Allowed

Hdfc Bank Limited v. M/S Mahal Commission Agent and Others

DRT3 Jun 2026OA/636/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application for recovery of Rs. 70,96,986.00 deemed due from the respondents. The court declared the respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the principal sum along with simple interest at 8.00% p.a. and directed enforcement through sale of mortgaged assets.

What did the court decide?

Respondents declared liable to jointly and severally pay Rs. 70,96,986.00 plus costs and 8.00% p.a. simple interest, with recovery via sale of mortgaged property under SARFAESI Act.

Hdfc Bank Limited versus M/S Mahal Commission Agent and Others — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.636/2023

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 18.08.2022

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 03.06.2026

¶6

HDFC Bank Limited having its Registered Office at Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400013 and also at Plot no. 28, HDFC Bank House, Industrial Area, Phase 1, Chandigarh through its Authorized Representative, Sh. Rajendra Prasad

¶7

… …..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/S Mahal Commission Agent, Focal Point, VPO Bamial, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur, Punjab

¶10

Sh. Lakha Singh, Proprietor M/S Mahal Commission Agent, R/o H.O. 1, Dulo Bhalial, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur, Punjab

¶11

Smt. Harjit Kaur, W/o Sh. Lakha Singh, R/o H.O. 1, Dulo Bhalial, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur, Punjab

¶12

…Defendants

¶13

Advocates:

¶14

Argued by Ms. Pinki, Advocate proxy for Ms. Dipti Toni, Advocate for applicant

¶15

None for defendant no. 1 (already ex-parte vide order dated 31.12.2024)

¶16

None for defendant nos. 2 and 3

¶17

FINAL ORDER

¶18

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 70,96,986.00 (Rupees Seventy Lacs Ninety Six Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Six Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Rajendra Prasad, Authorized Representative o f the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 16.10.2021, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶19

2 OA/636/2023 HDFC BANK LIMITED VS. M/S MAHAL COMMISSION AGENT AND OTHERS

¶20

The brief facts of the OA are that defendant no. 1 through its Proprietor defendant no. 2 approached the applicant for grant of ODAP Facility of Rs. 40.00 Lacs vide Loan Application Form, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. Thereafter, defendant no. 1 through its Proprietor defendant no. 2 again approached the applicant for grant of Term Loan of Rs. 6,32,417.00. Thereafter, defendant no. 1 through its Proprietor defendant no. 2 approached the applicant for enhancement of ODAP Facility to Rs. 55.00 Lacs. Thereafter, defendant no. 1 through its Proprietor defendant no. 2 approached the applicant for grant of GECL Limit of Rs. 11.18 Lacs. Thereafter, defendant no. 1 through its Proprietor defendant no. 2 approached the applicant for renewal of ODAP Facility of Rs. 50.20 Lacs, Term Loan of Rs. 6,32,417.00 and GECL Limit of Rs. 11.18 Lacs.

¶21

The applicant sanctioned ODAP Facility of Rs. 35.00 Lacs and Term Loan of Rs. 6,32.417.00 and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. Thereafter, the applicant sanctioned enhancement of ODAP Facility to Rs. 55.00 Lacs vide Sanction Letter dated 04.11.2014, which is Annexure A11 to this OA. Thereafter, the applicant sanctioned GECL Limit of Rs. 11.18 Lacs vide Sanction Letter dated 22.06.2020, which is Annexure A20 to this OA. Thereafter, the applicant sanctioned renewal of ODAP Facility of Rs. 50.20 Lacs, Term Loan of Rs. 6,32,417.00 and GECL Limit of Rs. 11.18 Lacs vide Sanction Letter dated 30.12.2021, which is Annexure A18 to this OA. Defendant nos. 2 and 3 stood as guarantors in all the loan accounts. 4. Defendant no. 3 mortgaged her immovable property i.e. Land measuring 36K 14M situated at House no. 1, Village Dulo Bhalial, District Pathankot, Punjab vide Sale Deed filed on 29.05.2026 in compliance of order dated 11.05.2026 and Memorandum dated 04.11.2014, which are Annexure A23 to A25 to this OA.

¶22

Documents executed: Facility Agreement, Letter Continuing Guarantee, Letter of Continuing Security and DP Notice, all dated 07.11.2013, which are Annexure A3 to A6 to this OA; Bank Guarantee dated 09.11.2013, which is Annexure A7 to this OA; Term Loan Agreement, Supplementary Agreement and Addendum, all dated 21.06.2021, which are Annexure A8 to A10 to this OA;

¶23

3 OA/636/2023 HDFC BANK LIMITED VS. M/S MAHAL COMMISSION AGENT AND OTHERS

¶24

Supplementary Letter of Continuing Guarantee, Supplementary Agreements, Letter of Continuing Guarantee, Declaration cum Guarantee and DP Note, all dated 04.11.2014, which are Annexure A12 to A15 and A17 to this OA; Bank Guarantee, which is Annexure A16 to this OA; Addendum dated 29.10.2019, which is Annexure A19 to this OA; Facility cum Hypothecation Agreement and Declaration, both dated 22.06.2020, which are Annexure A21 and A22 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 25.07.2022 along with postal receipts, which are Annexure A26 to A29 to this OA; Statements of Accounts, which are Annexure A30 to A32 to this OA.

¶25

The loan accounts became irregular and were classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan accounts there was a debit of Rs. 70,96,986.00, which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notice but they did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 6. The defendants were served summons to appear before this Tribunal and after service upon defendants, Sh. Viren Sibal, Advocate appeared on behalf of defendant nos. 2 and 3 on 31.12.2024 and filed Power of Attorney. Paper book was supplied but no WS was filed. Therefore, opportunity to file WS by defendant nos. 2 and 3 was closed and defence was struck off vide order dated 06.12.2025. None appeared on behalf of defendant no. 1. Therefore, defendant no. 1 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 31.12.2024. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Rajendra Prasad, Manager Legal, HDFC Bank Limited, h as been filed. 8. Heard arguments and perused record. 9. It was argued by learned proxy counsel that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case. From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A32 to this OA, it is proved that defendant no. 1 through its Proprietor defendant no. 2 approached applicant for availing of the loan facilities, which were granted to them. Defendant nos. 2 and 3 stood as guarantors in all the loan accounts. Defendants had executed all the relevant documents in

¶26

4 OA/636/2023 HDFC BANK LIMITED VS. M/S MAHAL COMMISSION AGENT AND OTHERS

¶27

favour of the bank. The defendants failed to pay back the loans as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, the loan accounts were classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 70,96,986.00 (Rupees Seventy Lacs Ninety Six Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Six Only) along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the amount.

¶28

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @10.05%p.a. from the date of filing of the application till the realization.

¶29

The Tribunal is of the considered opinion that sometimes in appropriate cases the prerogative of mercy is the brightest jewel in the crown of the Judge. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case including nature of the hypothecated assets/mortgaged property, undertaking of the defendants, quantum of loans and prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yester years, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant simple interest @8.00% p.a. in all the loan accounts from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶30

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.70,96,986.00 (Rupees Seventy Lacs Ninety Six Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Six Only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00% p.a. in all the loan accounts from the date of filing of OA till the date of realization of the amount. Accordingly, the applicant shall be entitled to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of mortgaged property of defendant no. 3 in execution proceedings if not sold earlier under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. If the dues of the applicant still remain unsatisfied, it shall be entitled to recover the same by attachment and sale of personal

¶31

5 OA/636/2023 HDFC BANK LIMITED VS. M/S MAHAL COMMISSION AGENT AND OTHERS

¶32

assets of the defendants. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶33

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶34

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶35

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 24.06.2026.

¶36

Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant and be sent to defendants through registered/speed post and this order be also uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal and record be consigned.

¶37

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal .

¶38

Dated: 03.06.2026

¶39

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶40

Presiding Officer,

¶41

DRT-III, Chandigarh

Hdfc Bank Limited v. M/S Mahal Commission Agent and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Limited v. M/S Mahal Commission Agent and Others

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

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Sanjay and Another

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Vishkarma Roadways and Others

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Sh. Inderjit Singh and Another

Union Bank of India versus Sh. GURDHian Singh

Bank of India versus Sh. Pargat Singh and Another

Capital Small Finance Bank Limited versus Sh. Pipal Singh and Others