Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. M/S Fine Line Retails Pvt. Ltd.

DRT30 Jul 2026OA/1029/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dt. Delhi allowed a recovery application filed by HDFC Bank against two defendants for an outstanding loan of Rs. 28.62 lakhs. The defendants were absent, and the Tribune proceeded ex-parte, directing payment within 30 days or via property sale.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs. 28,62,406.08 with interest and costs within 30 days; recovery certificate issued to Recovery Officer for sale of properties if defaults continue.

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Fine Line Retails Pvt. Ltd. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

O.A. No. 1029 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

O.A. No.1029 of 2022

¶5

HDFC Bank Ltd. Plot No.31, Najafgarh Road Industrial Area 1st Floor, Tower Shivaji Marg, Moti Nagar, New Delhi-110015 Applicant
Versus
1. M/s Fine Line Retails Pvt.Ltd. First Floor, III Plot No.27 Agarwal Chamber 4, Veer Savarkar Block Delhi-110092
Also at: Office No.205, First Floor, World Trade Tower Barakhamba Lane Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001
2. Ms Puja Agarwal 174, Tagore Park, GTB Nagar Delhi-110009
Also at:
B-261, Yojana Vihar Delhi-110092 Defendants
Present: Sh.Amita Kumari, Counsel for the applicant bank Date of Reserve: 15.07.2026
Date of Pronouncement: 30.07.2026

¶6

FINAL ORDER

¶7

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 17.05.2023 through Ms. Swathi Vajjhala, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the

¶8

O.A. No. 1029 of 2022

¶9

defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.28,62,406.08 (Rupees Twenty Eight Lacs Sixty Two Thousand Four Hundred Six and paisa Eight only) as on 01.11.2022 along with pendentelite and future interest @18% per annum from the date of filing of this application till the date of its realization and costs.

¶10

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the defendants being co-borrowers vide their application dated 02.05.2019, the applicant bank sanctioned Business Loan under SBF GST scheme of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty lacs only) on 23.05.2019 @17.50% interest per annum, which was to be repayable in 41 equated monthly installments of Rs.71,804/-.

¶11

That in order to avail the aforesaid loan facility, the defendant no.2 as director of defendant no.1 submitted loan application and executed Business Loan Facility Agreement with Terms and Conditions on 23.05.2019 in favour of the applicant bank.

¶12

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to maintain financial discipline and comply with the terms and conditions of loan despite several requests and reminders to pay the outstanding installments in time. Ultimately, the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 07.08.2022 and issued legal notice on 01.11.2022 to the defendants to repay the entire loan with interest but defendants neglected, hence, the applicant bank has approached this tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶13

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite proper service, the defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 25.03.2026, the

¶14

O.A. No. 1029 of 2022

¶15

defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared before the Tribunal nor written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have been filed.

¶16

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Ms. Swathi Vajjhala, authorized representative of the, applicant bank who has proved the documents such as Board Resolution dated 16.04.2022, Loan Application, Loan Agreement along with Board Resolution, Legal Notice along with Postal Receipts, Certified Statement of Account along with Foreclosure/Prepayment Letter duly Certified under Banker's Books Evidence Act marked as Exhibit AW-1/1 to Ex.AW-1/6(Colly).

¶17

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 proved.

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.28,62,406.08 (Rupees Twenty Eight Lacs Sixty Two Thousand Four Hundred Six and paisa Eight only) as on 01.11.2022 along with pendentelite and future interest @18%

¶22

O.A. No. 1029 of 2022

¶23

per annum from the date of filing this application till its realization with costs, failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶24

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

¶25

III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 28.09.2026.

¶26

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

¶27

(GOVIND BAL ABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI (Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 30.07.2026

¶28

Hdfc Bank v. M/S Fine Line Retails Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. M/S Fine Line Retails Pvt. Ltd.

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

Canara Bank versus Hardeep Singh

Sanjay Kumar Mishra versus Can Fin Homes Ltd.

Central Bank of India versus Vijay Kumar Maurya

Icici Bank Limited versus M/s Aakriti Enterprises

Canara Bank versus M/S Chandan and Chandan Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Sandeep Kumar versus Punjab and Sind Bank