Allowed

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Sh. Sohan Singh and Others

DRT29 Apr 2026OA/1536/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by HDFC Bank Limited for recovery of Rs. 57,57,772.05 from four borrowers and a guarantor. The court affirmed liability and directed issuance of a Recovery Certificate under the RDB Act and SARFAESI Act, granting simple interest at 8% p.a.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued; Defendants ordered to pay Rs. 57,57,772.05 with interest at 8% p.a.; Case remanded to Recovery Officer.

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sh. Sohan Singh and Others — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 1536/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 31.10.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 29.04.2026

¶6

HDFC Bank Limited, having its Registered Office at Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai -400013, having its Branch Office at The Mall, MGN Public School, Mall Road, District Kapurthala, Punjab144601 and also at HDFC Bank Ltd., Plot no. I-15, Sector 101 Alpha, IT City, Mohali, District S.A.S. Nagar, Punjab, through its Authorized Representative, Sh. Dinesh Kumar

¶7

..…..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Sohan Singh, S/o Sh. Bahadur Singh, R/o H. no. 53, Village Pakhowal, District Kapurthala, Punjab- 144620

¶10

Smt. Jagdish Kaur, W/o Sh. Sohan Singh, R/o H. no. 53, Village Pakhowal, District Kapurthala, Punjab- 144620.

¶11

Sh. Harpreet Singh, S/o Sh. Sohan Singh, R/o H. no. 53, Village Pakhowal, District Kapurthala, Punjab- 144620

¶12

Sh. Manpreet Singh, S/o Sh. Gurdial Singh, R/o Gosal Sadawal, District Kapurthala, Punjab- 144620

¶13

….……Defendants

¶14

Advocates:

¶15

Argued by Sh. Tarunjit Singh Grewal, Advocate for applicant

¶16

None for defendants (already ex-parte vide order dated 17.03.2026)

¶17

FINAL ORDER

¶18

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. 57,57,772.05 (Rupees Fifty Seven Lacs Fifty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Two and Paise Five Only). The Original Application has been filed through, Sh. Dinesh Kumar, Authorized Representative of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated

¶19

17.01.2024, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶20

2 OA/1536/2025 HDFC BANK LIMITED VS. SOHAN SINGH AND OTHERS

¶21

The brief facts of the OA that the defendant nos. 1 and 2 approached the applicant for grant of CC Limit of Rs. 15.00 Lacs vide 1^st Application Form dated 28.10.2015, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. Thereafter, defendant nos. 1 to 3 approached the applicant for enhancement of CC Limit of Rs. 26,56,500.00 vide 2^nd Application Form dated 27.03.2017, which is Annexure A9 to this OA. Thereafter, defendant nos. 1 to 3 again approached the applicant for enhancement of CC Limit of Rs. 26.40 vide 3^rd Application Form dated 23.01.2019, which is Annexure A15 to this OA. Thereafter, defendant nos. 1 to 3 approached the applicant for enhancement of CC Limit of Rs. 45.00 Lacs vide 4^th Application Form dated 19.11.2019, which is Annexure A19 to this OA.

¶22

The applicant sanctioned the CC Limit of Rs. 15.00 Lacs vide Sanction of CC Limit dated 03.11.2015, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. Thereafter, the applicant sanctioned the enhancement of CC Limit of Rs. 24.00 Lacs vide Sanction of CC limit dated 10.04.2017, which is Annexure A10 to this OA. Thereafter, the applicant sanctioned the enhancement of CC Limit of Rs.26.40 Lacs vide Sanction of CC limit dated 30.01.2019, which is Annexure A16 to this OA. Thereafter, the applicant sanctioned the enhancement of CC Limit of Rs. 45.00 Lacs vide Sanction of CC limit dated 29.11.2019, which is Annexure A20 to this OA. Defendant no. 4 stood as guarantor.

¶23

Defendant no. 2 mortgaged her immovable properties which are:

¶24

i.	Land measuring 22M 04M situated at Village Pakhowal, Hadbast
	no. 160, Tehsil and District Kapurthala, Punjab vide Declaration
	u/s 4 (1) of the Punjab Agricultural Credit Operations and
	Miscellaneous Provisions (Banks) Act, 1978 dated 04.11.2015
	and Registration of Bank Charge and Affidavit, which are
	Annexure A6 to A8to this OA;
ii.	Land Measuring 38K 04M situated at Village Pakhowal, Hadbast
	no. 160, Tehsil and District Kapurthala, Punjab vide Declaration
	u/s 4 (1) of the Punjab Agricultural Credit Operations and
	Miscellaneous Provisions (Banks) Act, 1978 dated 18.04.2017,

¶25

3 OA/1536/2025 HDFC BANK LIMITED VS. SOHAN SINGH AND OTHERS

¶26

Registration of Bank Charge and Advocate Letter dated 25.04.2017, which are Annexure A12 to A14 to this OA; iii. Land Measuring 66K 13.5M situated at Village Pakhowal, Hadbast no. 160, Tehsil and District Kapurthala, Punjab vide Declaration u/s 4 (1) of the Punjab Agricultural Credit Operations and Miscellaneous Provisions (Banks) Act, 1978 dated 11.12.2019, which is Annexure A22 to this OA. Documents Executed: Agreements for CC Limit and DP Note, both dated 05.11.2015, which are Annexure A4 and A5 to this OA; Agreements for OD CC Limit dated 20.04.2017, 31.01.2019 and 04.12.2019, which are Annexure A11, A17 and A21 to this OA; Addendum dated 31.01.2019, which is Annexure A18 to this OA; Demand Notice dated 19.09.2025 along with postal receipts, which is Annexure A23 to this OA and Statement of Account with certificate, which are Annexure A24 and A25 to this OA.

¶27

The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan account there was a debit of Rs. 57,57,772.05 (Rupees Fifty Seven Lacs Fifty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Two and Paise Five Only) 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 17.03.2026. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Dinesh Kumar, Authorized Representative , HDFC Bank Limited h as been filed.

¶28

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶29

It was argued by learned counsel that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case. From the perusal of all the Annexure A1 to A25 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant for availing of the loan facility which was granted to them and for that they had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the applicant. The defendants

¶30

4 OA/1536/2025 HDFC BANK LIMITED VS. SOHAN SINGH AND OTHERS

¶31

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. 57,57,772.05 (Rupees Fifty Seven Lacs Fifty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Two and Paise Five Only) along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the account. 10. In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in clause 5.38 has claimed interest @11%p.a. plus @16% p.a. penal interest with half yearly rests from 02.04.2025 till the realization.

¶32

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 assets/mortgaged properties, 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.

¶33

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.57,57,772.05 (Rupees Fifty Seven Lacs Fifty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Two and Paise Five 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 assets/mortgaged properties of the defendants in execution proceedings if not sold earlier under the 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.

¶34

5 OA/1536/2025 HDFC BANK LIMITED VS. SOHAN SINGH AND OTHERS

¶35

The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law. 12. Any other application pending stands disposed of. 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 20.05.2026. 15. 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. Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 29.04.2026 (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Sh. Sohan Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Sh. Sohan Singh 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

Canara Bank versus Sh. Ashwani Jindal and Others

Union Bank of India versus Ms Shree Shyam Enterprises and Another

State Bank of India versus Smt. Sarita Vohra and Others

Canara Bank versus Sh. Satbir Singh

State Bank of India versus Sh. Pargat Singh

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Lakhvir Singh