Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. M/S Shri Narotam Ji Studio and Others

DRT22 May 2026OA/1460/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed an original application filed by HDFC Bank against M/S Shri Narotam Ji Studios and partners for recovery of a loan of Rs. 24.79 lakhs. The Tribunal declared the defendants liable to pay the principal sum, costs, and simple interest at 8% p.a. from the date of filing.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 24,79,211.70 plus costs and simple interest at 8% p.a. from filing of OA till realization, via sale of hypothecated vehicle or personal assets.

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Shri Narotam Ji Studio and Others — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 1460/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 08.10.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 22.05.2026

¶6

HDFC Bank Limited having its Registered Office at Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400013 and also at Plot no. I-15, Sector 101, Alpha IT City, SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab through its Authorized Representative, Ms. Khushpreet Bains

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/S Shri Narotam Ji Studios through its Partners, Sh. Ankit Vijan and Sh. Navdeep Singh, C/o Plot no. F 470, Major Tower, Phase 8B, Industrial Area, SAS Nagar, Punjab- 160055

¶10

Sh. Ankit Vijan, S/o Sh. Pawan Kumar Vijan, Partner of M/S Shri Narotam Ji Studios, R/o House no. 258/12, Rama Street, Khattian Mohalla, Khanna, District Ludhiana, Punjab- 141401

¶11

Sh. Navdeep Singh, S/o Sh. Amarjit Singh, Partner of M/S Shri Narotam Ji Studios, R/o Prem Nagar, New Hindi Putri Pathshalla Road, Khanna, District Ludhiana, Punjab- 141401

¶12

….……Defendants

¶13

Advocates:

¶14

Argued by Ms. Dipti Toni, Advocate for applicant (through VC) None for defendants (already ex-parte vide order dated 09.01.2026)

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 24,79,211.70 (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Seventy Nine Thousand Two Hundred Eleven and Paise Seventy Only). The Original Application has been filed through Ms. Khushpreet Bains, Authorized Representaive of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 20.04.2024, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶17

2 OA NO. 1460/2025 HDFC BANK LIMITED VS. M/S SHRI NAROTAM JI STUDIOS AND OTHERS

¶18

The brief facts of the OA are that defendant no. 1 through its Partner defendant no. 2 approached the applicant for grant of New Car Loan of Rs. 49.95 Lacs vide Loan Application Form dated 22.03.2021, which is Annexure A4 to this OA. 3. The applicant sanctioned New Car Loan of Rs. 49.95 Lacs and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. Defendant no. 3 stood as guarantor.

¶19

Defendant no. 1 through its Partner defendant no. 2 hypothecated their movable asset namely Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd. E 220 D bearing Registration no. PB65AP0222, Chassis no. W1K2131046L033833 and Engine no. 65492080846919 vide RC filed on 21.05.2026 in compliance of order dated 21.04.2026. Documents executed: Authorization and Declaration dated 22.03.2021, which is Annexure A2 to this OA; Partnership Deed dated 27.02.2021, which is Annexure A3 to this OA; Loan cum Hypothecation Agreement dated 26.03.2021, which is Annexure A5 to this OA; Statement of Account, which is Annexure A6 to this OA and Legal Notice dated 29.07.2025 along with postal receipts, which are Annexure A7 to A10 to this OA.

¶20

The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account there was a debit of Rs. 24,79,211.70, which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notice but they did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 6. The defendants were served summons to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 09.01.2026. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Ms. Khushpreet Bains, Authorized Representative, HDFC Bank Limited, has been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record. 9. It was argued by learned counsel (through VC) that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant bank had proved its case.

¶21

3 OA NO. 1460/2025 HDFC BANK LIMITED VS. M/S SHRI NAROTAM JI STUDIOS AND OTHERS

¶22

From the perusal of all the Annexure A1 to A10 to this OA, it is proved that defendant no. 1 through its Partner defendant no. 2 approached the applicant for availing of the loan facility which was granted to them. Defendant no. 3 stood as guarantor. Defendants had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. The defendants failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, account of the defendants was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 24,79,211.70 (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Seventy Nine Thousand Two Hundred Eleven and Paise Seventy Only) along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the amount. 10. In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @08.25%p.a. from the date of filing of application till the realization.

¶23

The Tribunal is of the considered opinion that sometimes in appropriate cases the prerogative of mercy is the brightest jewel in the crown of the Judge. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case including nature of the hypothecated vehicle, undertaking of the defendants, quantum of loan and prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yester years, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant simple interest @8.00% p.a. in the loan account from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶24

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.24,79,211.70 (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Seventy Nine Thousand Two Hundred Eleven and Paise Seventy Only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00% p.a. in the loan account from the date of filing of OA till the date of realization of the amount. Accordingly, the applicant shall be entitled to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of hypothecated vehicle of defendant

¶25

4 OA NO. 1460/2025 HDFC BANK LIMITED VS. M/S SHRI NAROTAM JI STUDIOS AND OTHERS

¶26

nos.	1 and 2 in execution	proceedings if not sold earlier under the
provi rema attac	sions of the SARFAESI in unsatisfied, it sha hment and sale of	Act, 2002. If the dues of the applicant still ll be entitled to recover the same by personal assets of the defendants. The
appli 12.	cant is at liberty to enf Any other applicati	orce the claim through due process of law. on pending stands disposed of.
13.	Issue Recovery Certif	icate accordingly.
14.	Parties to appear	before Learned Recovery Officer of this
Tribu	nal on 15.06.2026.
15. defen uploa consi Pron Date	Copy of this order be dants through regist ded on the official gned. ounced by me in the d: 22.05.2026	given dasti to the applicant and be sent to ered/speed post and this order be also website of this Tribunal and record be open Tribunal.
		(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Hdfc Bank v. M/S Shri Narotam Ji Studio and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. M/S Shri Narotam Ji Studio and Others

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

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Pyara Singh

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Ggp Buildtech (P) Limited and Another

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Pusa Singh @ Baljit Singh

State Bank of India versus Sh. Varinder Singh

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Pooja Woolen Industries and Others

Canara Bank versus M/S Parveen Collections and Another