Allowed

Bank of India v. Hammad Travels

DRT19 Feb 2026OA/586/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Recover Application filed by Bank of India against borrowers of a car loan. Being the amounts undisputed and evidence uncontroverted, the court directed payment of principal and interest. It further directed the security vehicle be realized to satisfy the dues.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to jointly or severally pay 26,50,696.57 with interest at 11.60% p.a.; declared hypothecated vehicle as security; issued Recovery Certificate.

Bank of India versus Hammad Travels — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.586 OF 2023

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL No.2, MUMBAI

¶3

PRESIDING OFFICER: HARISH KUMAR KAUSHIK

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.586 OF 2023

¶5

Date of Institution: 03.04.2023 Date of Decision: 19.02.2026

¶6

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT :

¶7

₹ 26,50,696.57/-

¶8

BANK OF INDIA,

¶9

A Body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act V of 1970, having their Head Office at Star House, C-5, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai400 051 and one of its Branch Office amongst other known as Vile Parle (West) Branch, situated at 377, Smit Kiran Building, S.V.Road, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai-400 056 through its Authorised Representative Mr Ranvir Kumar, Chief Manager of the Applicant. … Applicant

¶10

Versus

¶11

1. M/S.HAMMAD TRAVELS, A Proprietorship concern having address at Room No.3, Athar Chawl, Azmi Nagar, Near Akashwani Centre, Malvani Gate No.7, Malad (West), Mumbai-400 095.

¶12

Page 1 of 8

¶13

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.586 OF 2023

¶14

MR MOHAMMED SIKANDER, Proprietor of M/s. Hammad Travels Age- Not Known, Adult, Indian Inhabitant having address at Room No.3, Athar Chawl, Azmi Nagar, Near Akashwani Centre, Malvani Gate No.7, Malad (West), Mumbai-400 095.

¶15

…Defendants

¶16

APPEARANCES For the Applicant : Mr Prashant Shinde i/b. M/s A.B. Shinde & Co.- Advocate For Defendants : None

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

(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 ₹26,50,696.57/- (Rupees Twenty-Six Lakhs Fifty Thousand Six Hundred Ninety-Six and paisa Fifty-Seven Only) due Term Loan (Car Loan) Account No.005872310000075 with further interest @ 11.60% per annum thereon from the date of presentation of the Original Application i.e. 03.04.2023 till payment/realization and to enforce the hypothecated security.

¶19

Page 2 of 8

¶20

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.586 OF 2023

¶21

The details of the claim amount are as under: -

¶22

S Na ture o f Fa cil it y	O/ s. am ount	U na p pl i ed	T otal A m o unt
r		int er e st @
N		11. 60% pe r
o		a nn um
1 Ter m L oa n (Ca r L oa n)	₹14,17 ,480. 90/-	₹12,33 ,215. 6 7/ -	₹2 6 , 5 0, 6 96. 57 /-
Acco unt No .0 0 5 87 231 0 00 00 75

¶23

(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 21.10.2024. Despite service, the defendants did not enter their appearance and therefore, they were set ex-parte on 17.02.2026.

¶24

(3) Defendant no.1 are the borrowers who approached the Applicant Bank and sought financial assistance by way of Term Loan (Car Loan) (SRTO Auto Scheme) Account No.005872310000075 Facility. Pursuant to the loan application made by defendants, the Applicant sanctioned the loan vide Sanction Letter dated 03.02.2015 in sum of ₹13,90,000/(Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Ninety Thousand Only) payable in 60 EMIs of ₹31,415/(Rupees Thirty-One Thousand Four Hundred Fifteen Only) with interest at the rate of 2.50% over Base rate equivalent to 12.70%.

¶25

The details of the Sanction amount are as under: -

¶26

Sr	Date o f Sa nc t i o n	Am ou nt	R OI	S ec ur it y
No
1	03 . 02 . 20 15	₹13, 90, 000/ -	@ 2. 50 %	H yp ot hec at e d Vehi c le

¶27

Page 3 of 8

¶28

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.586 OF 2023

¶29

		over Bas e	Re g is t	r a t io n no. M H -0 2 - CR -
		r ate	3 5 03	nam el y M ar ut i Sw if t
		eq uivale nt	Dz ir e	E n gi ne no.2 426 3 72
		to 12.7 0%	Cha s si	s no . 58 743 6
Tot a l Am o unt	₹13, 9 0, 00 0/-	-	-

¶30

(4) On the dates given below, defendants signed and executed the loan and security documents as set out in paragraph nos. (C) to (F) of the Original Application. Defendants hypothecated Vehicle Registration no. MH-02-CR-3503 namely Maruti Swift Dzire Engine no.2426372 Chassis no.587436 to secure the loan.

