rs.80,19,842.29 along with interest to Kotak Mahindra Bank within 30 days. Recovery in case of shortfall directed from hypothecated vehicles and other assets. Recovery Ce

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Arvind Singh — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

Beforc SUSHIL^{KUMARRASTOGI, Presiding Officer} Debts Recovela^{Tribunal-Il,Delhi}

¶2

TA No.1t01^{OF 2022}

¶3

HDFC BANK^{LIMITEDVS ARVIND SINGH}

¶4

Reserved on t 27,L1.-2O25

¶5

Prcnounced on^{t 24-1,2-2O25}

¶6

HDrc Bank^Limited

¶7

Kotak Mahindra^{bank Ltd}

¶8

-Applicant bank

¶9

Vs.

¶10

Arvind Singh

¶11

Sole defendant

¶12

Present:^{Mr. Samarendra Kumar, Counselfor applicant} no.2.

¶13

Defendant exparte,^{since 03.03.2025'}

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

This original application^{has been filed by the} applicant bank, on^{01.08.2019 through Mr' Deepak} Kumar, Legal Manager^{of the applicant bank,under} Section 19 of^{the RDB Act, 1993 against the sole} defendant for^{recovery of a sum of Rs.80,19,842'29 along} with^{pendent-elite and futureinterest at contractualrate} i.e.,9.50olo^{per annum in first loan account no'42655370,} 8.50o/o^per annum^{in secondloan accountno'52962331} and 10.99%^{per annum in third loan account} no.59022525^{from the date of filing of this O'A' till the} realization in^full.

¶16

The brief^{facts of the case are that at the request of} the sole defendant,^{the applicant bank sanctioned an Auto} Loan Facility of^{Rs.25,77,153/- i.e' Rs.6,27,t531- in first} loan account and^{Rs.19,50,000/-in second loan account} were sanctioned^{and disburse! in respect of two account}

¶17

¶18

TANO. 1101of2022²

¶19

bearing^{no.42655370and 52962331forpurchasingtwo} vehicles i.e.,^{BalenoZeta Petrol & InnovaCrysIa 2'4 A"} Further on execution^{of agreement for personalloan} dated 07.08.2018, a^{loan of Rs.62,00,000/-was} sanctioned and^{disbursed in respect of accountbearing} no.59022525 to the^{defendants. A palt of the} disbursement^{under account no.59022525 to the extent} of Rs.54,36,496/-^{was used towards squaring off liabilities} in an existing^{loan accountbearing no.50773772' Further} secure the aforesaid^{loans, defendants hypothecatedtwo} vehicles in favour of^{applicantbank i'e', BalenoZeta} Petrol, Registration^{No DL8CAC9006-Engine No'} K12MN4184820-^{ChassisNo.MA3EWB22SGJ226111 and} Innova CryE;ra^{2.4A.,RegistrationNo' DL10CK3006-} Engine No.^{2GDAL47949-Chassis No'} M BJAB3EMSO^{2517 586LTL7 .}

¶20

It is^{further submittedthat the sole defendant} enjoyed and utilized^{the Loan facility, but failed to} maintain the^{financial discipline and failed to repay the} due amounts.^{The applicantbankrequested the sole} defendant to^{regularizethe loan account by visits and} letters, but there^{was no responsefrom the sole} defendant.^{The applicant bank serveda recall noticedated} t2.O7.zOLg to^{the sole defendant but failed to recoverthe} same. Thus,^{the present O.A.ff.A. is preferredby the} applicant^{bank to recover its dues.}

¶21

On notice^{by this Tribunal,sole defendant failed to} put appearance at all, despite^{publication' Accordingly,} the sole defendant^{was proceeded against exparteon} 03.03.202s.

TANO. ll0l^of 2022

The applicant^{bank has filed evidence by way of} affidavit of^{Mr. DeepakKumar, Legal Managerof the} applicant bank^{as Annexure.A-l to AnnexureA-13 which} have^gone unchallenged^{and un-rebufted'Hence, the} case of the^{applicantbank standsfully established against} the sole defendant^{with respect to nonpayment of} outstanding^amount.

¶26

After^{perusing the records, this Tribunalis of the} view that the^{applicant bank has proved its case beyond} reasonable doubts.^{The evidence and documentsfiledby} the applicant^{bank not rebutted by the sole defendantby} not^placing any^{evidenceand there is no question of} disbelieving^{the evidence and documents filed by the} applicant bank^{based upon the written/printed} documents.

¶27

In the light of^{the abovediscussions,the.present T'A'} deserves to^{be allowed'}

¶28

ORDER

¶29

I hereby^{allow this T.A. of the ApplicantBank and} direct the sole^{defendantto pay to the applicant no'2} Kotak Mahindra^{Bankwithin30 days from today, a sum of} Rs.80,19,842.29^{alongwith cost, expensesand interest @} 9.50o/o from^{the date of filing of this O'A' whichhas} become^{T.A till the date of realization'}

¶30

In case^{of failure to depositthe aboveamount within} the stipulated^{period, the same shatl be recoveredfrom} the sale of^{hypothecated vehicles i.e', Baleno Zeta Petrol'} Registration^{No DL8CAC9006-Engine No'K12MN4184820-} Chassis^{No.MA3E1/B22SGJ226LLLand InnovaCrysta} 2.42X, Registration^{No. DL10CK3006-Engine No'} zGD At47^{g4g- Chassis N.o-. M BIAB3EM80251 7586 1 1 1 7' In} q"\

¶31

¶32

TANO. ll0l^{of 2022}

¶33

case of^{shortfall,the same shall be recovered from the} sale^{personal movableand immovable assets of the sole} defendant.

¶34

3)^{RecoveryCeftificatebe issued fofthwithand be sent} to Recovery^{Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il'D€lhi'}

¶35

The^{registry of this Tribunal is hereby directedto} issue free^{copy of the order and send the same to both} the^parties'

¶36

Parties^{are directedto appear before the Ld'} Recovery^{Officer, DRT-II,Delhi on 24'02'2026' Pending} IAs, if anY,^{standdisPosed of'}

¶37

File be^{consigned to records'}

¶38

¶39

Date z 24.t2.2025

¶40

(susHIL KUMAR^RASToGI) PRESIDING^OFFICER DRT.II,^DCIhi

¶41

This^{judgement has} been signed,^{dated and}

¶42

pronounced^{in oPen coutt'}

¶43

Date:24.12.2025

¶44

,. ,^.' (susHIL KUMAR RASToGI) PRESIDING^OFFICER DRT-II,^DCIhi

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Arvind Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Arvind Singh

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