Allowed

M/s Hdfc Bank Limited v. S.B. Ganesh Kumar

DRT30 Jul 2025TA/484/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a vehicle loan recovery matter, the Tribunal allowed the application filed by HDFC Bank Limited against the defendant for issuance of a Recovery Certificate. The defendant was absent, and proof of loan default remained unchallenged. The Tribunal ordered recovery of the outstanding principal, interest, and costs.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs. 21,49,829/ with further interest at 8% per annum from the date of filing, plus costs.

M/s Hdfc Bank Limited versus S.B. Ganesh Kumar — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this the 30^th day of July, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY Presiding Officer

¶4

TA No.484 of 2022

¶5

(Originally filed before DRT-I Chennai as OA No.396 of 2020 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.484 of 2022)

¶6

M/s HDFC Bank Limited Represented by its Senior Manager and Authorized Signatory Mr. P. Nirmalraj No.110, CEEBROS Building Nelson Manickam Road Aminjikarai, Chennai – 600 029

¶7

… Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

S.B. Ganesh Kumar S/o Shanmugavadivu No.86, Sagar Balabadra 2^nd Avenue, 1^st Cross Street Vettuvankeni, Chennai – 600 115 … Defendant

¶10

Counsels on Record / Appeared

¶11

Counsel for Applicant : M/s Acuity Law Associates Defendant set ex-parte on 15.02.2022

¶12

FINAL ORDER

¶13

This application is filed by the applicant bank under Section 19(1) of

¶14

Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendant seeking issuance of a Recovery Certificate for recovery of a sum of Rs.21,49,829/- with further interest at the rate of 9.25% per annum plus

¶15

¶16

2.5% penal interest per month from the date of filing of the application till the date of realisation along with costs of the application.

¶17

The subject matter of the case is the vehicle loan availed by the defendant from the Applicant Bank.

¶18

It is the case of the applicant that the defendant approached the applicant vide loan application dated 21.09.2018 for grant of vehicle loan under the product name “Super Bike Loan” and considering the said request the applicant sanctioned a loan of Rs.22,12,000/- vide its sanction under Loan Account No.61151894. It is stated that the defendant purchased a two wheeler BMW R 1200 GS with Registration No.TN-14 R-5040, Engine No.20180896, Chassis No.WB10A510XJZ from KUN Motor Company Ltd., Anna Salai, Chennai.

¶19

It is also the case of the applicant that the defendant executed the loan agreement on 29.09.2018 thereby agreeing to repay the said loan in 60 Equated Monthly Installment of Rs.46,186/- per month commencing from 4.11.2018 to 4.10.2023.

¶20

It is the further case of the applicant that the defendant after availing the facility was highly irregular in repayment and defaulted in repayments. It is stated that the defendant failed and neglected to regularize the loan account despite repeated requests and demands and hence the applicant

¶21

¶22

issued Foreclosure letter dated 11.11.2019 after classifying the loan account as NPA on 3.11.2019. As the defendant did not come forward to clear the dues, the applicant issued a legal notice on 21.11.2019 and the same was served on the defendant. Despite receipt of the same the defendant did not come forward to clear the outstanding dues, hence the present OA is filed for recovery of its dues.

¶23

Summons was taken out to the defendant and the same was returned unserved with postal endorsement “Left” and hence the defendant was served with notice by substituted service by causing paper publication. As there was no representation on behalf of the defendant continuously and on 15.02.2022 the defendant was called absent and placed ex-parte on that day. Applicant Bank filed Proof Affidavit along with 8 documents, which were marked as Ex. A-1 to A-7 on 09.05.2024. The exhibit A-8 being part of Exhibit A-5 was marked together as Exhibit A-5. The Ld. Counsel for Applicant Bank made his submissions on 17.07.2025 and thereafter the matter stood till this date for passing final orders.

¶24

The following issues arise for consideration in the matter: -

¶25

(a) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the liability of the defendant?

