Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Saranya Ashok J

DRT27 Aug 2026OA/110/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On an ad ferramenta Default Recovery application for Rs.79.26 lakhs, the Tribunal allowed the applicant's claim as the defendants were absent. It moderated penal interest rates and directed the issuance of a Recovery Certificate executable against joint and several liabilities and mortgaged assets.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs.79.26,736/- with future interest at 8% p.a., executable against joint and several liabilities and schedule properties of defendants.

Hdfc Bank versus Saranya Ashok J — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 27^th Day of August, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH

¶4

Presiding Officer

¶5

OA. No.110/2025

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

HDF Bank Limited (Formerly known as HDF Limited) Having its registered office at ‘HDF Bank House’ Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013 Having its branch office at No.51, Kasturba Road, Bangalore-560001 Rep. by its Legal Manager … APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Smt. Saranya Ashok J W/o. Sri. Ashok Kumar M B Aged about 44 years, #G, 403, Purva High Lands, Office Kanakapura Main Road, Mallasandra, Bengaluru-560062

¶10

Also at

¶11

Smt. Saranya Ashok J W/o. Sri. Ashok Kumar M B Aged about 44 years Maangalya Prosper Signature Block, 1-Subvention Flat-J, 802, 8^th floor, Block Jade S No.57/4, Anjanapura Village, 3^rd Block, Uttarahalli Hobli, J P Nagar, 9^th Phase, Bengaluru South Taluk-560050

¶12

OA. No. 110/2025

¶13

¶14

Sri. Ashok Kumar M B S/o. Sri. Balasubramaniam Aged about 50 years, #G, 403, Purva High Lands, Office Kanakapura Main Road, Mallasandra, Bengaluru-560062

¶15

Also at: Sri. Ashok Kumar M B S/o. Sri. Balasubramaniam Aged about 50 years, Enphase Solar Energy Pvt.Ltd., 3^rd floor, Indiqube, Leela Gardnedia, 23, Old Airport road, Kodihalli, Bengaluru – 560008

¶16

Also at: Sri. Ashok Kumar M B S/o. Sri. Balasubramaniam Aged about 50 years, Maangalya Prosper Signature Block, 1-Subvention Flat-J, 802, 8^th floor, Block Jade S No.57/4, Anjanapura Village, 3^rd Block, Uttarahalli Hobli, J P Nagar, 9^th Phase, Bengaluru South Taluk-560050

¶17

M/s. Maangalya constructions Flat # F1, Redtree classic, 7^th B Main Road, 9^th cross, Narayan nagar, 3^rd block, Doddakallasandra post, Bangalore-560062 … DEFENDANTS

¶18

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶19

Applicant : Smt. M. Anitha Defendants : Exparte

OA. No. 110/2025

:FINAL ORDER:

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 for seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendants for Rs.79,26,736/- (Rupees Seventy Nine Lakh Twenty Six Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty Six only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶24

It is the case of the applicant that, the 1^st and 2^nd defendants are the borrowers/guarantors and the and the defendants No.1 to 3 and applicant bank have entered into a Tripartite Agreement. The defendant No.1 and 2 availed Rs.75,00,000/- for purchasing flat.

¶25

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above financed credit facility, the defendants have executed necessary loan documents.

¶26

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facilities, agreeing to service the loan amount promptly and regularly, the defendants failed in complying the same, resulting in default in repayment and consequentially turning the loan

OA. No. 110/2025

accounts as NPA.

In the above circumstances, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing this OA seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for the amount due in the account.

¶31

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 08.04.2026.

¶32

The applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who filed their Proof Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the OA and also produced Exhibits A1 to A8 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶33

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and considered the contentions as taken in the OA in the light of documentary evidence and proof affidavit.

¶34

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶35

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA claim as against the defendants?

¶36

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶37

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶38

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application

¶39

OA. No. 110/2025

¶40

¶41

remains unrebutted as defendants remained exparte. The evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed. The evidences put forth by the applicant were found admissible and are sufficient to prove availment of credit facility as stated in the OA and execution of tripartite agreement agreeing creation of security interest as claimed by the applicant bank and the defaults committed in the account. The liability of the defendant and the claim of the amount due is also proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶42

Hence in view of the above finding which cover both the issues raised in this manner, this Tribunal is of the view that OA is liable to be allowed.

¶43

Since the OA claim is arrived at by calculating agreed rate of interest, penal interest/default interest, which this Tribunal considers as on the higher side, pendentalite and future interest is awarded at reduced rate @8.00%p.a. (simple).

¶44

In the result, OA.No.110/2025 stands allowed,

¶45

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate

¶46

OA. No. 110/2025

¶47

¶48

sum of Rs.79,26,736/- (Rupees Seventy Nine Lakh Twenty Six Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty Six only)^{with further} interest of 8.00% p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization from defendants, after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the OA and allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against defendants jointly, severally and personally and also by proceeding against their assets including the schedule ‘B & C’ property. The schedule property to the OA be the schedule property to the Recovery Certificate.

¶49

ii) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants jointly, severally and personally and their other assets are liable for all such amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶50

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceeding

¶51

which applicant to file cost memo within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order.

¶52

iv) The Recovery Certificate to be drawn in terms of this order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶53

v) Interim Application pending, if any, stands disposed of

¶54

OA. No. 110/2025

¶55

¶56

with this Final Order.

¶57

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.

¶58

[Dictated to the Stenographer (PR), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 27^th Day of August 2026].

¶59

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶60

ANNEXURES

¶61

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶62

AW-1: Mr. Sridhar Chinni, Assistant Vice President of the applicant bank.

¶63

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶64

Annexure	Particulars
A1	Acceptance letter dated 07.02.2019
A2	HOME LOAN AGREEMENT DATED 08.02.2019
A3	Agreement for sale dated 09.01.2019
A4	Tripartite agreement dated 09.01.2019
A5	Memorandum of deposit dated 08.02.2019
A6	Legal notice dated 14.05.2024
A7	Postal receipts dated 15.05.2024
A8	Foreclosure and statement of accounts

¶65

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Hdfc Bank v. Saranya Ashok J

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Saranya Ashok J

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

Icici Bank Limited versus Shilpy

Bank of India versus Sh. Hardev Singh

Bank of India versus Amarjit Kaur

Santosh Kumari versus Central Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Mokksh

Ms Tamanna Enterprises versus Indian Bank