Allowed

The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. v. Subhendu Kesh

DRT8 Apr 2026OA/550/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an application for recovery of ₹3.26 crore principal and interest from borrowers who defaulted on a home loan after service of summons was proved ineffective due to non-appearance.

What did the court decide?

Original Application allowed; respondents directed to pay ₹3.26 crore plus interest; mortgage properties secured; Recovery Certificate issued.

The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. versus… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.550 OF 2023

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL No.2, MUMBAI

¶3

PRESIDING OFFICER: HARISH KUMAR KAUSHIK

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.550 OF 2023

¶5

Date of Institution: 05.11.2020 Date of Decision: 08.04.2026

¶6

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT :

¶7

₹ 3,26,10,929.64/-

¶8

THE HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD. (HSBC), A global bank incorporated under the laws of United Kingdom, London, having their office at NESCO IT Park Bldg. no.3, 9^th , 10^th & 11^th Floor, NESCO Complex, Western Express Highway, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400 063 Through Mrs Rashmi Motiram Bame Versus

¶9

… Applicant

¶10

MR SUBHENDU KESH, (Principal Borrower) Residing at 1901 & 1908, 19^th Floor, Yarrow Yucca Vinca CHSL, Sec R-12, Nahar Amrit Shakti, Chandivali Farm Road, Chandivali Village, Mumbai-400 072. 2. MS ARPITA PANJA, (Co-borrower) Residing at 1901 & 1908, 19^th Floor, Yarrow Yucca Vinca

¶11

Page 1 of 8

¶12

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.550 OF 2023

¶13

CHSL, Sec R-12, Nahar Amrit Shakti, Chandivali Farm Road, Chandivali Village, Mumbai-400 072. …Defendants

¶14

APPEARANCES For the Applicant : Ms Pritee Tapdiya i/b M/s Bhide & Asso. - Advocate For Defendants : MS Dinkie V. – Advocate

¶15

J U D G M E N T

¶16

(1) This is an application under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of the Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 renamed as Recovery of the Debt and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (for short, ‘the 1993 Act’) to recover ₹3,26,10,929.64/- (Rupees Three Crores Twenty Six Lakhs Ten Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Nine and Paisa Sixty Four Only) with future interest @ 24% per annum with monthly rests thereon from the date of presentation of the Original Application i.e. 05.11.2020 till payment/realization and to enforce the mortgaged security.

¶17

The details of the claim amount are as under:-

¶18

Sr	Particu lars	Amount (i n₹)
No
1	Principal outstan di ng 30. 10.2014	2,22, 58,654. 61/-
2	Normal Inter est	72,82, 055. 78/ -
3	Pen al Interest (LL P)	30,70, 219. 25/ -
	Total am ou nt payable as on 26 .10.2020	3,26,10,9 29.6 4/-

¶19

Page 2 of 8

¶20

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.550 OF 2023

¶21

(2) It is undisputed fact in the matter that the Defendant nos.1 and 2 were duly served with the summons vide order-sheet dated 08.12.2023. Despite service, the defendants did not enter their appearance and therefore, they were set ex-parte on 21.07.2025. Ld. Advocate for Defendant appeared on 07.04.2026 and submitted that she is unable to argue as the defendant were wrongly set ex-parte. She repeatedly submitted even after reading the relevant order sheet dated 21.07.2025.

¶22

(3) Defendant no. 1 is the principal borrower who approached the Applicant Bank seeking financial assistance by way of Home Loan and Defendant no.2 is the co-applicant. Pursuant to the loan application dated 14.10.2014 made by defendants, the Applicant sanctioned the loan vide Sanction Letter dated 30.10.2014 in sum of ₹2,70,11,574/(Rupees Two Crores Seventy Lakhs Eleven Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Four Only) payable in 156 EMIs of ₹3,10,052/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Ten Thousand Fifty Two Only) with interest at the rate of 10% per annum floating interest (BR+0.30% per annum wherein Base Rate is 9.70% per annum). The instalments to meet working capital requirements of the unit. The 1^st instalment was to be paid on 15.11.2014 and last instalment on 15.10.2017.

¶23

Page 3 of 8

¶24

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.550 OF 2023

¶25

The details of the Sanction amount are as under: -

¶26

Sr	Date of	Amount	ROI	Secu rity
No	Sanction	(In₹)
1	30.10. 2014	2,70, 11,574	10%	Flat Nos. 19	01 & 19	08,	Yarrow
			p.a.	Yucca Vin ca	CHSL,	Sec	R -12,
				Nah ar Amrit	Sh akti,	Ch	an dival i
				Farm R oad,	Ch an div	ali	Vil lag e,
				Mumbai-400 0	72
	Total	2,70,11,5 74	-	-
	Amount

¶27

(4) On the dates given below, defendants signed and executed the loan and security documents as set out in paragraph nos. 5 (iv) page no.5 of the Original Application. Defendants mortgaged Flat Nos. 1901 & 1908 , Yarrow Yucca Vinca CHSL, Sec R-12, Nahar Amrit Shakti, Chandivali Farm Road, Chandivali Village, Mumbai -400 072 to secure the loan.

