Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. M/S Paras Jewellers

DRT14 Sept 2026OA/1421/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A debt recovery tribunal allowed a bank’s application against a proprietorship jeweller and its proprietor for an outstanding cash-credit facility secured by hypothecation and guaranteed by the proprietor. The bank proved the loan and outstanding amount, and recovery was permitted through the hypothecated assets and the defendants’ personal movable and immovable properties.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.26,26,651.52 with interest at 9.50% per annum with monthly rests from 11.09.2024 until payment, with costs, jointly and severally from both defendants through sale of the hypothecated assets and their personal movable and immovable properties; recovery certificate to issue.

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Paras Jewellers — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 1421/2024 Date of Institution: 11.09.2024 Date of Decision: 14.09.2026

¶4

HDFC Bank Ltd, branch at Bhogpur, Jalandhar, Punjab.

¶5

…Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

M/s Paras Jewellers, a proprietorship firm of Mr Paras, having its place of business at PNB Bank, Shop no. 1 & 2, Gol Market Chowk, Jalandhar.

¶8

Mr Paras s/o Mr Balvir, Proprietor M/s Paras Jewellers having its place of business at PNB Bank, Shop no. 1 & 2, Gol Market Chowk, Jalandhar.

¶9

2nd Address: Mr Paras s/o Mr Balvir H.No. 419, Green Avenue, Kala Sangha Road, Jalandhar.

¶10

…Defendants

¶11

Advocates

¶12

Sh. SC Prajapati, proxy Counsel for Sh. Harinder Kumar, Counsel for the Applicant Bank. Defendants – ex parte .

¶13

OA for the Recovery of Rs.26,26,651.52p with interest @9.50% per annum with monthly rests from 11.09.2024.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

On 11.09.2024, HDFC Bank Ltd filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of Rs.26,26,651.52p with interest against M/s Paras Jewellers and another (defendants).

¶16

Defendant No.1 is a proprietorship firm and defendant No.2 is its proprietor. Bank’s case is that on 09.12.2022, it had granted a Cash Credit Limit under CGTMSE Scheme of Rs.25 lacs to defendant No.1, through its proprietor, for business purpose. To secure the limit,

¶17

¶18

defendant No.1, through its proprietor, had hypothecated assets (fully detailed in Exhibit A-5). Defendant No.2 stood as Guarantor for the above facility vide Guarantee Deed dated 09.12.2022. The loan was chargeable to interest @9.50% per annum with monthly rests. On 01.08.2024, Bank had sent recall notice to the defendants. On 11.08.2024, a sum of Rs.26,26,651.52p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶19

On 09.10.2024, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 04.09.2025, they were proceeded ex parte .

¶20

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Satish Bhardwaj, Authorized Officer along with the loan and security documents. 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 a Cash Credit Limit of Rs.25 lacs and on 11.08.2024, a sum of Rs.26,26,651.52p was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the Bank for the recovery of Rs.26,26,651.52p (Rupees Twenty-Six Lacs Twenty-Six Thousand Six Hundred Fifty-One and Paise Fifty-Two Only) with interest @9.50% per annum with monthly rests from 11.09.2024, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of both the defendants would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of hypothecated assets (fully detailed in Exhibit A-5) as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants.

¶21

¶22

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 15.10.2026 . 10. A Copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to the Recovery Officer as well as the parties. Pronounced in the open court. (A S Narang) Dated: 14.09.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh HARSH

Hdfc Bank v. M/S Paras Jewellers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. M/S Paras Jewellers

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

Bank of India versus Nathubhai Jesangbhai Valagath

Idfc First Bank Ltd. versus Farooq Basirahmed Shaikh

Yes Bank versus Radhaben

Baldev Singh versus the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited

Neelam Rani versus Hdfc Bank

Gurtej Commission Agent versus Punjab and Sind Bank