Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. M/S Ibrahim Fish Traders Traders and Ors.

DRT15 Sept 2026OA/11/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application under Section 19 of the RDB Act for issuance of a Certificate of Recovery. The court rejected the defendants' defenses regarding unauthorized interest and limitation, finding the interest rate reasonable based on contractual agreement. The bank was permitted to recover the outstanding amount of Rs. 26,05,608 plus interest.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Certificate of Recovery for Rs. 26,05,608.00 with interest; due from the last deposit, 26.10.2024, at 16.25% p.a. with monthly rests; respondents debarred from transferring assets;

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Ibrahim Fish Traders Traders… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, SILIGURI

¶2

Case No.	ORDERSHEET
OA/11/2025	HDFC Bank -VS- M/s Ibrahim Fish Traders & Ors
Date of the order.	Order with signature	Office action with date and dated signature of parties when necessary.
15.09.2026	Present :- Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Sagnik Bhowmick, virtual mode. Counsel for the Defendants : None. The order is dictated and corrected by the undersigned and pronounced in the open Tribunal under my signature on this 15^thday of September, 2026. Let the Certificate of Recovery be drawn up by the Learned Registrar forthwith in terms of judgment for issuance of the same against the defendants in favour of Applicant Bank under Sub-Section 7 and 22 of Section – 19 of The Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 and put up the same for signature for issuance. Copy of the judgment/final order be given/sent to the parties. (Rakesh Pati Tiwari) Presiding Officer DRT-Siliguri RAKESH PATI TIWARI Digitally signed by RAKESH PATI TIWARI Date: 2026.09.16 13:36:57 +05'30'

¶3

¶4

THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, SILIGURI

¶5

O.A. No. 11/2025

¶6

HDFC Bank Limited, Currency Chest Building, 1st Floor, 8334, M.N. Sarkar Road, Chanapatti, Siliguri - 734001.

¶7

..………………….Applicant Vs.

¶8

M/s Ibrahim Fish Traders (Borrower) Partnership Firm, Premises No. 156/118/152 Mirchak (W), P.O - Malda P.S - English Bazar, Near Juba Bharati Sangha Club, Malda, West Bengal, Pin -732101.

¶9

Mr. Jafar Sekh (Co-Borrower) Son of Selim Sekh, one of the Partner Of M/S Ibrahim Fish Traders Mirchak, Battali, Near Jumma Masjid, English Bazar, Malda, West Bengal, Pin -73210.

¶10

Mrs. Husne Zamanla (Co-Borrower) Wife of Zulfi All, one of the Partner of M/S Ibrahim Fish Traders Mirchak (Angsh), Mirchak Roder Paschim, English Bazar, Malda, West Bengal, PIN -73210.

¶11

……..……………Defendants

¶12

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Sagnik Bhowmick Counsel for the defendants : Mr. Jyojit Sinha

¶13

PRESIDING OFFICER: RAKESH PATI TIWARI Date of Judgment - 15.09.2026

¶14

J U D G M E N T

¶15

This is an application under section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, filed by the applicant bank against the defendants seeking issuance of Certificate of Recovery for realization of a sum of Rs.26,05,608.00/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Five Thousand Six Hundred and Eight) only with interest calculated upto 25.10.2024 and future interest from 26.10.2024 with monthly rests till realization of the entire amount along with injunction restraining the defendants from disposing of and/or alienating and/or encumbering the personal charged and uncharged assets and also costs.

¶16

The facts in brief, giving rise to the present application as pleaded are that considering the application of the defendants, the Applicant Bank sanctioned the business loan to the tune of Rs.25,12,489/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Twenty Thousand Four Hundred Eighty Nine) only and disbursed the said amount on 15.05.2024. In order to secure the due repayment of the aforesaid limit the defendants executed the Terms and Conditions along with Schedule cum key fact statement being loan A/c No. 151562109. After availing the loan, the defendants failed to repay the dues of the loan accounts and hence the account was classified as N.P.A.

