Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Dalip Kumar

DRT8 Jan 2026OA/1468/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicants' application for recovery of dues. The court found the bank established its loan advances and outstanding amount. The application was allowed, liability of deceased heir limited to inherited property, and a recovery certificate directed.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.55,43,075.25 with interest allowed; Recovery Certificate ordered; Sale of mortgaged land directed.

Hdfc Bank versus Dalip 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: 1468/2022 Date of Institution: 11.04.2022 Date of Decision: 08.01.2026

¶4

HDFC Bank Limited having its branches all over India and a branch at HDFC Bank House, Plot No.28, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh.

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Dalip Kumar s/o Sh. Gopi Ram, r/o Village Dhaban Kokerian, Dhani On Dhaban to Dutharan Wali Road, Tehsil Abohar, District Fazilka, Punjab, since deceased through his LRs’

¶8

(i) Geeta Devi w/o Sh. Dalip Kumar, r/o House No.418, Village Dhaban Kokerian, Dhani On Dhaban to Dutharan Wali Road, Tehsil Abohar, District Fazilka, Punjab.

¶9

(ii) Manjit Kumar s/o Sh. Dalip Kumar, r/o House No.418, Village Dhaban Kokerian, Dhani On Dhaban to Dutharan Wali Road, Tehsil Abohar, District Fazilka, Punjab.

¶10

Bhoj Raj s/o Sh. Gopi Ram, w/o r/o Village Dhaban Kokerian, Dhani On Dhaban to Dutharan Wali Road, Tehsil Abohar, District Fazilka, Punjab.

¶11

Raj Pal s/o Sh. Arjan Ram, r/o Village Dhaban Kokerian, Near Ram Dev Mandir, Tehsil Abohar, District Fazilka, Punjab.

¶12

……….Defendants

¶13

Advocates

¶14

Ms. Sunita Rani proxy counsel for Sh. Ankur Jindal, Counsel for the applicant bank.

¶15

Defendants - ex parte vide order dated 29.01.2024 .

¶16

OA for the Recovery of Rs.55,43,075.25p with interest from 11.04.2022.

¶17

ORDER

¶18

HDFC Bank Limited has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of Rs.55,43,075.25p with interest against Sh. Dalip Kumar and others (defendants).

¶19

¶20

Bank’s case is that on 30.10.2015, it had granted C.C Limit of Rs.23.00 Lacs, Term Loan of Rs.2.00 Lacs under KGC Limit to defendant Nos.1 and 2 for agricultural purpose. To secure the loans, Defendant No.2 had mortgaged his land (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). Defendant No.3 stood as guarantor (as per the Sanction Letter). Both the loans were chargeable at different rates of interest. On 19.03.2022, a sum of Rs.55,43,075.25p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶21

3. On 08.09.2022, summonses were sent to the defendants by
registered post, which were duly served. However, defendant no.3 did
not put in appearance. On 03.05.2023, defendant no.3 was proceeded
ex-parte.
3(a).During the course of proceedings, IA No.272 of 2023 filed by the
applicant bank for impleading the LRs of deceased defendant no.1 along with amended memo of parties, was allowed_vide_order dated 03.05.2023.
Thereafter, defendant no.2 and LRs of deceased defendant no.1 failed to
appear before this Tribunal despite serving the summons. Accordingly, vide_order dated 29.01.2024, all the defendants were proceeded_ex parte.
4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit
of Sh. Parampreet Singh Kahlon, Remedial Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-18.
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
Rs.25.00 Lacs (Rs.23.00 Lacs in C.C. Limit and Rs.2.00 Lacs in Term
Loan) and on 19.03.2022, a sum of Rs.55,43,075.25p was due.
6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of
Rs.55,43,075.25p (Rupees Fifty Five Lacs Forty Three Thousand Seventy

¶22

¶23

Five and Paise Twenty Five Only) i.e. Rs.50,95,156/- in C.C. Limit with interest @12% p.a. and Rs.4,47,919.25p in Term Loan with interest @13% p.a. (both facilities) with half-yearly rests from 11.04.2022, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of the Legal Heirs of defendant No.1 would be limited upto the extent of the property(ies) inherited by them from deceased Dalip Kumar, whereas the liability of defendant Nos.2 and 3 would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged land fully detailed in para No.3A of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendant Nos.2 and 3.

¶24

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

¶25

Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.

¶26

Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 10.02.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgaged land and standing crops as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) of the Act .

¶27

A Copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to the Recovery Officer as well as the parties.

¶28

Pronounced in the open Court. (A S Narang) Dated: 08.01.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh

¶29

MANOJ KALRA

Hdfc Bank v. Dalip Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Dalip 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

Ms Rajeshwar Agencies versus Icici Bank Limited

Canara Bank versus Sri.Jayarama Reddy. B

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus Smt.Doddabasamma

Bank of India versus Mrinal Laskar and Anr.

Union Bank of India versus M/S M.R. Enterprise And Ors.

Abhijit Mandal and Anr. versus West Bengal Gramin Bank