Allowed

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Sh. Jagmal Singh

DRT14 May 2026OA/276/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed under the RDB Act by HDFC Bank against a defaulting borrower. The court adjusted the interest rate from the claimed 9.60% to 8% p.a., declared the defendant liable for the outstanding sum, and directed the issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the application declaring the defendant liable to pay Rs.26,14,862.78 with simple interest @8.00% p.a.; ordered issue of Recovery Certificate.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.276/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 12.02.2026

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 14.05.2026

¶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), Mumbai400013 and inter alia having its Branch Office at Plot No.I-15, Sector101, Alpha IT City, Mohali through its Authorized Representative Sh. Deepak Sharda, Legal Manager of the Applicant Bank.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Jagmal Singh S/o Sh. Mahema Singh, R/o Flat No. 115-A, 4^th Floor, Silver Kunj Apartment, Village Bhora, Ludhiana141007.

¶10

2^nd Address: Sh. Jagmal Singh S/o Sh. Mahema Singh, R/o Talakaur (362), Yamuna Nagar, Haryana-133103.

¶11

3^rd Address: Sh. Jagmal Singh S/o Sh. Mahema Singh, Proprietor of M.J. Industry, Jain Colony 99, Grand Truck Road, Hotel Malhotra Regency, Hussainpura, Ludhiana-141008.

¶12

……..Defendant

¶13

Advocates:

¶14

Argued by Sh. Amit Rishi, Advocate for Applicant ( through VC ) None for Defendant (Already ex-parte vide order dated 02.04.2026).

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendant for recovery of Rs.26,14,862.78 (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs Fourteen Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty Two and Paise Seventy Eight Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Deepak Sharda, Authorised Representative of the applicant, who is

¶17

¶18

OA NO.276/2026 HDFC BANK LTD. VS SH. JAGMAL SINGH

¶19

competent to institute the Original Application vide Board Resolution dated 21.08.2025, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶20

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant approached the applicant for grant of Term Loan of Rs.47,00,000.00 vide Auto/Two Wheeler Loan Application Form dated 11.01.2024, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. 3. The applicant sanctioned the Term Loan for purchase of Car of Rs.41,72,000.00 and terms and conditions were duly accepted by defendant vide Loan Cum Hypothecation Agreement dated 02.02.2024 which is Annexure A3 to this OA;

¶21

Defendant hypothecated his movable asset i.e. TOYOTA FORTUNER bearing Registration No. PB10JN7200, Engine No. 1GDA778266, Chassis No. MBJBA3FS700850460-0124 vide Virtual Registration Certificate.

¶22

Documents executed: Irrevocable Power of Attorney, Addendum to the Loan Agreement / Loan-Cum- Hypothecation Agreement both dated 02.02.2024, which are Annexures A4 & A5 to this OA; Demand Notice along with Postal Receipts dated 03.01.2026, which is Annexure A6 to this OA, Statement of Account along with Certificate Under Banker’s Book of Evidence, which is Annexure A7 to this OA; Copy of Delhi High Court Judgment, which is Annexure A8 to this OA.

¶23

The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account there was a debit of Rs.26,14,862.78, which is recoverable and the defendant was served recall notices but he did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 6. The defendant was served summons to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendant and he was proceeded ex-parte vide order date 02.04.2026 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Deepak Sharda, Legal Manager , HDFC Bank Ltd. has been filed.

¶24

¶25

OA NO.276/2026 HDFC BANK LTD. VS SH. JAGMAL SINGH

¶26

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶27

It was argued by learned counsel for applicant through video conferencing that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant bank had proved its case.

¶28

From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A8 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant approached applicant bank 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, loan account was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.26,14,862.78 (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs Fourteen Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty Two and Paise Seventy Eight Only) along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the account.

¶29

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @9.60%p.a. with monthly rests with penal interest @2% till the realization of the account.

¶30

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 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 @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.

¶31

¶32

OA NO.276/2026 HDFC BANK LTD. VS SH. JAGMAL SINGH

¶33

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.26,14,862.78 (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs Fourteen Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty Two and Paise Seventy Eight Only) 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 vehicle 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.

¶34

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of .

¶35

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶36

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 05.06.2026.

¶37

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. Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 14.05.2026

¶38

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

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Sh. Jagmal Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Sh. Jagmal 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

Anoop Oswal Hosiery and Others versus Aditya Birla Finance Limited

State Bank of India versus Sh. Kartar Singh

Rohit Verma and Another versus Karnataka Bank Limited and Others

State Bank of India versus M/S G R Agriculture Works and Another

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Satpreet Singh and Another

Union Bank of India versus M/S Eshan Yarns Private Limited and Others