Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Rajen Kumar Mohanty

DRT26 Feb 2026OA/474/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by a bank for recovery of Rs. 35,24,250.76 along with interest and costs. The defendant failed to appear, resulting in an ex-parte decision. The tribunal directed the defendant to pay the amount within 30 days and issue a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Order of payment of Rs. 35,24,250.76 along with pending, future interest at 18% per annum, and costs within 30 days; issuance of recovery certificate.

Hdfc Bank versus Rajen Kumar Mohanty — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2026)

¶1

O.A. No.474 of 2023

¶2

Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi 4th floor, Jeevan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi

¶3

Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sharma

¶4

O.A. No. 474 of 2023

¶5

DFC Bank Ltd.

¶6

lot No.31, Najafgarh Road Industrial Area ower 1st Floor, Shivaji Marg, oti Nagar, New Delhi-110015

¶7

Applicant

¶8

ersus

¶9

r. Rajen Kumar Mohanty

¶10

(Proprietor of Direct Access)

¶11

d floor, 201-205, Pratap Bhawan

¶12

ahadurshah Zafar Marg entral Delhi-110002

¶13

Iso at:

¶14

B, 2nd floor, Konark Apartments

¶15

pp. Janta Flat Phase 1, Katwaria Sarai auz Khas, New Delhi-110016 Defendant

¶16

resent: Ms. Shreya Pathak, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶17

Date of Reserve: 09.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 26.02.2026

¶18

FINAL ORDER

¶19

This original application has been filed by the applicant ank on 17.05.2023 through Ms. Swathi Vajjhala, authorized epresentative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of ecovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the efendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.35,24,250.76 (Rupees hirty Five Lacs Twenty Four Thousand Two Hundred Fifty and aisa Seventy Six only) along with pendentelite and future i terest ©18% per annum from the date of filing this pplication till the date of its realization and costs.

¶20

O.A. No.474 of 2023

¶21

2 The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the d fendant, the applicant bank sanctioned Business loan of R..40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lacs only) @16% per annum, hich was to be repayable in 60 Equated Monthly Installments o Rs.97,660/-. Further, the applicant bank sanctioned GECL I an for a sum of Rs.6,99,861/- on 19.06.2020 @8.25% per a num which was repayable in 61 EMIs of Rs.22,012/- each.

¶22

3 That in order to avail the loan facilities, the defendant s bmitted loan applications and executed Loan Agreement and Facility Agreement with terms and conditions on 21.10.2020 a d 19.06.2020 in favour of the applicant bank.

¶23

4 It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after a ailing the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendant failed to aintain financial discipline and comply with the terms and cionditions of loan despite several requests and reminders to pay the outstanding dues and installments in time to the applicant bank. Ultimately, the applicant bank classified the a count as NPA on 07.03.2023 and issued legal notice on 2..04.2023 to the defendant to repay the entire loan with terest but defendant neglected, hence, the applicant bank has approached this tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶24

5 Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendant and d spite proper service, the defendant has chosen to absent f om the proceedings. As per order dated 03.11.2025, the d fendant has been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared b fore the Tribunal nor written statement, evidence and a 'davit of assets have been filed.

¶25

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its idence by way of affidavit of Ms. Swathi Vajjhala, authorized

¶26

¶27

O.A. No.474 of 2023

¶28

presentative of the applicant bank who has proved the d•cuments as Board Resolution, Loan Applications, Loan A• reement, Sanction Letter, Facility Agreement, Notice a ongwith Postal Receipts, Delivery Reports, Certified S atement of Account under Banker's Books Evidence Act arked as Ex.AW-1/1 to Ex.AW-1/7.

¶29

7 The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments ade in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the applicant bank is based on the documents and the same have b-en duly proved.

¶30

8 The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and t ere is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant b nk and the applicant bank has proved its case beyond r asonable doubts.

¶31

9 In the light of the above discussions, the Original pplication deserves to be allowed.

¶32

ORDER

¶33

I, allow this OA and direct the defendant to pay to the applicant bank within a period of 30 days, a sum of s.35,24,250.76 (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs Twenty Four housand Two Hundred Fifty and paisa Seventy Six only) along ith pendentelite and future interest @18% per annum from t e date of filing this application till its realization with costs, f iling which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the s le of movable and immovable properties of the defendant.

¶34

I) The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent ti the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi.

¶35

¶36

O.A. No.474 of 2023

¶37

I I) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, RT I, Delhi on 26.04.2026.

¶38

I ) Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be s nt to all concerned free of cost.

¶39

c-^sd

¶40

(GOVIND BALLABli SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶41

ictated and pronounced in open court)

¶42

I ated: 26.02.2026

¶43

Hdfc Bank v. Rajen Kumar Mohanty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Rajen Kumar Mohanty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Gurdev Singh

Canara Bank versus Ramesh Kumar

Hdfc Bank versus Pukhraj Singh

Bank of Baroda versus Surekha

Mr Abdul Mannan And Anr. versus Axis Bank

State Bank of India versus Vipin