Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. M/S Sunrise Overseas

DRT15 Jul 2026OA/1682/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh allowed a recovery application filed by HDFC Bank Limited against numerous respondents, including a partnership firm and individuals, for dues aggregating to ₹7.18 crores. The court found the bank proved its case and directed issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; recovery of ₹7,18,55,170.01 with interest directed; recovery certificate issued; disposal of pending interim applications.

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Sunrise Overseas — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 1682/2024 Date of Institution: 21.10.2024 Date of Decision: 15.07.2026

¶4

HDFC Bank Limited having its branches all over India and a branch at Shop No. 2 & 3, Sector No .3 Channi Himmat Jammu, J&K.

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

M/s Sunrise Overseas a Partnership concern, through its Partners Sh. Raj Pal and Sh. Rajesh Monga, Having its Registered Office at Faridkot Road, Sadiq, Faridkot, Punjab.

¶8

Sh. Rajesh Monga S/o Sh. Mahesh Chand Partner M/s Sunrise Overseas, Having its Registered Office at Faridkot Road, Sadiq, Faridkot, Punjab.

¶9

2nd Address: - R/o H. No. C-4, Main Road, Near Street Number 5, New Cantt Road, Faridkot, Punjab.

¶10

Sh. Raj Pal Monga S/o Sh. Moti Ram Partner M/s Sunrise Overseas, Having its Registered Office at Faridkot Road, Sadiq, Faridkot, Punjab.

¶11

2nd Address : - R/o H. No. C-4, Main Road, Near Street Number 5, New Cantt Road, Faridkot, Punjab.

¶12

3rd Address : - B (1) 877SSS W-19 P-2, Bajigar Basti, Faridkot, Punjab.

¶13

Sh. Mohit Monga S/o Sh. Raj Pal Monga R/o H.No. B-1 877, Ward No. 19, Bajigar Basti, Faridkot, Punjab.

¶14

Smt. Meetu Monga W/o Sh. Mohit Monga, R/o H. No. C-4, Main Road, Near Street Number 5, New Cantt Road, Faridkot, Punjab.

¶15

Smt. Asha Rani W/o Late Sh. Mahesh Chand R/o H. No. C-4, Main Road, Near Street Number 5, New Cantt Road, Faridkot, Punjab.

¶16

Sh. Rohit Monga S/o Late Sh. Mahesh Chand R/o H. No. C-4, Main Road, Near Street Number 5, New Cantt Road, Faridkot, Punjab.

¶17

Smt. Jyoti Monga W/o Sh. Rajesh Monga R/o H. No. C-4, Main Road, Near Street Number 5, New Cantt Road, Faridkot, Punjab.

¶18

Smt. Poonam Monga W/o sh. Rohit Monga R/o H. No. C-4, Main Road, Near Street Number 5, New Cantt Road, Faridkot, Punjab.

¶19

¶20

M/s Raj Pal Agro (India) Pvt. Ltd through its Directors having its place of business at Bholuwal Road, near railway crossing Faridkot-151203 through its Directors.

¶21

M/s Raj Pal & Co. a Partnership concern, through its Partners Sh. Raj Pal and Sh. Rajesh Monga, Having its Registered Office at Bholuwala Road, Faridkot, Punjab.

¶22

Sh. Vikram Monga S/o Sh. Raj Pal R/o B-1/Ncr/44/1, New Cantt Road, Faridkot, Punjab.

¶23

Sh. Mahesh Chand since deceased through his legal heirs: - a) Smt. Asha Rani b) Sh. Rajesh Monga c) Sh. Rohit Monga

¶24

All R/o H. No. C-4, Main Road, Near Street Number 5, New Cantt Road, Faridkot, Punjab.

¶25

……….Defendants

¶26

Advocates

¶27

Sh. C.S. Pasricha, Counsel for the applicant bank.

¶28

Sh. Gaurav Thakur proxy counsel for Mr. Shivamdeep Dwivedi, Counsel for the defendant nos. 1, 3 and 4

¶29

Defendant nos. 2, 5 to 13 - ex parte.

¶30

OA for the Recovery of ₹7,18,55,170.01p with interest @18% per annum with monthly rests from 21.10.2024.

¶31

ORDER

¶32

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 ₹7,18,55,170.01p with interest against M/s Sunrise Overseas and others (defendants).

¶33

Defendant no.1 is a partnership firm of Defendant nos. 2 and 3, engaged in the business of Manufacturing of Rice. Bank’s case is that on 16.07.2012, it had granted C.C. Limit of ₹100.00 Lacs; Term Loan of ₹200.00 Lacs and FLC + Term Loan of ₹60.00 Lacs, aggregating to

¶34

¶35

₹360.00Lacs to defendant No.1 through its partners for Business purpose.

