Allowed

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. Javed Kayyum Sawdagar

DRT9 Jan 2026OA/504/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte order under an Original Application, the Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed HDFC Bank Ltd.'s claim for recovery of a credit loan facility from borrowers Javed Kayyum Sawdagar and Hafiz Sikandar Kakar, acknowledging hypothecated assets as security.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs. 32,85,848 with interest at 9% p.a. from filing date; Recovery Certificate issued; Sale of hypothecated vehicle permitted to recover dues.

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Javed Kayyum Sawdagar — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

Presented on: 31.03.2024 Registered on: 05.07.2024 Decided on: 09.01.2026 Duration: Y M D 01 09 09

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD

¶3

(Before Shri Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.504/2024

¶4

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 32,85,848/-

¶5

HDFC Bank Ltd.

¶6

A Registered Company, Having its Registered

¶7

Office at HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, (West), Mumbai. And having its Branch office at Station Road, Opp.

¶8

Panchayat Samiti, Vaijapur, Aurangabad423701. Through its Authorized Signatory Shri. Rahul S/o. Tatyasaheb Gade, Age: 41

¶9

… Applicant

¶10

Years, Occ.: Service, R/o. C/o. HDFC Bank Ltd.,

(OA No.504-2024)

Page 1 of 9

[Ambadas]

1^st Floor, Renuka Commercial Complex, Nirala

¶15

Bazar, Aurangabad.

¶16

Mobile:-9421800308.

¶17

E-mail:- [email protected]

¶18

Versus

¶19

Javed Kayyum Sawdagar, … Defendant's

¶20

Age: 40 Years, Occ. : Business, R/o. Shahbazpura, Badi Masjid, H.No. 3394,

¶21

Near Maharashtra Bank, Vaijapur, District Aurangabad-423701.

¶22

Mobile:- 9096298002.

¶23

PAN:- BWPPS0224Q.

¶24

Hafiz Sikandar Kakar,

¶25

Age: 33 Years, Occ. : Business/Agri, R/o. Haldi Galli, Near H.D. Urdu School,

(OA No.504-2024)

Page 2 of 9

[Ambadas]

Vaijapur, Tq. Vaijapur,

¶30

District Aurangabad-423701.

Mobile:- 9764418888.

PAN:- CTHPK8057K.

APPEARANCES

For the Applicant Mr. Umesh N. Shete - Advocate For Defendants Ex-parte

¶35

J U D G M E N T Delivered on (09.01.2026)

¶36

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs. 32,85,848/- (Rs. Thirty-Two Lakhs, Eighty-Five Thousand, Eight Hundred and Forty-Eight Only) together with interest @9.50% on Credit Loan facility from 06.03.2024 till the full realization of the entire dues and costs from the Defendants.

¶37

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶38

That the Defendants approached the Applicant Bank and

(OA No.504-2024)

Page 3 of 9

[Ambadas]

requested for the sanction of a Credit Loan Facility. Upon considering the Defendant’s representation, request and financial needs, the Applicant Bank sanctioned the Credit loan Facility of Rs.29,00,015/- (Rs. Twenty-Nine Lakhs and Fifteen Only) for the purpose of Purchase and against hypothecation of vehicle Ashok Leyland 2518 Tipper. Vide sanction letter dated 03.09.2019, executed by Defendants on certain terms & conditions.

¶43

The agreed rate of Fixed interest for the Credit loan facility was @9.50% p.a. with monthly rests.

¶44

In order to secure the aforesaid Credit Loan facility, the Defendants executed loan documents in favour of the applicant bank namely sanction letter, demand promissory note, request letter, hypothecation agreement, letter of undertaking etc.

¶45

The applicant bank contended that to secure the Credit Loan facility, the Defendants have executed Agreement for Loan and Guarantee dated 26.09.2019, of the following

(OA No.504-2024)

Page 4 of 9

[Ambadas]

property/hypothecation in favour of the applicant bank:

¶50

Description of Hypothecated Assets:-

¶51

Ashok Leyland 2518 Tipper registered with Registration No. MH-20-EL-2949, Chassis No. MB1HTLHD4KPDK2939

¶52

And Engine No. KDPZ124884.

