Allowed

Hdfc Bank Limited v. M/S Home Need Department Store and Others

DRT2 Jul 2026OA/417/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte decretal order, the Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of a loan defaulting debt. The court upheld the debt but reduced the claimed interest rate from 18% to 8% per annum based on market conditions.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 2,90,79,664.59 with simple interest at 8% p.a. from filing date till realization, enforceable via sale of hypothecated/mortgaged assets or attachment of personal assets.

Hdfc Bank Limited versus M/S Home Need Department Store and… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 417/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 11.03.2026

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 02.07.2026

¶6

HDFC Bank Limited, a Banking Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its Registered Office at HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400013, having one of its Regional Offices at Plot no. 1- 15, Sector 101, Alpha IT City, Department of Special Operations and Branches across the country including at Ludhiana, Punjab through its duly Authorized Officer, Sh. Satish Bhardwaj, Senior Manager

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/S Home Need Department Store, a sole Proprietary Firm through its Proprietor, Sh. Amit Gupta, S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta having Principal Place of Business at 23, Bhai Daya Singh Nagar, Barewal Road, Ludhiana, Punjab- 141012

¶10

Sh. Amit Gupta, S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta, Proprietor M/S Home Need Department Store, R/o 23, Bhai Daya Singh Nagar, Barewal Road, Ludhiana, Punjab- 141012

¶11

Also at: House no. 34-35, Rajauri Garden, Near Barewal Road, Rajguru Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab- 141012

¶12

Smt. Reena Gupta, W/o Sh. Amit Gupta, R/o House no. 34-35, Rajauri Garden, Near Barewal Road, Rajguru Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab- 141012

¶13

….……Defendants

¶14

Advocates:

¶15

Argued by Sh. Vijay Sharma, Advocate proxy for Sh. Rajat Sharma, Advocate for applicant

¶16

None for defendants (already ex-parte vide order dated 29.06.2026)

¶17

2 OA/417/2026 HDFC BANK VS. M/S HOME NEED DEPARTMENT STORE AND OTHERS

¶18

FINAL ORDER

¶19

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. 2,90,79,664.59 (Rupees Two Crores Ninety Lacs Seventy Nine Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Four and Paise Fifty Nine Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Satish Bhardwaj, Senior Manager o f the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Resolution dated 22.11.2023, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶20

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant no. 1 through its Proprietor defendant no. 2 approached the applicant for availing CC Limit of Rs. 125.00 Lacs vide Loan Application dated 25.01.2022, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. Thereafter, defendant no. 1 through its Proprietor defendant no. 2 approached the applicant for enhancement of ODAP Limit to Rs. 101.00 Lacs. Thereafter, defendant no. 1 through its Proprietor defendant no. 2 approached the applicant for conversion of ODAP Limit to CC Limit and enhancement of CC Limit to Rs. 170.00 Lacs. Thereafter, defendant no. 1 through its Proprietor defendant no. 2 approached the applicant for enhancement of CC Limit to Rs. 175.00 Lacs vide Letter of Request dated 06.01.2023, which is Annexure A25 to this OA. Thereafter, defendant no. 1 through its Proprietor defendant no. 2 approached the applicant for renewal of CC Limit of Rs. 170.00 Lacs. Thereafter, defendant no. 1 through its Proprietor defendant no. 2 approached the applicant for enhancement of CC Limit to Rs. 250.00 Lacs. Thereafter, defendant no. 1 through its Proprietor defendant no. 2 approached the applicant for renewal of CC Limit of Rs. 250.00 Lacs

¶21

The applicant sanctioned ODAP Limit of Rs. 60.00 Lacs vide Sanction Letter dated 17.02.2022, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. Thereafter, the applicant enhanced ODAP Limit to Rs. 101.00 Lacs vide

¶22

3 OA/417/2026 HDFC BANK VS. M/S HOME NEED DEPARTMENT STORE AND OTHERS

¶23

Sanction Letter dated 21.07.2022, which is Annexure A9 to this OA. Thereafter, the applicant sanctioned conversion of ODAP Limit to CC Limit and enhanced CC Limit to Rs. 170.00 Lacs vide Sanction Letter dated 18.10.2022, which is Annexure A18 to this OA. Thereafter, the applicant enhanced CC Limit to Rs. 175.00 Lacs vide Sanction Letter dated 06.01.2023, which is Annexure A26 to this OA. Thereafter, the applicant sanctioned renewal of CC Limit of Rs. 170.00 Lacs vide Sanction Letter dated 20.02.2023, which is Annexure A33 to this OA. Thereafter, the applicant enhanced CC Limit to Rs. 250.00 Lacs vide Sanction Letter dated 02.11.2023, which is Annexure A34 to this OA. Thereafter, the applicant sanctioned renewal of CC Limit of Rs. 250.00 Lacs vide Sanction Letter dated 30.03.2025, which is Annexure A41 to this OA. Defendant no. 3 stood as guarantor.

