Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Harjinder Singh

DRT22 May 2026OA/1516/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an original application filed under Section 19 of the RDB Act, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's claim for recovery of loan dues of Rs.32,39,376.15 from two defendants, adjusting interest at 8% per annum pending realization.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued declaring defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.32,39,376.15 plus costs and simple interest at 8% p.a.

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Harjinder Singh — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1516/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 09.10.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 22.05.2026

¶6

HDFC Bank Limited, through its Authorized Representative Sh. Rajendra Prasad, having its Registered Office at Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel - (West), Mumbai – 400013, having one of its Branch Office at Dhuri, District Sangrur, Punjab and Retail Loan Branch, Patiala. Also at Plot No. 28, Industrial Area, Phase 1, Chandigarh.

¶7

…….A pplicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

1. Sh. Harjinder Singh S/o Sh. Jagmel Singh, R/o Village Ramgarh Channa, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur - 148024.

¶10

1. Sh. Satinder Pal Singh S/o Sh. Jagmel Singh, R/o Village Ramgarh Channa, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur - 148024.

¶11

…….Defendants

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

Argued Sh. Anuj Kohli, Advocate for Applicant

¶14

None for Defendants (Already ex-parte vide order dated 07.01.2026).

¶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.32,39,376.15 (Rupees Thirty Two Lakh Thirty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Six and Paise Fifteen Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Rajendra Prasad, Authorized Representative, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Resolution dated 15.04.2023, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶17

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendants approached the applicant for grant of Term Loan for purchase of Commercial Vehicle of Rs.42,24,869.00 vide Commercial Loan Application Form dated 04.10.2022. Thereafter, the defendants approached the applicant for grant of Term Loan for purchase of Commercial Vehicle’s Body of

¶18

2 OA/1516/2025 HDFC BANK LTD. VS SH. HARJINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶19

Rs.5,09,470.00 vide Commercial Loan Application Form dated 10.01.2023, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶20

The applicant sanctioned Term Loan I for purchase of Commercial Vehicle of Rs.42,24,869.00 and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants vide Agreement for Loan and Guarantee dated 26.12.2022. Thereafter, the applicant sanctioned Term Loan II for purchase of Commercial Vehicle’s Body of Rs.5,09,470.00 and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants vide Agreement for Loan and Guarantee dated 31.01.2023, which is Annexure A3 to this OA.

¶21

Defendant no. 1 hypothecated his Movable Asset i.e. Commercial Vehicle namely TATA LPT 4225, bearing Registration Number PB13BQ9645, Engine No. B6.7B6A250D02122L64246121, Chassis No. MAT793004N1N31058 vide copy of E Vahan Details filed on 21.05.2026 in compliance of order dated 21.04.2026.

¶22

Documents executed : Legal Notice dated 07.08.2025, along with postal receipts, which is Annexure A4 to this OA; Statement of Accounts along with Certificate, which are Annexures A5 to A7 to this ОА; Copy of Delhi High Court Judgment, which is Annexure A8 to this OA. 5. The loan accounts became irregular and were classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan accounts there was a debit of Rs.32,39,376.15, which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notices but they did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶23

The defendants were served summons to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte on 07.01.2026.

¶24

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Rajendra Prasad, Authorized Representative, HDFC bank Ltd. has been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record. 9. It was argued by learned counsel for applicant that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case.

¶25

3 OA/1516/2025 HDFC BANK LTD. VS SH. HARJINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶26

From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A8 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant for availing of the loan facilities which were granted to them and for that they 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, loan accounts were classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.32,39,376.15 (Rupees Thirty Two Lakh Thirty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Six and Paise Fifteen 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.

¶27

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @8.78%p.a. in Term Loan I and interest @9.01%p.a. in Term Loan II with penal interest @2% till the realization.

¶28

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 asset, 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 uniform simple interest @08.00%p.a. in both the loan accounts from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶29

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.32,39,376.15 (Rupees Thirty Two Lakh Thirty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Six and Paise Fifteen Only), jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00%p.a. in both the loan accounts 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 the defendant no. 1 in execution proceedings if not sold earlier under the

¶30

¶31

OA/1516/2025 HDFC BANK LTD. VS SH. HARJINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶32

provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. If the dues of the applicant still remain unsatisfied, it shall be entitled to recover the same by attachment and sale of personal assets of the defendants. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶33

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶34

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶35

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 15.06.2026.

¶36

Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant and be sent to defendants through registered/speed post and this order be also uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal and record be consigned.

¶37

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal .

¶38

Dated: 22.05.2026

¶39

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶40

Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Harjinder Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Sh. Harjinder Singh

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