Allowed

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Sh. Pankaj Kumar

DRT11 Jun 2026OA/245/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed an original application for recovery of a secured home loan debt of Rs. 53,01,852.00. Set aside defendant's late written statement. Granted simple interest at 8% per annum instead of claimed 18% and decreed recovery from mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

Decreed liability to pay Rs. 53,01,852.00 plus interest @ 8% p.a.; directed issuance of Recovery Certificate; authorized recovery from sale of mortgaged property.

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sh. Pankaj Kumar — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.245/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 01.03.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 11.06.2026

¶6

HDFC Bank Ltd., a Banking Company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its Registered Office at HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400013 and its substitution being the Transferee Bank to the then applicant i.e. erstwhile HDFC Bank Ltd. by virtue of Order dated 17.03.2023 and Branch Offices amongst others at Regional/Branch Office at SCO no. 153-155, Sector 8C, Chandigarh160009 through its Authorized Representative, Sh. Arun Kumar, Manager

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Pankaj Kumar, S/o Sh. Narendra Kumar, R/o House no. 2307, Sector 4, City Rewari, District Rewari, Haryana- 123401

¶10

2^nd Address: Flat no. B103, 1^st Floor, Claridge’s Residency, Upper Bharari Road, Near Hotel Radisson, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh- 17101 3^rd Address: House no. 211, Village Gyaspur, Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh- 201204

¶11

……….Defendant

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

Argued by Sh. Aseem Kataria, Advocate proxy for Sh. Suneet Kumar, Advocate for applicant

¶14

Sh. Vishal Chauhan, Advocate proxy for Ms. Asha Singh, Advocate for defendant (through VC)

¶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 defendant for recovery of Rs. 53,01,852.00 (Rupees Fifty Three Lacs One Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Two Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Arun Kumar, Authorized Representative o f the applicant, who is competent to institute the

¶17

2 OA NO. 245/2025 HDFC BANK VS. PANKAJ KUMAR

¶18

Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 04.03.2024, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶19

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant approached the applicant for grant of Home Loan of Rs. 35.00 Lacs vide Loan Application Form dated 03.09.2014, which is Annexure A3 to this OA. 3. The applicant sanctioned Home Loan of Rs. 33,79,200.00 vide Sanction Letter dated 17.09.2014, which is Annexure A4 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant.

¶20

Defendant mortgaged his immovable property i.e. Flat measuring 960 Sq. Ft. situated at Flat no. 103, 1^st Floor, Tower B, Claridges Residency, Upper Bharari, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh vide Allotment Letter, Agreement to Sell dated 07.10.2014 and Permission to Mortgage, which are Annexure A7 to A9 to this OA.

¶21

Documents executed: Judgment dated 17.03.2023, which is Annexure A1 to this OA; Home Loan Agreement and Promissory Note, both dated 08.10.2014, which are Annexure A5 and A6 to this OA; Tripartite Agreement dated 07.10.2014, which is Annexure A10 to this OA; Loan Recall Notice dated 07.09.2021, which is Annexure A11 to this OA; Demand Notice dated 18.09.2021, which is Annexure A12 to this OA; Order by Ld. Add. CJSD, Mohali dated 27.03.2024, which is Annexure A13 to this OA and Statement of Account with certificates, which are Annexure A14 to A16 to this OA.

¶22

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. 53,01,852.00, which is recoverable and the defendant was served recall notice but he did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶23

The defendant was served summons to appear before this Tribunal and after service upon defendant, Ms. Asha Singh, Advocate appeared on behalf of defendant on 22.07.2025 and filed Memo of Appearance. Power of Attorney on behalf of defendant was filed on 22.09.2025. Paper book was supplied to her. WS was filed on 09.03.2026 i.e. beyond stipulated period. WS was taken on record subject to payment of cost but cost was not deposited despite opportunities. Therefore, WS

¶24

3 OA NO. 245/2025 HDFC BANK VS. PANKAJ KUMAR

¶25

filed beyond stipulated period by defendant was not taken on record and defence was struck off vide order dated 09.06.2026.

¶26

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Arun Kumar, Authorized Signatory, HDFC Bank Limited has been filed. 7. Heard arguments and perused record. 8. It was argued by learned proxy counsel for applicant that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case. Learned proxy counsel for defendant (through VC) has not advanced any arguments on OA. From the perusal of all the Annexure A1 to A16 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant approached applicant for availing of the loan facility which was granted to him and for that he had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. The defendant failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, account of the defendant was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.53,01,852.00 (Rupees Fifty Three Lacs One Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Two Only), along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the amount. 9. In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @18.00%p.a. with monthly rests from 12.02.2025 till the realization. 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 mortgaged property, undertaking of the defendant, 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 @08.00% 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.

¶27

4 OA NO. 245/2025 HDFC BANK VS. PANKAJ KUMAR

¶28

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a sum of Rs. 53,01,852.00 (Rupees Fifty Three Lacs One Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Two Only), with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00% 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 mortgaged property of defendant 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 defendant. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law. 11. Any other application pending stands disposed of. 12. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 13. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 25.06.2026. 14. Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant and be sent to defendant through registered/speed post and this order be also uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal and record be consigned.

¶29

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 11.06.2026

¶30

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Sh. Pankaj Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Sh. Pankaj 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

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S Aadhya Fashion and Another

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Sh. Sukhdeep Singh and Another

State Bank of India versus Sh. Jaspreet Singh

Icici Bank Limited versus M/S Nanaksar Infra and Another

Hdfc Bank Limited versus M/s Aalam Enterprises and Others

Canara Bank versus M/S K S Ispat Udyog and Another