¶17

(Contd…)

¶18

RAKESH Digitally signed by RAKESH PATI PATI TIWARI Date: 2026.09.16 TIWARI 13:37:14 +05'30'

¶19

¶20

on 04.10.2024. Thereafter, the applicant bank through its lawyer Mr. Milindo Paul, issued Demand Notice dated 26.10.2024 but the defendants did not comply with the notice. After giving credits for all sums of moneys paid by and/or realized on behalf of the defendants a sum of Rs.26,05,608.00/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Five Thousand Six Hundred and Eight) only with interest calculated upto 25.10.2024 was due against the defendants in respect of the loan account No. 151562109.

¶21

The defendants have filed their written statement stating therein that the present original application is an abuse of the process of law and that the applicant bank has no valid cause of action or territorial jurisdiction before the Tribunal at Siliguri. They have disputed the bank’s claim of Rs. 26,05,608/- along with further interest, costs and expenses, contending that the bank has not disclosed material facts and has failed to establish limitation. The defendants have further alleged that exorbitant and unauthorized interest, penal interest and other charges were levied and capitalized, thereby inflating the alleged outstanding dues, and that they had regularly paid monthly instalments. They have also disputed the rate of interest allegedly agreed upon, the disbursement and other particulars of the loan, the correctness of the statement of account, and the classification of the account as NPA. According to the defendants, despite their willingness and ability to repay the loan within a reasonable period, the bank failed to furnish proper accounts and instead raised an inflated and excessive claim. On these grounds, the defendants have denied their liability for the amount claimed and prayed for dismissal of the Original Application and rejection of the reliefs sought by the applicant bank.

¶22

The Applicant Bank in support of its case has filed evidence by way of affidavit as affirmed by Sri Boudhayan Chanda, the Legal Manager of the applicant bank and also relied upon the following documents:-

¶23

Sl. No.	Name of the documents	Exhibit No.
1.	Loan application	A
2.	Loan Cum Hypothecation Agreement	B
3.	The Terms and Conditions along with Schedule cum key fact statement being Loan A/c No. 151562109	C
4.	Legal Notice dated 26.10.2024 along with postal receipts and track reports.	D
5.	Bankers Certificate, Notional Interest Calculation Sheet, Statement of Accounts Showing the Aforesaid Outstanding Amounts Along with The Foreclosure Statements	E Series

¶24

RAKESH Digitally signed by RAKESH PATI PATI TIWARI Date: 2026.09.16 TIWARI 13:37:27 +05'30'

¶25

(Contd…)

¶26

¶27

Board Resolution By The Applicant Bank

¶28

¶29

I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant bank as well as learned counsel for the defendants and perused the documents and evidence adduced by the applicant bank as well as the written statement filed by the defendants.

¶30

In the W.S. of the defendants apart from formal objections advancement of financial assistance by the bank has been admitted and any specific reason of nonpayment has not been mentioned by the defendants.

¶31

Main plea of the defendants is that the Applicant Bank has levied exorbitant and unauthorized interest, penal interest and other charges were levied and capitalized, thereby inflating the alleged outstanding dues, and that they had regularly paid monthly instalments. They have also disputed the rate of interest allegedly agreed upon, the disbursement and other particulars of the loan, the correctness of the statement of account, and the classification of the account as NPA.

¶32

From perusal of the loan documents and statement of account available on record, it appears that the Applicant Bank had sanctioned the credit facility on agreed terms and conditions, including charging of interest at the rate of 16.25% per annum. The rate of interest having been contractually agreed between the parties at the time of availing the credit facility and being in consonance with prevailing banking norms, this Tribunal finds the same to be reasonable and legally enforceable. Accordingly, the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover its dues together with interest at the contractual rate of 16.25% per annum as stipulated in the sanction letter and other loan documents.

¶33

Except of the aforesaid plea, all the other plea taken by the defendants in the instant matter are with respect to the SARFAESI measures taken by the applicant bank in the capacity of secured creditor which are not required to be adjudicated in the OA case filed by the applicant bank u/s 19 of the RDB Act,.