¶26

(b) What order as to cost of the proceedings need be passed?

¶27

¶28

These issues are considered together.

¶29

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the applicant, perused the OA averments and the record placed before the Tribunal.

¶30

The evidence of the applicant is led by AW1 who produced the documents Exhibit A-1 to A-7 along with the proof affidavit. The documents produced in evidence are all found admissible. Exhibit A-1 is the Board Resolution of the applicant dated 15.04.2023. Exhibit A-2 is the Loan Application dated 21.09.2018 executed by the defendant. Exhibit A-3 is the Loan Agreement dated 29.09.2018 executed by the defendant. Exhibit A-4 is the Registration Certificate of the vehicle. Exhibit A-5 is the Statement of Accounts. Exhibit A-6 Foreclosure letter dated 11.11.2019 issued by the applicant. Exhibit A-7 is the Legal Notice dated 21.11.2019 issued by the applicant along with postal receipt.

¶31

The proof affidavit of the applicant bank remained unchallenged and rebutted. Therefore, on careful consideration of proof affidavit along with exhibits filed on behalf of the applicant bank, besides the material placed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant bank has successfully proved the OA claim against the defendant. Further, the statement of accounts in respect of the loan account produced and certified under the Banker’s Book Evidence Act, clearly indicates that the

¶32

¶33

amount claimed by the applicant is due from the defendant. It is clear from the statement of accounts that penal interest is not capitalized.

¶34

In view of the foregoing, it is clearly evident that the application filed by the applicant bank is well within the period of limitation and this Tribunal possesses the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this OA.

¶35

In view of the fact that the loan facility availed by the defendant is a vehicle loan and the applicant has claimed interest at contractual rate till the date of filing of the OA, this Tribunal is of the view that the pendente lite interest can be awarded at reduced rates.

¶36

In view of the aforementioned discussions, the only conclusion this Tribunal can draw is that the applicant had clearly proved the disbursement of the loan, which the applicant is entitled to realize. Hence, OA is disposed off in the following manner: -

¶37

(a) TA No.484 of 2022 stands allowed.

¶38

(b) Applicant is permitted to realize an aggregate sum of Rs.21,49,829/with further interest @8% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the application till the date of realization in full, from the defendant after deducting all the amounts received by them during the pendency of OA.

¶39

¶40

¶41

amount with interest and costs until realization.

¶42

(d) Applicant is permitted to realize cost of the proceedings and shall file cost memo within 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

¶43

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

¶44

(f) All pending IAs, if any, stands closed.

¶45

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶46

(SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, CHENNAI

¶47

(Dictated to PS, who typed in the system directly, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this 30^th day of July, 2025)

¶48

EXHIBITS MARKED BY APPLICANT BANK

¶49

S. No.	Description of documents		Exhibit No.
1.	Board Resolution of the applicant bank 15.04.2023.	dated	A-1
2.	Loan application submitted by the defendant 21.09.2018	dated	A-2
3.	Loan Agreement executed by the defendant 29.9.2018.	dated	A-3

¶50

¶51

4.	Registration Certificate of the vehicle	A-4
5.	Statement of Accounts along with certificate under Bankers’ Book Evidence Act.	A-5
6.	Foreclosure letter dated 11.11.2019 issued by the applicant.	A-6
7.	Legal notice dated 21.11.2019 issued by the applicant.	A-7

¶52

(SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, CHENNAI

¶53

DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY

¶54

NIL

¶55

(SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, CHENNAI

¶56

M/s Hdfc Bank Limited v. S.B. Ganesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Hdfc Bank Limited v. S.B. Ganesh Kumar

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

M/S Canara Bank versus Mr. Kishore T Khanna

Central Bank of India versus M/S. Prabhu Communication

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Mr. P. Senthil

M/s Hdfc Bank Limited versus Fj Skid Packs

Kamalakkan versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus S. Gopinath