Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Mr Magbul Basha Nalband And Other

DRT8 Oct 2025TA/1143/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's recovery application filed under Section 19(1) of the RDB Act for dues arising from a Cash Credit facility. The defendants were placed ex-parte. The Tribunal confirmed the bank's claim and awarded a decree for the principal amount along with future interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 42,35,101.70 plus interest at 18% per annum with monthly rests from the date of application till full realization along with costs.

Hdfc Bank versus Mr Magbul Basha Nalband And Other — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 1143 of 2023

¶2

08.10.2025

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 08^th day of October, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

TRANSFERRED APPLICATION No. 1143 of 2023

¶8

(Originally filed before DRT- II, Chennai as OA 285/2018 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No 1143 of 2023)

¶9

HDFC Bank Limited, Having department for Special Operations at No.96, B Wing, 7^th Floor, Prince Khushai Towers, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002 ….Applicant

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

Mr. Magbul Basha Nalband, S/o Mr. Mohammed Gouse,

¶12

Prop. of M/s. Maq’s Barbecue N Biryani, 2/226, Old Mahaballipuram Road, Thoraipakkam,

¶13

Chennai – 600 097.

¶14

Also at

¶15

Mr. Magbul Basha Nalband, S/o Mr. Mohammed Gouse,

¶16

C1, A Block, Homestead Apartments, Kandanchavadi, Chennai – 600 097.

¶17

Mrs. Uzma Tabassum, W/o. Mr. Magbul Basha Nalband, C1, A Block, Homestead Apartments,

¶18

Kandanchavadi, Chennai – 600 097. …..Defendants

¶19

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶20

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. Ramalingam & Associates Defendants 1 and 2 were set ex-parte on 12.12.2018

¶21

: - FINAL ORDER - :

¶22

This Original Application is filed on 28.04.2018 by the applicant

¶23

bank under Section 19(1) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act,

¶24

T.A. No. 1143 of 2023

¶25

¶26

08.10.2025

¶27

1993 (formerly Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993) against the defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.42,35,101.70p (Rupees Forty Two Lakhs Thirty Five Thousand One Hundred and One and Seventy Paisa only) due in respect of Cash Credit (MEOD) Facility (A/c No.50200000666974) repayable together with further interest @ 18% per annum with monthly rests from the date of application till the date of realization in full and for costs of this application.

¶28

Originally, this Application was filed before DRT-II, Chennai, assigned OA No.285 of 2018, and thereafter in pursuance to the notification from Ministry of Finance, DFS dated 04.10.2022, OA No.285 of 2018 stood transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.1143 of 2023.

¶29

Brief Facts of the case:

¶30

The Applicant submits that the application is filed within the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 24 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, and the subject recovery claim falls within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

¶31

It is the case of the Applicant Bank that the First Defendant as the sole Proprietor of M/s. Maq's Barbecue N Biryani and the Second Defendant as the Guarantor had submitted an application to the Applicant Bank on 05.03.2013, seeking for a Cash Credit (MEOD) Facility of Rs. 30 Lakhs toward the expansion of the Business.

¶32

T.A. No. 1143 of 2023

¶33

¶34

08.10.2025

¶35

The Applicant Bank submits that considering the financial viability and the repayment capacity of the First Defendant, they had sanctioned a sum of Rs.30 Lakhs by way of Cash Credit (MEOD) facility vide their sanction letter dated 22.03.2013. Accepting to the various terms and conditions envisaged in the said sanction letter, the First Defendant as the Sole Proprietor of M/s. Maq’s Barbecue N Biryani, had acknowledged the said sanction letter, thereby availing the facility on 22.03.2013.

¶36

It is submitted by the Applicant Bank that the Defendants had availed the said sum of Rs.30 Lakhs by way of Cash Credit (MEOD) Facility on 22.03.2013 from the Applicant Bank. In consideration of the same and to secure the said facility, the Defendants had executed the following loan documents in favour of the Applicant Bank:

¶37

i. Demand Promissory Note dated 22.03.2013 executed by the First

¶38

Defendant for a sum of Rs. 30 Lakh, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 15.50% per annum or such other rate the bank may fix from time to time payable with months rests.

¶39

ii. Application for Overdraft/Term Loan Facility against Card Receivables dated 22.03.2013 executed by the First Defendant in favour of the Applicant Bank.

¶40

iii. Letter of continuity dated 22.03.2013 executed by the First Defendant in favour of the Applicant Bank.

¶41

iv. Irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 22.03.2013 executed by the First Defendant in favour of the Applicant Bank.

¶42

T.A. No. 1143 of 2023

¶43

08.10.2025

¶44

¶45

v. Letter of General Lien and Set Off dated 22.03.2013 executed by the First Defendant in favour of the Applicant Bank.

¶46

vi. Deed of Hypothecation dated 22.03.2013 executed by the First Defendant in favour of the Applicant Bank.