¶36

On 20.03.2013, at the request of Defendant no.1 through its partners, Bank granted a Term Overdraft Facility of ₹40.00Lacs. On 12.10.2013, at the request of Defendant no.1 through its partners, Bank enhanced the Cash Credit Facility to ₹350.00Lacs in addition to existing limit of Term Loan of ₹200.00 Lacs, F.L.C. + Term Loan of ₹60.00 Lacs and a Term Loan of ₹125.00Lacs, aggregating to ₹735.00Lacs.

¶37

On 20.08.2014, at the request of Defendant no.1 through its partners, Bank enhanced the Cash Credit Facility to ₹500.00Lacs in addition to existing limits of Term Loan of ₹200.00 Lacs, F.L.C. + Term Loan of ₹60.00Lacs, a Term Loan of ₹125.00Lacs and a Seasonal Cash Credit of ₹350.00Lacs, aggregating to ₹1235.00Lacs.

¶38

On 07.03.2015, at the request of Defendant no.1 through its partners, Bank granted an Adhoc Cash Credit Facility of ₹100.00Lacs in addition to existing limits of the Cash Credit Facility of ₹500.00Lacs, Seasonal Cash Credit of ₹350.00Lacs, Term Loan-I of ₹200.00 Lacs, F.L.C. + Term Loan-II of ₹60.00Lacs and Term Loan-III of ₹125.00Lacs aggregating to ₹1335.00Lacs.

¶39

On 29.08.2015, at the request of Defendant no.1 through its partners, Bank renewed the Cash Credit facility at ₹850.00Lacs, Term Loan-I of ₹200.00Lacs, FLC + Term Loan-II Facility of ₹60.00Lacs and Term Loan-III facility of ₹125.00Lacs, aggregating to ₹ 1235.00Lacs. The limits were renewed again on 26.09.2016.

¶40

On 29.12.2016, at the request of Defendant no.1 through its partners, Bank enhanced the existing Cash Credit Facility at ₹950.00Lacs, Term Loan-I of ₹200.00Lacs, FLC + Term Loan-II

¶41

¶42

Facility of ₹60.00Lacs and Term Loan-III facility of ₹125.00Lacs, aggregating to ₹ 1335.00Lacs.

¶43

On 01.02.2017, at the request of Defendant no.1 through its partners, Bank enhanced the existing Cash Credit Facility at ₹1200.00Lacs, Term Loan-I of ₹200.00Lacs, FLC + Term Loan-II Facility of ₹60.00Lacs and Term Loan-III facility of ₹125.00Lacs, aggregating to ₹1585.00Lacs. On 09.10.2017, bank renewed the existing limits.

¶44

On 18.01.2018, at the request of Defendant no.1 through its partners, Bank renewed the existing Cash Credit Facility at ₹1200.00Lacs, Term Loan-I Facility of ₹60.00Lacs, Term Loan-II facility of ₹125.00Lacs, and also granted a Term Loan of ₹100.00Lacs, aggregating to ₹1485.00Lacs.

¶45

On 27.08.2018, at the request of Defendant no.1 through its partners, Bank renewed the existing Cash Credit Facility at ₹850.00Lacs, Term Loan-I of ₹200.00Lacs, Term Loan-II Facility of ₹60.00Lacs, Term Loan-III facility of ₹125.00Lacs, aggregating to ₹1285.00Lacs. On 30.10.2018, at the request of Defendant no.1 through its partners, Bank renewed the existing Cash Credit Facility at ₹1200.00Lacs, Term Loan-I of ₹60.00Lacs, Term Loan-III facility of ₹125.00Lacs, WC Term Loan of ₹100.00Lacs and also granted a Bank Guarantee Facility of ₹92.40Lacs, aggregating to ₹1577.00Lacs.

¶46

On 06.06.2020, at the request of Defendant no.1 through its partners, Bank granted a G.E.C.L.-W.C.T.L. of ₹2,49,55,000/-. On 12.10.2020, Bank granted an Adhoc Limit of ₹100.00Lacs to Defendant no.1 through its partners. On 23.11.2020, Bank also granted a Bank Guarantee of ₹110.00Lacs to Defendant no.1 through its partners. On 05.12.2020, Bank renewed/sanctioned the credit facilities Cash Credit

¶47

¶48

facility of ₹ 1200.00Lacs, WC Term Loan facility of ₹ 100.00Lacs, Bank Guarantee facility of ₹ 92.40Lacs, WCDL Pledge facility of ₹300.00Lacs and bank Guarantee facility of ₹ 80.00Lacs, Term Loan GECL facility of ₹2,49,55,000/-, Adhoc Cash Credit facility of ₹100.00Lacs and also sanctioned Bank Guarantee facility of ₹110.00Lacs aggregating to ₹22,31,95,000/-.