¶24

Defendant no. 3 mortgaged her immovable property i.e. Land measuring 266.66 Sq. Yards situated at Plot no. 7, Barewal Awana, Hadbast no. 157, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, Punjab vide Title Deed dated 11.01.2022 along with its translation, which is Annexure A42 to this OA.

¶25

Defendant no. 1 through its Proprietor defendant no. 2 hypothecated their stock in trade and book debts and receivables vide Deed of Hypothecation dated 17.10.2022, which is Annexure A13 to this OA.

¶26

Documents executed: Master Facility Agreement, Memorandum recording past transactions of Creation of Mortgage and Deed of Indemnity, all dated 19.02.2022, which are Annexure A4, A5 and A7 to this OA; Letter of Continuing Guarantee dated 18.02.2022, which is Annexure A6 to this OA; Letter dated 14.03.2022, which is Annexure A8 to this OA; DP Note, Letter of Continuing Security, Supplementary Agreement, Memorandum of recording past transactions of Creation of Mortgage, Supplementary Letter of Continuing Guarantee and Deed of Indemnity, all dated 22.07.2022,

¶27

4 OA/417/2026 HDFC BANK VS. M/S HOME NEED DEPARTMENT STORE AND OTHERS

¶28

which are Annexure A10 to A12 and A15 to A17 to this OA; Power of Attorney, DP Note, Letter of Continuing Security, Supplementary Agreement and Supplementary Letter of Continuing Guarantee, all dated 17.10.2022, which are Annexure A14, A19, A20, A22 and A24 to this OA; Supplementary Letter of Hypothecation and Memorandum of recording past transactions of Creation of Mortgage, both dated 18.10.2022, which are Annexure A21 and A23 to this OA; DP Note, Letter of Continuing Security, Supplementary Agreement, Supplementary Letter of Continuing Guarantee and Memorandum of recording past transactions of Creation of Mortgage, all dated 06.01.2023, which are Annexure A27 to A32 to this OA; DP Note, Letter of Continuing Security, Supplementary Agreement, Supplementary Letter of Continuing Guarantee and Memorandum of recording past transactions of Creation of Mortgage, all dated 02.11.2023, which are Annexure A35 to A40 to this OA; Statement of Account, which is Annexure A43 to this OA and Loan Recall Notice dated 11.11.2025, which is Annexure A44 to this OA.

¶29

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. 2,90,79,664.59, 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. 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 29.06.2026. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Satish Bhardwaj, Senior Manager, HDFC Bank Limited h as been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record. 9. It was argued by learned proxy counsel that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case.

¶30

5 OA/417/2026 HDFC BANK VS. M/S HOME NEED DEPARTMENT STORE AND OTHERS

¶31

From the perusal of all the Annexure A1 to A44 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant no. 1 through its Proprietor defendant no. 2 approached applicant for availing of the loan facility which was granted to them. Defendant no. 3 stood as guarantor. Defendants 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, 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. 2,90,79,664.59 (Rupees Two Crores Ninety Lacs Seventy Nine Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Four and Paise Fifty Nine 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.

¶32

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @18.00%p.a. with monthly rests from 31.01.2026 till the realization.

¶33

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/hypothecated assets, undertaking of the defendants, quantum of loans 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.

¶34

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.2,90,79,664.59 (Rupees Two Crores Ninety Lacs Seventy Nine

¶35

6 OA/417/2026 HDFC BANK VS. M/S HOME NEED DEPARTMENT STORE AND OTHERS

¶36

Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Four and Paise Fifty Nine Only), jointly and severally, 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 hypothecated assets of defendant nos. 1 and 2 and mortgaged property of defendant no. 3 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. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶37

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶38

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶39

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 17.07.2026.

¶40

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.

¶41

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal .

¶42

Dated:02.07.2026

¶43

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶44

Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Hdfc Bank Limited v. M/S Home Need Department Store and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Limited v. M/S Home Need Department Store 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

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Deep Garments and Another

Union Bank of India versus Smt. Renu Sharma and Others

Axis Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Gurjot Singh

Yes Bank Ltd. versus M/S Vohra Trading Company and Others

Idfc Bank Limited versus Naib Singh and Another

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Sunil Kumar and Another