¶47

vii. Letter of Continuing Guarantee dated 22.03.2013, executed by the first and second defendants, in favour of the Applicant Bank.

¶48

The Applicant Bank submits that the Defendants had agreed to repay the credit facility availed with interest at the rate of 15.50% per annum, which was base rate + 5.80% per annum. The said facility was valid for a period of 12 months and the Defendant agreed to service the interest by the 3^rd day of every month. The First Defendant also undertook to pay additional interest at the rate of 18% per annum for the overdue/delayed/defaulted payment.

¶49

The Applicant Bank submits that the First Defendant was enjoying the Cash Credit (MEOD) Facility but however repayment was not satisfactory. When the same was taken up with the Defendants, they had requested the Applicant Bank for renewal of the Cash Credit (MEOD) Facility and agreed that the earlier documents executed by them for the Cash Credit (MEOD) Facility would be extended for the renewed Cash Credit (MEOD) Facility.

¶50

Accordingly, the Applicant Bank had renewed the Cash Credit

¶51

(MEOD) Facility under the Renewal Sanction Letter dated 11.03.2014.

¶52

T.A. No. 1143 of 2023

¶53

08.10.2025

¶54

¶55

Agreeing to the terms and conditions of the said Cash Credit (MEOD) Facility, the First Defendant had admitted and acknowledged the same on 11.03.2014.

¶56

The Applicant Bank submits that the Defendants had agreed to repay the Renewed credit facility availed with interest at the rate of 15.8o% per annum, which was base rate + 5.80% per annum. The said facility was valid up to 20.06.2014 and the Defendants agreed to service the interest by the 3^rd day of every month. The First Defendant also undertook to pay additional interest at the rate of 18% per annum for the overdue/delayed/defaulted payment.

¶57

It is submitted by the Applicant Bank that the Defendants once again requested them for renewal of the Cash Credit (MEOD) Facility and agreed that the earlier documents executed by them for the Cash Credit (MEOD) Facility would be extended for the renewed Cash Credit (MEOD) Facility. Accordingly, the Applicant Bank had renewed the Cash Credit (MEOD) Facility under the Renewal sanction letter dated 24.05.2014. Agreeing to the terms and conditions of the said Cash Credit (MEOD) Facility, the First Defendant had admitted and acknowledged the same on 24.05.2014.

¶58

The Applicant Bank submits that the Defendants had agreed to repay the Renewed credit facility availed with interest at the rate of 15.80% per annum, which was base rate + 5.80% per annum. The said facility was valid upto 20.06.2015 and the Defendants agreed to service

¶59

T.A. No. 1143 of 2023

¶60

08.10.2025

¶61

¶62

the interest by the 3^rd day of every month. The First Defendant also undertook to pay additional interest at the rate of 18% per annum for the overdue/delayed/defaulted payment.

¶63

The Applicant Bank submits that the Defendants were enjoying the Cash Credit (MEOD) Facility and had requested the Applicant Bank for further renewal of the Cash Credit (MEOD) Facility. They agreed that the earlier documents executed by them for the Cash Credit (MEOD) Facility would be extended for the renewed for the Cash Credit (MEOD) Facility. Accordingly, the Applicant Bank had once again renewed the Cash Credit (MEOD) Facility under the Renewal sanction letter dated 15.09.2015. Agreeing to the terms and conditions of the said Cash Credit (MEOD) Facility, the First Defendant had admitted and acknowledged the same on 15.09.2015.

¶64

The Applicant Bank submits that the Defendants had agreed to repay the Renewed credit facility availed with interest at the rate of 15.15% per annum, which was base rate 5.80% per annum. The said facility was valid for a period of 12 months, up to 20.06.2016 and the Defendants agreed to service the interest by the 3^rd day of every month. The First Defendant also undertook to pay additional interest at the rate of 18% per annum for the overdue/delayed/defaulted payment.

¶65

It is submitted by the Applicant Bank that subsequent to availing of the said facility, the Defendants had not taken any constructive step

¶66

T.A. No. 1143 of 2023

¶67

08.10.2025

¶68

¶69

to repay the outstanding dues. Despite the continuous contacts by the Applicant Bank, the Defendants had not shown any interest in repayment. As even interest was not serviced, the account of the first Defendant was classified as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) as on 29.07.2016 in accordance with RBI guidelines. In furtherance thereto, the Applicant Bank issued a registered Legal Notice to both the Defendants, recalling the entire dues as on 05.03.2018. The notice sent to the Defendants returned unserved with the endorsements 'left'. Despite repeated demands, the defendants did not come forward to repay the dues. Hence the present Original Application (OA) has been filed by the applicant bank for recovery of its dues from the defendants.

¶70

After the filing of the OA, summons were sent to Defendants 1 and 2 through Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due, which were returned with the remarks “Left”. Applicant bank had caused paper publication of the notice and filed proof thereof. When OA was taken up on 12.12.2018 even after giving sufficient time, there was no appearance or representation from the defendants. Hence, defendants 1 and 2 were placed ex-parte on 12.12.2018.

¶71

Heard the submissions of Applicant Bank and perused the

¶72

records.

¶73

To prove the case of the Applicant Bank, Sh. S. Surender, Senior Manager representing the Applicant Bank, has filed his Affidavit by way of evidence and same was considered as evidence of AW-1 and list of

¶74

T.A. No. 1143 of 2023

¶75

¶76

08.10.2025

¶77

documents came to be marked as Ex A-1 to A-15 . As the defendants remained ex-parte, the OA claim remains unchallenged. There is no contra evidence available on record to repudiate the claim of the Applicant Bank.

¶78

With regard to the amount advanced, the interest applied, the conduct and operations in the account and the default committed, this Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the applicant bank is entitled for a final order on the following terms:

¶79

: O R D E R :

¶80

19. The OA is allowed with costs,

¶81

(a) The applicant bank is allowed to recover from the Defendants jointly and severally, a sum of Rs.42,35,101.70p (Rupees Forty Two Lakhs Thirty Five Thousand One Hundred and One and Seventy Paisa only) due in respect of Cash Credit (MEOD) Facility (A/c No.50200000666974) repayable together with further interest @ 18% per annum with monthly rests from the date of application till the date of realization in full along with costs.

¶82

(b) The applicant bank shall file the latest memo of calculation of OA amount together with interest, costs etc., to be paid by the defendants duly considering the amounts, if any, paid by the defendants and/or amount realized by sale of assets etc., during

¶83

the intervening period after the filing of the OA, enabling the Registry to prepare Recovery Certificate for the amount to be

¶84

T.A. No. 1143 of 2023

¶85

¶86

08.10.2025

¶87

paid by defendants to the applicant bank.

¶88

¶89

from the date of receipt of this final order.

¶90

(d) Recovery Certificate shall be drawn up and issued to the Recovery Officer in terms of the final order.

¶91

A copy of this order be communicated to the parties concerned.

¶92

Sd/(S.V. GOWRAMMA) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, CHENNAI

¶93

(Dictated to Steno (Deepika), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 08^th day of October, 2025)

¶94

ANNEXURES

¶95

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK :

¶96

AW-1: Sh. S. Surender, Senior Manager representing the Applicant Bank.

¶97

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶98

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Exhibit No.
1.	Board Resolution	A-1
2.	Application Form for Credit facilities to MSEs given by the Defendants to the Applicant Bank dated 05.03.2013.	A-2
3.	Initial Sanction Letter issued by the Applicant Bank to the Defendants, duly acknowledged by the first defendant dated 22.03.2013.	A-3
4.	Demand Promissory Note executed by the first Defendant in favour of the Applicant Bank dated 22.03.2013.	A-4
5.	Letter of Continuing Security executed by the first Defendant in favour of the Applicant Bank dated 22.03.2013.	A-5

¶99

T.A. No. 1143 of 2023

¶100

¶101

08.10.2025

¶102

6.	Application for Overdraft/Term Loan Facility against Card Receivables dated 22.03.2013 executed by the First Defendant in favour of the Applicant Bank.	A-6
7.	Irrevocable Power of Attorney executed by the First Defendant in favour of the Applicant Bank dated 22.03.2013.	A-7
8.	Deed of Hypothecation executed by the First Defendant in favour of the Applicant Bank dated 22.03.2013.	A-8
9.	Letter of Continuing Guarantee executed by the Defendants in favour of the Applicant Bank dated 22.03.2013.	A-9
10.	Renewal Sanction Letter issued by the Applicant Bank to the Defendants, duly acknowledged by the first Defendant dated 11.03.2014.	A-10
11.	Renewal Sanction Letter issued by the Applicant Bank to the Defendants, duly acknowledged by the first Defendant dated 24.05.2014.	A-11
12.	Renewal Sanction Letter issued by the Applicant Bank to the Defendants, duly acknowledged by the first Defendant dated 15.09.2015.	A-12
13.	Legal Notice issued by the Applicant Bank to the defendants dated 05.03.2018.	A-13
14.	Returned Cover	A-14
15.	Statement of Account	A-15

¶103

Witness Examined for the Defendants: -Nil-

¶104

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants: -Nil –

¶105

SCHEDULE

¶106

-NIL-

¶107

Sd/(S.V. GOWRAMMA) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, CHENNAI

Hdfc Bank v. Mr Magbul Basha Nalband And Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Mr Magbul Basha Nalband And Other

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

Indian Overseas Bank versus Indukanan

G Mahalakshmi versus Union Bank of India

Mr Madhankumar Ramalingam versus Federal Bank

Elizabeth S versus Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited

Bank of India versus Prameela

State Bank of India versus M/s. Srp Aquaman