¶28

The details of the documents executed by the Defendants are as under: -

¶29

(a) Home Loan Application dated 14.10.2014;

¶30

(b) Accepted Facility Advice Letter dated 30.10.2014;

¶31

(c) Demand Promissory Note dated 30.10.2014 for an amount of ₹2,70,11,574/- (Rupees Two Crores Seventy Lakhs Eleven Thousand Five Hundred Seventy-Four Only);

¶32

(d) Certified Copy of Agreement for Sale by and between Mr Amardeep Bindra and Mr Subhendu Kesh & Mrs Arpita Panja dated

¶33

Page 4 of 8

¶34

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.550 OF 2023

¶35

04.04.2014 of Flat No.1901;

¶36

(e) Certified Copy of Agreement for Sale by and between Mr Parampreet Singh Bindra and Mr Subhendu Kesh & Mrs Arpita Panja dated 04.04.2014 of Flat No.1908;

¶37

(f) Notice of Intimation regarding Mortgage by way of Deposit of Title Deed to Sub-Registrar dated 28.10.2014.

¶38

(5) After availing the loan, defendants did not adhere to the financial discipline and committed default in payment of instalments and repayment of the loan and accordingly the accounts of the borrowers were declared as Non-Performing Assets (N.P.A.) on 16.01.2017 as per RBI Guidelines. Therefore, on 02.12.2017, the applicant, through its advocate, called upon defendants to liquidate the outstanding in the sum of ₹2,48,62,947.18/(Rupees Two Crores Forty-Eight Lakhs Sixty-Two Thousand Nine Hundred Forty-Seven and Paise Eighteen Only) outstanding as on 21.11.2017 together with interest @ 9.20% per annum from 22.11.2017 at monthly rests within 5 days within receipt of the said notice. Despite receipt of the said notice, defendant nos.1 and 2 failed and neglected to pay.

¶39

(6) As on 26.10.2020, there was owing, due and payable by defendants to the applicant the

¶40

Page 5 of 8

¶41

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.550 OF 2023

¶42

aggregate sum of ₹3,26,10,929.64/- (Rupees Three Crores Twenty-Six Lakhs Ten Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty-Nine and Paisa Sixty-Four Only). The applicant has maintained the loan ledger extract and the entries posted therein are made in the usual and ordinary course of the banking business.

¶43

(7) Since, defendants failed and neglected to make the payment, the applicant was left with no other alternate but to file the Original Application which was presented on 05.11.2020.

¶44

(8) The applicant has filed affidavit (exhibit-6) in lieu of examination in chief of Ms Rashmi Motiram Bame and list of documents (exhibit-7) thereby adducing in evidence the documents at AW-1 to AW-11, which are admitted in evidence, read, recorded and exhibited.

¶45

(9) Accordingly, in the Original Application was filed for the recovery of ₹3,26,10,929.64/- (Rupees Three Crores Twenty-Six Lakhs Ten Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty-Nine and Paisa Sixty-Four Only) with future interest @ 24% per annum with monthly rests thereon from the date of presentation of the Original Application i.e. 05.11.2020 till payment/realisation after adjusting the recoveries made by the Applicant under SARFAESI Act, 2002 or any other amount paid by the borrowers after filing of this present

¶46

Page 6 of 8

¶47

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.550 OF 2023

¶48

O.A. No.550 of 2023.

¶49

(10) The defendants had filed written statement wherein they have denied all the contentions raised by the Applicant bank but failed to file any documentary evidence in support of written statement.

¶50

(11) The Tribunal has scrutinised and examined the allegations contained in the Original Application and analysed the evidence adduced by the applicant which has gone unchallenged, uncontroverted and unrebutted.

¶51

(12) Upon careful scrutiny and the examination of the Original Application, analysing the evidence and giving due weightage to the documentary evidence adduced by the applicant, the Tribunal views that there is no reason to disbelieve the claim made by the applicant bank.

¶52

(13) In view of the observations made hereinabove, Original Application filed by the applicant deserves to be allowed.

¶53

(14) Hence, the following order:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

(A) The Original Application No.550 of 2023 is allowed with costs.

¶56

(B) Defendant nos.1 and 2 are ordered and directed to pay to the applicant, either jointly or severally, the aggregate sum of ₹3,26,10,929.64/- (Rupees Three Crores Twenty-Six Lakhs Ten Thousand

¶57

Page 7 of 8

¶58

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.550 OF 2023

¶59

Nine Hundred Twenty-Nine and Paisa Sixty-Four Only) with future simple interest @ 12% per annum thereon from the date of presentation of the Original Application i.e. 05.11.2020 till payment/realization after adjusting the recoveries made by the Applicant under SARFAESI Act, 2002 or any other amount paid by the borrowers after filing of this present O.A. No.550 of 2023.

¶60

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting immovable mortgaged properties, that is, Flat Nos.1901 & 1908 , Yarrow Yucca Vinca CHSL, Sec R-12, Nahar Amrit Shakti, Chandivali Farm Road, Chandivali Village, Mumbai-400 072.

¶61

(D) Defendant nos.1 and 2 are entitled to redeem the mortgaged properties as per law failing which the applicant has right to proceed to sell the mortgaged properties and recover dues as per law.

¶62

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶63

(F) The learned Registrar is directed to send a copy of the judgment and recovery certificate to (i) the applicant, (ii) defendant and (iii) the Recovery Officer by post and email.

¶64

(Harish Kumar Kaushik)

¶65

Presiding Officer, DRT-2, Mumbai

¶66

Page 8 of 8

The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. v. Subhendu Kesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. v. Subhendu Kesh

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

Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank) versus Gaurav Deviprasad Mishra

Mr Sirajuddin Hafizulla Khan versus Bharat Cooperative Bank Mumbai Limited

Bank of India versus Noble Travels and Transport Private Limited

Union Bank of India versus Jigna Devang

Mr Stephen Jayakar Kariyanna versus Syndicate Bank

Nirmal Lifestyle Ltd. versus Punjab and Sind Bank