¶31

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

¶32

(a) Sanction Letter dated 03.02.2015;

¶33

(b) Demand Promissory Note dated 04.02.2015 for an amount of ₹13.90 Lakhs Only;

¶34

¶35

(d) Loan Installment Letter dated 04.02.2015; (e) Non-Relationship Declaration dated 04.02.2015;

¶36

(f) Hypothecation cum loan Agreement dated 04.02.2015;

¶37

(g) Composite Agreement dated 04.02.2015;

¶38

(h) Copy of Certificate of Registration issued by Regional Transport Office dated 27.02.2015;

¶39

(i) Acknowledgement of Debt/Security for the

¶40

Page 4 of 8

¶41

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.586 OF 2023

¶42

Term Loan executed by Defendants dated 04.01.2018;

¶43

(j) Acknowledgement of Debt/Security for the Term Loan executed by Defendants dated 05.01.2021.

¶44

(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 30.09.2015 as per RBI Guidelines. Therefore, on 25.01.2022, the applicant, through its advocate, called upon defendants to liquidate the outstanding in the sum of ₹14,15,730.90/(Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Fifteen Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty and paisa Ninety Only) due under Term Loan with further interest at the rate of 11.30% p.a. with monthly rest plus 2% p.a. penal interest due from 30.09.2015 till payment and/or realization within 11 days from receipt of this notice. Despite notice, defendant nos. 1 and 2 failed and neglected to pay.

¶45

(6) As on 03.04.2023, there was owing, due and payable by defendants to the applicant the aggregate sum of ₹26,50,696.57/(Rupees Twenty-Six Lakhs Fifty Thousand Six Hundred Ninety-Six and paisa Fifty-Seven Only) due Term

¶46

Page 5 of 8

¶47

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.586 OF 2023

¶48

Loan (Car Loan) Account No.005872310000075 with further interest @ 11.60% per annum thereon. 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.

¶49

(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 03.04.2023.

¶50

(8) The applicant has filed affidavit (exhibit-6) in lieu of examination in chief of Mr Ravi Shankar Gupta, Senior Manager and list of documents (exhibit-7) thereby adducing in evidence the documents at AW-1 to AW-18, which are admitted in evidence, read, recorded and exhibited.

¶51

(9) Accordingly, in the Original Application was filed for the recovery of ₹26,50,696.57/(Rupees Twenty-Six Lakhs Fifty Thousand Six Hundred Ninety-Six and paisa Fifty-Seven Only) due Term Loan (Car Loan) Account No.005872310000075 with further interest @ 11.60% per annum thereon from the date of presentation of the Original Application i.e. 03.04.2023 till payment/realisation.

¶52

(10) The Tribunal has scrutinised and examined the allegations contained in the Original Application and analysed the evidence adduced by the

¶53

Page 6 of 8

¶54

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.586 OF 2023

¶55

applicant which has gone unchallenged, uncontroverted and unrebutted.

¶56

(11) 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.

¶57

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

¶58

(13) Hence, the following order:

¶59

ORDER

¶60

(A) The Original Application No.586 of 2023 is allowed with costs.

¶61

(B) Defendant no.1 through its Defendant no.2 i.e. its proprietor are ordered and directed to pay to the applicant, either jointly or severally, the aggregate sum of ₹26,50,696.57/- (Rupees Twenty-Six Lakhs Fifty Thousand Six Hundred Ninety-Six and paisa Fifty-Seven Only) due Term Loan (Car Loan) Account No.005872310000075 with further simple interest @ 11.60% per annum thereon from the date of presentation of the Original Application i.e. 03.04.2023 till payment/realization.

¶62

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting hypothecated property, that is, Vehicle Registration no. MH-02-CR-3503

¶63

Page 7 of 8

¶64

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.586 OF 2023

¶65

namely Maruti Swift Dzire Engine no.2426372 Chassis no.587436.

¶66

(D) Defendant no.1 through its Defendant no.2 i.e. its proprietor are entitled to redeem the hypothecated property as per law failing which the applicant has right to proceed to sell the hypothecated property and recover dues as per law.

¶67

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶68

(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.

¶69

Sd/-

¶70

(Harish Kumar Kaushik)

¶71

Presiding Officer, DRT-2, Mumbai

¶72

Page 8 of 8

Bank of India v. Hammad Travels

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Hammad Travels

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

Idbi Bank versus Omark International

Aakash Bhalchandra Thokal versus Central Bank of India

Shri Debasish Bhattacharjee versus Anand Rathi Global Finance Limited

Federal Bank versus Sunil Narayan Kamble

Bank of India versus Manoharlal Ganeshdutta Kanda

Boston Garments Private Limited versus Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited