Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Ravi Shankar Singh

DRT1 Oct 2025TA/1661/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's original application for recovery of an NPAs amounting to nearly 30 lacs. The court awarded reduced interest from 18% to 12% per annum and directed issuance of a recovery certificate against the defendants' hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Direct defendants to pay Rs.29,85,584.16 plus interest at 12% p.a. with monthly rests from 01.02.2022 till realization and costs.

Hdfc Bank versus Ravi Shankar Singh — Specific Performance | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 1661 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

T.A. No.1661 of 2022

¶5

HDFC Bank Ltd.

¶6

Department for Special Operations 5th floor, Ansal Classique Tower Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-27

¶7

Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

1. Sh.Ravinder Shankar Singh Proprietor of M/s Mae in the Shades A-31, 1st Floor, Gautam Marg Johripur, Delhi-110094

¶10

Also at: Sh.Ravinder Shankar Singh A/31, Dungapur Mohalla Delhi-110094

¶11

2. Sh.Chandra Bhan Singh A-31, In Floor, Gautam Marg Johripur, Delhi-110094

¶12

Also at: B-109, Gali No.11, Gulab Vatika Ghaziabad, UP-201102 Defendants

¶13

Present: Shri Dharam Dev, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶14

Date of Institution: 24.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 01.10.2025

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 24.02.2022 before DRT III, Delhi and then transferred to DRT-^{I Delhi through Shri Neeraj Mahajan, authorized}

¶17

¶18

¶19

T.A. No. 1661 of 2022

¶20

representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of Rs.29,85,584.16 (Rupees Twenty Nine Lacs Eighty Five Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Four and paisa Sixteen only) as on 31.01.2022 along with pendentelite and future interest @18% per annum from 01.02.2022 till the date of realization along with costs.

¶21

2. The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the defendant no.1 as proprietor of M/s Made In The Shade, the applicant bank sanctioned Cash Credit facility for Rs.30.00 Lacs on 01.06.2016 @10.80% interest per annum plus @2% for non-submission of stock statement against hypothecation of stocks, book debts and equitable mortgage of property owned by defendant no.2 who stood as guarantor for the credit facility along with defendant no.1. The defendant agreed for @18% p.a. to be charged by the applicant bank on default in payment. On the request of defendant no.1, the applicant renewed the credit facility from time to time lastly on 20.03.2021 @9.15% interest plus @2% for non-submission of stock statement and @18% p.a. on overdue interest for default. The limit was released in favour of IDBI Bank as per request of defendant no.1 dated 17.06.2016.

¶22

3. In order to avail the loan facility, the defendant no.1 as proprietor submitted loan application and executed Demand Promissory Note, Sole Proprietorship Declaration, Amendment Agreement, Deed of Hypothecation for Stock in Trade, Goods, Book Debts, Plant & Machinery including Movable Assets, Letter of General Lien and Set Off, Irrevocable Power of Attorney, Deed of Indemnity, Amendment Agreement as well as Letter

¶23

¶24

¶25

T.A. No. 1661 of 2022

¶26

of Guarantees along with defendant no.2 towards applicant bank on various dates at the time of renewals of limit.

¶27

4. That in order to secure the loan facility, Defendant no.2 created equitable mortgage of his property bearing no. A-31, Johri Pur, Shandara, Delhi and executed Memorandum recording past transaction of creation of mortgage on 01.06.2016 which was extended from to time as well as hypothecation of stocks, book debts and plant & machinery by defendant no.l.

¶28

5. It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the loan facility, 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 29.12.2021 and issued notice dated 14.02.2022 but defendants failed to regularize the account and hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶29

6. Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite of proper service, the defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 25.09.2023, the defendants have been declared Ex-parte as not appeared before the Tribunal and even written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have not been filed by the defendants.

¶30

7. In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Sh.Neeraj Mahajan, authorized representative of the applicant bank, who has proved the documents as Board Resolution, Sanction Letter, Demand Promissory Notes, Amendment Agreements, Deed of Hypothecation, Letter of General Lien and Set Off,^Irrevocable

¶31

¶32

T.A. No. 1661 of 2022

¶33

Power of Attorneys, Letters of Continuing Guarantee, Memorandum recording Past Transaction of Creation of Mortgage, Property Documents, Deed of Indemnity, Requests for Disbursement, Release of CC Limit to IDBI, Request for Renewal, Sole Proprietorship Declaration, Letter to IDBI, Undertakings, Addendum, Valuation Letter, Request Letters, Renewal Sanctions, Letters, Amendment Agreement, Loan Recall Notice, Certified Statement of Account under Bankers' Books Evidence Act marked as Exh. AW1/1 to AW1/34(Colly).

¶34

8. The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments made in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the applicant bank is based on the documents and the same have been duly approved.

¶35

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

¶36

10. As per the provision of Section 19(20) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 which is analogous to Section 34 of CPC, on filing of the suit/claim, the contract between the parties comes to an end and the Court/Tribunal has a discretion to award the same depending upon the circumstances of each case. Same principle has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bank 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.

¶37

¶38

T.A. No. 1661 of 2022

¶39

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

¶40

ORDER

¶41

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank, jointly or severally, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.29,85,584.16 (Rupees Twenty Nine Lacs Eighty Five Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Four and paisa Sixteen only) together with pendentelite and future interest @12% per annum with monthly rests from 01.02.2022 till the date of realization and costs; failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stock, book debts, plant & machinery and mortgaged property being A-31^{f Johri} Pur, Shandara, Delhi. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶42

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

¶43

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 28.11.2025.

¶44

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

¶45

sd-

¶46

(GOVIND BALLABH PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶47

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 01.10.2025

¶48

Hdfc Bank v. Ravi Shankar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Ravi Shankar Singh

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

Indian Overseas Bank versus classic Agencies

Indian Overseas Bank versus Bharath Electronics

Indian Overseas Bank versus Ambadi Appliances

Punjab National Bank versus Shri Ram Traders Gupta

State Bank of India versus M/S Sohan Singh Darshan Singh

Gurdev Kaur versus Punjab National Bank