Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Pinky Pari

DRT22 May 2026OA/490/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank’s original application for recovery of overdraft dues. Being an ex-parte case with no evidence filed by defendants, the Tribunal validated the bank's documents and ordered payment of the principal amount, interest, and costs from hypothecated assets or property sale.

What did the court decide?

Directing defendants to pay Rs. 47,47,895.52 along with interest and costs within 30 days; recovery certificate issued to Recovery Officer.

Hdfc Bank versus Pinky Pari — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

O.A. No. 490 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.490 of 2023

¶5

HDFC Bank Ltd.

¶6

Department for Special Operations 5th floor, Ansal Classique Tower Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-27

¶7

Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s Pinky Pari Proprietorship Concern of Mr. Saad Ulla Khan C-50, Gali No.1, New Govindpura Parwana Road, Khureji Khas Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051

¶10

Mr. Saad Ulla Khan s/o Sh.Abid Ulla Khan (Proprietor/Guarantor) C-50, Gali No.1, New Govindpura Parwana Road, Khureji Khas Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051

¶11

Mrs. Mahnaaz w/o Mr. Saad Ulla Khan (Guarantor)

¶12

C-50, Gali No.1, New Govindpura Parwana Road, Khureji Khas Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051 Defendants

¶13

Present: Mr. Ronnie S. Brara, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶14

Date of Reserve: 07.05.2026

¶15

Date of Pronouncement: 22.05.2026

¶16

FINAL ORDER

¶17

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 16.05.2023 through Sh. Ankush Saini, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of

O.A. No. 490 OF 2023

Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.47,47,895.52 (Rupees Forty Seven Lacs Forty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Five and paisa Fifty Two only) as on 31.01.2023 along with pendentelite and future interest @18% per annum from 01.02.2023 till the date of realization along with costs.

¶22

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the defendant no.1 through its proprietor being defendant no.2 vide loan application dated 16.10.2019 engaged in trading of ethnic wears, the applicant bank sanctioned Cash Credit facility for Rs.40.00 Lacs (Rupees Forty Lacs only) on 11.11.2019 @10.75% interest per annum against hypothecation of stocks and book debts. In addition, the applicant bank sanctioned GECL-WCTL facility of Rs.8,02,800/- @8.25% rate of interest per annum on 15.06.2020 as per Govt.of India guidelines due to Covid-19 pandemic by extension of second charge over existing securities. On the request of defendants, both limits were renewed on 12.01.2021 @9.60% rate of interest in Cash Credit account and @8.25% rate of interest in GECL-WCTL facility. The defendant no.3 stood as guarantor for the credit facilities sanctioned in favour of defendant no.1 by the applicant bank.

¶23

In order to avail the credit facilities, the defendant no.1 through defendant no.2 as proprietor submitted loan applications and executed Sole Proprietorship Declaration, Networth Certificates, Master Facility Agreement, Addendum Agreement, Deed of Hypothecation, Power of Attorney, Letter of Continuing Guarantee, Declaration and Request for acceptance of Fax & Email Instruction dated 09.11.2019. Further, to avail GECL-WCTL facility, the defendants executed

¶24

¶25

O.A. No. 490 OF 2023

¶26

Facility cum Hypothecation Agreement, Declaration cum Undertaking, Supplementary Letter of Continuing Guarantee by defendant no.2 and 3 in favour of applicant bank on various dates.

¶27

That in order to secure the loan facilities, the defendants hypothecated all the stock-in-trade, goods in process, finished goods etc. and all the book debts in favour of applicant bank.

¶28

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the credit facilities, the defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions of sanction by not serving the interest in the account and defaulted in repayment of principal debt for regularization of the account with the applicant bank. The applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 27.09.2022 as per applicable law and regulations. The applicant issued Loan Recall cum Guarantee Invocation notice dated 17.12.2022 to pay the dues but defendants failed to regularize the account, hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶29

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite of proper service, the defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 06.04.2026, the defendants have been declared ex-parte as not appeared before the Tribunal and even written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have not been filed by the defendants.

¶30

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Sh.Ankush Saini, authorized representative of the applicant bank, who has proved the documents such as Board Resolution, Company Profile, Loan Application Form with KYC documents, Sanction Letters, Sole

¶31

sd —

¶32

O.A. No. 490 OF 2023

¶33

Proprietorship Declaration, Networth Certificates, Master Facility Agreements, Addendum Agreement, Deed of Hypothecation, Power of Attorney, Letter of Continuing Guarantee, Declaration, Request for Acceptance of Fax & Email, Declaration cum Undertaking, Supplementary Letter of Continuing Guarantee, Request Letter, Loan Recall Notice with Service Receipts and Certificate under Bankers' Book of Evidence Act marked as Ex.AW-1/1 to Ex.AW-1/21 (Colly).

¶34

The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments made in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the applicant bank is based on the documents and the same have been duly approved.

¶35

The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and there is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant bank and the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts.

¶36

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

¶37

ORDER

¶38

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank within a period of 30 days, jointly or severally, a sum of Rs.47,47,895.52 (Rupees Forty Seven Lacs Forty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Five and paisa Fifty Two only) as on 31.01.2023 together with pendentelite and future interest @18% per annum with monthly rests from 01.02.2023 till the date of actual realization and costs; failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of

5c-/

O.A. No. 490 OF 2023

hypothecated stock and book debts etc. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶43

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

¶44

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 21.07.2026.

¶45

(IV) Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be sent to all concerned free of cost.

¶46

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

¶47

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 22.05.2026

Hdfc Bank v. Pinky Pari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Pinky Pari

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

Gurdeep Singh versus Hdfc Bank

Punjab National Bank versus Gomati Devi

Mr Victor Serrao versus Karnataka Bank Limited

M/S Amar Singh and Sons Tree Nuts LLP versus Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited

Poonam Devi versus India Shelter Finance Corporation Limited

Idfc First Bank Ltd. versus Ms Yo Yatra Tours and Travels Private Limited