Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Mita Manoj Kumat

DRT19 Aug 2026OA/584/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal considered an application by HDFC Bank for recovery of a term loan defaulting on repayment terms. The respondents appeared ex-parte. The Tribunal allowed the application, awarding principal dues at 7% simple interest and directing recovery via hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Awarded principal sum of Rs. 23,17,885.75/- plus future interest at 7% p.a. simple interest from filing date, secured by hypothecated assets.

Hdfc Bank versus Mita Manoj Kumat — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

Presented on: 04.09.2025 Registered on: 26.09.2025 Decided on: 19.08.2026 Duration: Y M D 00 11 15

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Shri Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 584/2025

¶3

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 23,17,885.75/-

¶4

HDFC Bank Ltd.,

¶5

A Registered Company, Having its Registered Office at HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, (West), Mumbai. And having its branch office at HDFC Bank Ltd., W. B. O. Mansingh Complex, CTS No. 3294, Janmer Road, Opp. Csm Complex, Bhusawal425201. Through its Authorized Signatory, And Power of Attorney Holder, Shri. Somnath Madhavrao Kanadje, Age: 32 Years, Occu: Service, R/o: C/o. HDFC Bank Ltd., Renuka Commercial Complex, Nirala Bazar, Chh. Sambhajinagar.

¶6

… Applicant

¶7

E-Mail: [email protected]

¶8

Mobile No.: 9175948872.

(OA No. 584-2025)

Page 1 of 8

[Ambadas]

Versus

1. Mita Manoj Kumat, … Defendants

¶14

Age: Major, Occ. : Agri,

¶15

R/o: At post Pachora Road, Anantwadi,

¶16

Tal. Jamner, Dist. Jalgaon- 424203.

¶17

PAN: AZRPK0999E.

¶18

Mobile No.: 9404050526.

¶19

E-mail ID: [email protected] 2. Harsh Manoj Kumat,

¶20

Age: Major, Occ.: Agri, R/o: At post Pachora Road, Anantwadi, Tal. Jamner, Dist. Jalgaon- 424203.

¶21

PAN: LCEPK4114N.

¶22

Mobile No.: 7038044000.

¶23

E-mail ID: [email protected]

¶24

APPEARANCES

¶25

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

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

Delivered on (19.08.2026)

¶28

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for

(OA No. 584-2025)

Page 2 of 8

[Ambadas]

recovery of the sum of Rs. 23,17,885.75/- (Rs. Twenty-Three Lakhs, Seventeen Thousand, Eight Hundred Eighty-Five and Seventy-Five Paisa Only) together with interest with monthly rests in respect of Term Loan from 25.03.2025 till the full realization of the entire dues and costs from the Defendants.

¶33

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶34

That the Defendants approached the Applicant Bank and requested for the sanction of Term Loan. Upon considering the Defendant’s representation, request and financial needs, the Applicant Bank sanctioned the Term Loan of Rs. 23,00,000/- for the purpose of agriculture/ farm/ land development vide sanction letter dated 17.01.2024 on certain terms & conditions.

¶35

The agreed rate of interest for the Term Loan was @11% p.a. with monthly rests.

¶36

In order to secure the aforesaid Term Loan, the Defendants executed loan documents in favour of the Applicant Bank namely sanction letter, demand promissory note, request letter,

(OA No. 584-2025)

Page 3 of 8

[Ambadas]

hypothecation agreement, letter of undertaking etc.

¶41

The Applicant Bank contended that, in order to secure the term loan, the Defendants executed a Agreement for term loan Cum Guarantee Cum Hypothecation dated 17.01.2024, in respect of the following hypothecation in favour of the Applicant Bank:

¶42

Description of the Hypothecated assets:

¶43

All agricultural produce, present and future, drought and

¶44

milch, cattle and other animals, birds and other livestock’s,

¶45

tools equipment’s machines, tractors, power tiller/

¶46

tube well/ electric motor/ diesel engine and other movables.

¶47

The Applicant Bank further contended that the Defendants failed to keep their promises and commitments agreed by them with regard to 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

(OA No. 584-2025)

Page 4 of 8

[Ambadas]

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. Therefore on 08.04.2025, the Applicant Bank issued legal notice to the Defendants through their Advocate. Despite service of Notice, the Defendants failed and neglected to repay the outstanding dues of the Applicant Bank. Hence, this application is filed.

¶52

Despite service, the Defendants neither appeared nor filed WS. Hence, the Defendants proceeded ex-parte vide Order dated 04.05.2026.

¶53

The Applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence at Exhibit-4 of Mr. Somnath S/o. Madhavrao Kanadje, Officer of the Applicant Bank and has produced on record the original 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.

¶54

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

(OA No. 584-2025)

Page 5 of 8

[Ambadas]

Since the Defendants failed to file written statement and did not 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.

¶59

The Applicant Bank has claimed future interest at @11% p.a. with monthly rests on loan from 25.03.2025 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 @7% per annum (simple) on outstanding amount, it would be just and reasonable. Hence, I pass the following order.

¶60

ORDER

¶61

(A) Original Application No. 584/2025 is allowed with costs.

¶62

(B) The Defendants shall pay jointly and severally to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 23,17,885.75/- (Rs. Twenty-Three Lakhs, Seventeen Thousand, Eight Hundred Eighty-Five and Seventy-Five Paisa Only)

(OA No. 584-2025)

Page 6 of 8

[Ambadas]

along-with future interest at @7% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the Original Application, i.e., 04.09.2025, till full payment/ realization of the said amount.

¶67

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by hypothecated asset in favour of the Applicant Bank vide document Exh. AW-1/4 in list of Documents Exh.5. The hypothecated assets are described as follows:

¶68

Description of the Hypothecated assets: All agricultural produce present and future, drought and milch, cattle and other animals, birds and other livestock’s, tools equipment’s, machines, tractors, power tiller/ tube well/ electric motor/ diesel engine and other movables. (D) The Applicant Bank is entitled to sell the hypothecated assets/ articles/goods etc., to recover its dues.

¶69

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

(OA No. 584-2025)

Page 7 of 8

[Ambadas]

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

¶74

(G) File be consigned to the record room.

¶75

Sd/-

¶76

Place : Aurangabad Date : 19.08.2026

¶77

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

¶78

(OA No. 584-2025)

¶79

Page 8 of 8

¶80

[Ambadas]

Hdfc Bank v. Mita Manoj Kumat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Mita Manoj Kumat

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

Axis Bank versus Ayyub Sikandar Shaikh

Icici Bank Limited versus Mr. Shaikh Hasham Shaikh Hakim

Bank of Maharashtra versus Shantilal Vishnupant Shejwal

Union Bank of India versus Ms Bombay Engineering Company

Central Bank of India versus M/S Sai Yog Agency

Punjab National Bank versus Ashfaque Mukhtar Shaikkh