Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Dinesh Kumar

DRT29 Aug 2026OA/107/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application under Section 19 of the RDB Act. The tribunal found the loan advanced and the amount due was proved by affidavit. The bank was permitted to recover dues via sale of the hypothecated vehicle or other properties.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the application for recovery of ₹24,39,983.67 with interest. Directed sale of hypothecated vehicle and other properties. Issued a Recovery Certificate.

Hdfc Bank versus Dinesh Kumar — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 107 of 2023 Date of Institution: 09.12.2022 Date of Decision: 29.08.2026

¶4

HDFC Bank Ltd. having its branches all over India and a branch at Industrial Area, Phase 1, Chandigarh.

¶5

……..Applicant Vs.

¶6

Dinesh Kumar s/o Nasib Chand, H.no. 239, Village Behlolpur, Mohali. Also at: Dinesh Kumar proprietor Tania Sweets, Shop no. 5-6, Village Behlolpur, Mohali.

¶7

……….Defendant

¶8

Advocates

¶9

Ms. Dipti Toni, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendant - ex parte .

¶10

OA for the Recovery of ₹24,39,983.67p with interest @8.59% per annum with monthly rests from 09.12.2022.

¶11

ORDER

¶12

HDFC Bank Ltd. (Bank) has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of ₹24,39,983.67p with interest against Dinesh Kumar (defendant).

¶13

Bank’s case is that on 27.01.2020, it had granted Vehicle loan of ₹19,37,129/- to defendant. To secure the loan, Defendant had hypothecated vehicle bearing Registration no. PB65AX9799 (fully detailed in para No.5.4 of the application). The loan was chargeable to interest @8.59% per annum with monthly rests. On 24.11.2022, a sum of ₹24,39,983.67p was due from the defendant. Despite repeated requests, defendant did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶14

¶15

3. On 10.08.2023, summons was sent to the defendant by registered
post, which was duly served. However, defendant did not put in
appearance. Vide order dated 20.12.2024, he proceeded was_ex parte_.
4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the
affidavit of Mr. Samandeep Kaur Sekhon, Authorised Officer along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-6.
5. I have perused the evidence on the record. I am of the considered
view that the Bank has proved its case that it had advanced the loan of
₹19,37,129/- and on 24.11.2022, a sum of ₹24,39,983.67p was due.
6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of
₹24,39,983.67p (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Thirty Nine Thousand Nine
Hundred Eighty Three and Sixty Seven Paise Only) with interest
@8.59% per annum with monthly rests from 09.12.2022, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of hypothecated vehicle bearing Registration no. PB65AX9799 fully detailed in para No.5.4 of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendant. 7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.
8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.
9. Party is directed to appear before Recovery Officer on
30.09.2026.
10. A Copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to
the Recovery Officer as well as the party.
Pronounced in the open Court. (A S Narang) Dated: 29.08.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh

Hdfc Bank v. Dinesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Dinesh 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

State Bank of India versus Muhammed Sameer

Punjab National Bank versus M S Bishaka International and Ors.

State Bank of India versus M/S Sidhi Vinayak Enterprises

M/S. Dhuria Verka Point versus Au Small Finance Bank Limited

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S Anju Trading Co.

Punjab National Bank versus Gurnam Singh