¶49

On 08.06.2021, at the request of Defendant no.1 through its partners, Bank renewed/sanctioned the credit facilities Cash Credit facility of ₹ 1200.00Lacs, WC Term Loan facility of ₹100.00Lacs, Bank Guarantee facility of ₹92.40Lacs, WCDL Pledge facility of ₹ 300.00Lacs, Bank Guarantee facility of ₹80.00Lacs, Term Loan GECL facility of ₹2,49,55,000/-, Adhoc Cash Credit facility of ₹100.00Lacs and also sanctioned Bank Guarantee of ₹100.00Lacs aggregating to ₹23,31,95,000Lacs. The abovementioned limits were renewed again on 03.09.2021, 10.12.2021 and 20.07.2022.

¶50

On 22.09.2022, at the request of Defendant no.1 through its partners, Bank renewed earlier sanctioned credit facilities Cash Credit facility of ₹1200.00Lacs, Bank Guarantee facility of ₹ 92.40Lacs, Bank Guarantee facility of ₹80.00Lacs, Bank Term Loan GECL facility of ₹2,49,55,000/- and Bank Guarantee facility of ₹110.00Lacs with total exposure of ₹ 17,31,95,000/-. To secure various loan facilities, Defendant Nos. 2 to 5, 7 to 11 (Defendant no.11 through its partners) and 13 had mortgaged properties (fully detailed in para No.5.66 of the application). Defendant nos. 1 to 13 stood as the guarantors for all the loan facilities and executed guarantee deeds from time to time and lastly on 05.12.2020. As per the Agreement of Continuing Guarantee dated 05.12.2020, the guarantee of the defendants shall remain continuing till the Defendant No 1 discharges its liabilities and the bank issues NOC to

¶51

¶52

the said Borrower. All the aforementioned loan facilities were chargeable to different rates of interest. On 04.09.2024, total sum of ₹7,18,55,170.01p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶53

On 19.11.2024, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendant Nos.2, 5 to 13 did not put in appearance. On 27.02.2025, defendant nos.2, 5 to 13 were proceeded as ex parte .

¶54

On 05.06.2025, defendant Nos.1 3 and 4 filed their joint Written Statement wherein they alleged that the OA has been filed by unauthorized person; the documents were blank at the time of execution and were filled in by some other person; the claim of the bank is based on false, fabricated and manufactured documents; the statements of accounts are not true and correct and are not admissible as evidence as it is not certified as per Bankers’ Books Evidence Act and also s1hows capitalizing of the penal interest in contravention of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court; the application is not maintainable on the basis of vague and incorrect averments alleged in the OA. Hence, the OA be dismissed.

¶55

3A. On 02.12.2025, the defendants were summoned for the purpose of admission and denial. Defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 perused the documents and raised the objection that Exhibits A-1, 2, 15 to 17, 95, 115 (page No.1), 118 to 134 and 146 are not produced in original. They admitted the signatures on the remaining documents but denied the contents. On 22.01.2026, defendant Nos.1, 3 & 4 perused the documents and raised the objection that Exhibits A-2, 15 to 17 and 146 are not produced in original and admitted Exhibits A-1, 95 and 115 (page No.1), 118 to 134.

¶56

¶57

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Sh. Satish Bhardwaj, Senior Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-153.

¶58

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 loans under various schemes. The Counsel for the Bank has stated at the Bar that all the other loan facilities besides Cash Credit Limit and G.E.C.L. Limit have been liquidated by the defendants and on 04.09.2024, a sum of ₹6,46,08,882.75p in the C.C. Limit and ₹72,46,287.41p in the G.E.C.L. Limit, totaling to ₹7,18,55,170.01p was due.

¶59

Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of ₹7,18,55,170.01p (Rupees Seven Crores Eighteen Lacs Fifty Five Thousand One Hundred Seventy and Paise One Only) with interest @18% per annum with monthly rests from 21.10.2024, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of defendant Nos. 1 to 13 would be joint and several. The liability of the legal heirs (also arrayed as Defendant nos. 2, 6 and 7) of defendant No.13 would be limited to the extent of the property inherited by them from the estate of Sh. Mahesh Chand (now deceased). Defendant nos. 2, 6 and 7 would be liable both in the capacity of Legal Heirs as well Guarantors/Partners. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged land fully detailed in para No.5.66 of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendant nos.1 to 12. The Bank is directed to place on record the revised statement of accounts after appropriating the amount recovered from the sale of the mortgaged properties/hypothecated assets, if any, before the Recovery Officer. 7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.

¶60

¶61

Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 20.08.2026.

¶62

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: 15.07.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh

Hdfc Bank v. M/S Sunrise Overseas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. M/S Sunrise Overseas

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

Sri Vijay Kumar Maurya versus Central Bank of India

Canara Bank versus M/S Vishal Enterprises

Bank of India versus M/S. Nandalal Agarwala Anr. Ors.

Mohit Mehrotra versus Icici Bank Limited

Sri Bikram Mukherjee And Ors. versus Aadhar Housing Finance Limited and Anr.

Mohammad Amin Mohammad Idris Ansari versus Union Bank of India