¶34

The applicant bank has adduced documentary evidences which are marked as Exhibits ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’, ‘E series’ and ‘F’. The sanction of loan has been proved by producing the Loan Cum Hypothecation Agreement (Exhibit ‘B’), the execution of required documents like Loan application, Terms and Conditions along with Schedule cum key fact statement being Loan A/c No. 151562109, etc. have been proved by exhibiting the same at A’ and ‘C’. By filing the statement of account (Exhibits ‘E series’), the applicant bank has proved the total outstanding

¶35

RAKESH Digitally signed by RAKESH PATI PATI TIWARI Date: 2026.09.16 TIWARI 13:37:39 +05'30'

¶36

(Contd…)

¶37

¶38

dues along with interest upto 25.10.2024 to the tune of Rs.26,05,608.00/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Five Thousand Six Hundred and Eight) only against the defendants in the loan account. 11. Taking into account of the last cash deposit of Rs. 10,207/- in the loan account by the defendants, the limitation available is for 3 (three) years and as such the claim of the applicant bank is within limitation.

¶39

The applicant bank has got valid cause of action to file this case as after taking the loan the defendants failed to make payment as per the terms and conditions of the sanction letter agreed by the defendants.

¶40

There is nothing available on the record to contradict the version of the applicant bank as the ex-parte hearing has been made in this case. Thus the applicant bank has sufficiently proved its case by exhibiting all relevant documents.

¶41

In the above circumstances, following order is passed ;

¶42

O R D E R

¶43

(i) O.A.No.11/2025 filed by the applicant bank is allowed against the defendants No.1, 2 & 3 jointly and severally with costs and it is hereby ordered that the applicant bank is entitled to recover the total dues debt amount of Rs.26,05,608.00/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Five Thousand Six Hundred and Eight) only with interest calculated upto 25.10.2024 and further interest thereon @16.25% p.a. with monthly rests from 26.10.2024 till realization of entire balance from the defendants along with cost amount.

¶44

(ii) Amount, if any, paid by the defendants in the loan account or amount recovered by the applicant bank, if any, made towards the loan accounts after filing of the O.A be taken into account while arriving at the exact amount of outstanding payable by the defendants.

¶45

(iii) The defendants are debarred from transferring; alienating, encumbering or disposing of any property and assets belonging to the defendants till the aforesaid adjudicated debt amount is recovered from the defendants.

¶46

(iv) The defendants are given a time of thirty days from the date of this judgment for repayment of the above decreed debt amount with interest failing which the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the said defendants personally and/or personal properties to recover the dues in accordance with law.

¶47

(v) Let the certificate of Recovery be drawn up by the Learned Registrar forthwith in terms of judgment for issuance of the same against the defendants in favour of applicant

¶48

RAKESH Digitally signed by RAKESH PATI PATI TIWARI Date: 2026.09.16 TIWARI 13:37:51 +05'30'

¶49

(Contd…)

¶50

¶51

bank under Sub-Section 22 of Section-19 of The Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act,

¶52

1993 and put up the same for signature and issuance.

¶53

(vi) Learned Recovery Officer is directed to realize the dues amount from the defendants as per the recovery certificate in accordance with law.

¶54

(vii) Let this judgment be uploaded on website of the tribunal and the Registry is directed to serve/send copy of this judgment to the parties free of cost.

¶55

(viii) Record is consigned to the record room along with the judgment.

¶56

The judgment is signed and pronounced in the open Tribunal on 15^th day of

¶57

September, 2026. RAKESH Digitally signed

¶58

RAKESH Digitally signed by RAKESH PATI PATI TIWARI Date: 2026.09.16 TIWARI 13:38:02 +05'30' (RAKESH PATI TIWARI) Presiding Officer DRT, Siliguri.

¶59

(Contd…)

Hdfc Bank v. M/S Ibrahim Fish Traders Traders and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. M/S Ibrahim Fish Traders Traders and Ors.

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

Nurnesha Bibi and Anr. versus Uco Bank

Hdfc Bank versus Sri Nirmal Kr Rai

Aminul Hoque and Others versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited and Another

State Bank of India versus M/S Raj Kumar and Bros

Rakesh versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

Ms Rm Enterprises through Its Proprietor versus Central Bank of India