Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Mrs. Sarika Ravindra Jaid

DRT15 May 2026OA/550/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by HDFC Bank Limited for recovery of dues totaling Rs.33,55,228/- plus future interest from the defendants, who were borrowers defaulting on equipment and ECLGS loans. The tribunal adjusted the claim by deducting uncontested prepayment and bouncing charges but denied relief regarding hypothecated assets due to lack of evidence.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to jointly or severally pay Rs.33,55,228/- with future interest at 8.25% per annum from 13.03.2022; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Hdfc Bank versus Mrs. Sarika Ravindra Jaid — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

Presented on .. 13.03.2022 Registered on .. 18.05.2022 Decided on .. 15.05.2026 Duration .. Y—M—D 04--02--02

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 550/2022.

¶3

HDFC Bank Limited, A Banking Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its branch office inter alia at 21/6, Ground Floor, MIT Marathon, Bund Garden, Pune 411 001.

¶4

… Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

1 Mrs. Sarika Ravindra Jaid, At Post Chimbli, Taluka Khed, District Pune 412 105.

¶7

2 Mr. Ravindra Laxman Jaid, At Post Chimbli, Taluka Khed, District Pune 412 105. … Defendants

¶8

Appearances :-

¶9

For Applicant Advocate Pradip Yadav. For Defendants Ex parte.

¶10

Total Claim Amount – Rs.34,33,010/-

¶11

JUDGMENT ( Delivered on 15^th May, 2026 )

¶12

Sanap ( OA No. 550/2022 ) 1 of 5

¶13

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.34,33,010/- together with future interest @8.25% per annum from 18.02.2022 till realization of the entire dues from the defendants.

¶14

Brief facts of the application are as under :-

¶15

The defendants are borrowers. The defendants approached the applicant Bank for granting business loan and at the request of the defendants, the applicant Bank sanctioned the Equipment loan facility of Rs.29,30,000/- to the defendants vide Sanction Letter dated 05.04.2019. In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the defendants have executed necessary loan and security documents in favour of the applicant Bank. The defendants have also executed hypothecated Ashok Leyland 3118 bearing RTO Registration No.MH-14-HG9723.

¶16

The defendants again approached the applicant Bank for Emergency Credit Line Guarantee Scheme (ECLGS) as a part of comprehensive package announced by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India to aid eligible business enterprises/micro, small and medium enterprises in view of economic distress caused by the COVID 19 pandemic. At the request of the defendants,

¶17

Sanap ( OA No. 550/2022 ) 2 of 5

¶18

the applicant Bank sanctioned ECLGS of Rs.5,00,000/vide Sanction Letter dated 07.12.2020. The defendants have executed security documents in favour of the applicant Bank for the purpose of securing aforementioned facility.

¶19

The applicant Bank contended that the defendants committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the accounts. Therefore, on 13.12.2021, the applicant Bank issued legal Notice to the defendants. Despite service of Notice, the defendants failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank.

¶20

Hence, this application is filed.

¶21

The defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte against the defendants as per Order dated 16.03.2026 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶22

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Shri Amarjit Pandekar, Power of Attorney Holder of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW1-1 to AW1-8 along with list (Exhibit 7), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶23

Sanap ( OA No. 550/2022 ) 3 of 5

¶24

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

¶25

Since the defendants failed to appear and contest the application, I find no reason to disbelieve evidence of the applicant Bank. Therefore, the applicant Bank is entitled for reliefs as claimed.

¶26

The applicant Bank has claimed relief in respect of hypothecated assets. However, there is no document produced by the applicant Bank with respect to the hypothecated assets, therefore, the relief in terms of hypothecated assets cannot be granted.

¶27

The applicant Bank has claimed prepayment charges of Rs.65,155/- and cheque bouncing charges of Rs.6,255/- + Rs.6,372/-, which cannot be granted and the same is required to be deducted from the total claim amount. Therefore, the total claim amount of Rs.34,33,010/- is reduced to Rs.33,55,228/-.

¶28

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @8.25% per annum from 18.02.2022 till realization of the entire dues. Considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @8.25% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 13.03.2022 till full payment/realization of

¶29

Sanap ( OA No. 550/2022 ) 4 of 5

¶30

the dues, it would be just and reasonable rate of interest. Hence, I pass the following order.

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

A} Original Application No. 550/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶33

B} Defendant Nos.1 and 2 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.33,55,228/(Rupees Thirty Three Lakh Fifty Five Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Eight only) along with future interest @8.25% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 13.03.2022 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶34

C} Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶35

D} The Registrar is directed to send the copy of Judgment and Recovery Certificate to the applicant and defendants.

¶36

Sd/( Dilip G. Murumkar ) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date : 15.05.2026 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶37

Sanap ( OA No. 550/2022 ) 5 of 5

Hdfc Bank v. Mrs. Sarika Ravindra Jaid

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Mrs. Sarika Ravindra Jaid

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

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S v T Adaskar and Co. Prop Mr Vinod Tukaram Adaskar

The Cosmos Co-Op Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Nirmal Motors Prop. Mr. Anand Yashwant Barge

Canara Bank versus Vilas Gaikwad

State Bank of India versus Geetadevi

Canara Bank versus Dr. Rucha Amit Wagh Prop. of M/S Rugved Diagnostic

State Bank of India versus Rajesh Duble