¶53

The applicant Bank further contended that the Defendants failed to keep their promises and commitments agreed by them with regard to the due repayment of the loan amount. The Defendants failed to operate the loan account properly and failed to pay the agreed rate of interest as per terms and conditions of the sanction letter. Thereafter the applicant bank repeatedly made demand of loan amount and called upon the Defendants to pay with the agreed rate of interest thereon, but the Defendants failed and neglected to pay the same. The loan account of the Defendants became irregular and classified as NPA 30.04.2023. Therefore, the applicant Bank issued legal notice to the

(OA No.504-2024)

Page 5 of 9

[Ambadas]

Defendants through their Advocate on 15.02.2023. Despite service of Notice, the Defendants failed and neglected to repay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank. Hence, this application is filed.

¶58

Service Affidavit has been filed Vide Exh. 09. Despite Service, The defendants did not appear. Hence, they were proceeded ex-parte vide Order dated 06.02.2025.

¶59

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence at Exhibit-4 of Mr. Rahul S/o Tatyasaheb Gade, Officer of the applicant bank and has produced on record the copies of loan transaction documents as per Exh. AW-1/1 to AW-1/6 alongwith List of documents Exh.5 which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank. The applicant Bank has also filed original loan documents as Exh. AW-1/1 to AW-1/6 along-with Affidavit Exh.10 of Smita Manoj Ghadmode, authorized officer of the bank.

¶60

I have heard arguments of the learned Advocate for the applicant Bank.

¶61

Since the Defendants failed to filed written statement and

(OA No.504-2024)

Page 6 of 9

[Ambadas]

contest the application, I find no reason to disbelieve the unrebutted evidence of the applicant Bank. Therefore, the applicant Bank is entitled for the reliefs as claimed.

¶66

The Applicant Bank has claimed future interest at @9.50% p.a. with monthly rests on loan from 06.03.2024 till the full realization of the entire dues and costs from the Defendants. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that awarding future interest at @9% per annum (simple) on outstanding amount, it would be just and reasonable.

¶67

Hence, I pass the following order.

¶68

ORDER

¶69

(A) Original Application No. 504/2024 is allowed with costs.

¶70

(B) The Defendants shall pay Jointly and Severally to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 32,85,848/- (Rs. ThirtyTwo Lakhs, Eighty-Five Thousand, Eight Hundred and Forty-Eight Only) along-with future interest at @9%

(OA No.504-2024)

Page 7 of 9

[Ambadas]

per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the Original Application, i.e., 31.03.2024, till full payment/ realization of the said amount.

¶75

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by Hypothecation Agreement in favour of the Applicant Bank vide document Exh.AW-1/3 and Exh. AW-1/4 along-with Affidavit Exh.10.

¶76

Description of Hypothecation :-

¶77

Ashok Leyland 2518 Tipper registered

¶78

With Registration No. MH-20-EL-2949,

¶79

Chassis No.MB1HTLHD4KPDK2939 And

¶80

Engine No. KDPZ124884.

¶81

(D) The applicant Bank is entitled to sell the hypothecated Vehicles/ articles/goods etc., to recover its dues.

¶82

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

(OA No.504-2024)

Page 8 of 9

[Ambadas]

(F) The Registrar is directed to send the copy of the Judgment and Recovery Certificate to the applicant and Defendants.

¶87

(G) File be consigned to the record room.

¶88

Sd/-

¶89

Place : Aurangabad Date : 09.01.2026

¶90

(Dr. J. R. Chauhan) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶91

(OA No.504-2024)

¶92

Page 9 of 9

¶93

[Ambadas]

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. Javed Kayyum Sawdagar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. Javed Kayyum Sawdagar

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

Hdfc Bank versus Rasul Gulab Shaikh

Union Bank of India versus Rajendra Trymbak Patil

Icici Bank Limited versus Bapu Sukhdeo Pawar

Idbi Bank versus Mr. Yogesh Rohidas Mali

State Bank of India versus M/S Jagdamba Steel

State Bank of India versus Mr. Ravindra Babulal Jain