Allowed

Hdfc Bank Limited v. M/S Value Max Clothing and Another

DRT29 Jan 2026OA/766/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's original application filed under Section 19 RDB Act. The court directed defendants to jointly and severally pay the outstanding loan amount of Rs. 27.40 Lacs with simple interest at 8.00%p.a. The order authorized recovery via sale of hypothecated assets or personal attachment under SARFAESI.

What did the court decide?

Declarations of liability to pay Rs. 27,40,061.07 with simple interest at 8.00%p.a.; Order to issue Recovery Certificate; Authorization for recovery via sale of hypothecated vehicle or attachment of p

Hdfc Bank Limited versus M/S Value Max Clothing and Another — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.766/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 30.05.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 29.01.2026

¶6

HDFC Bank Limited, having its Registered Office at Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013 Also at: Plot No I-15, Sector 101, Alpha IT City, SAS Nagar (Mohali), through its Authorized Representative Sh. Rajendra Prasad.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s Value Max Clothing, through its Proprietor Sh. Jasjot Singh, C/o B-45, Phase-6, Focal Point, Ludhiana (Punjab).

¶10

Sh. Jasjot Singh S/o Sh. Harvinderpal Singh, R/o House No. 471-А, Near Krishna Mandir, Model Town, Extension-A Block, Ludhiana (Punjab).

¶11

….……Defendants

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

Argued by Ms. Dipti Toni, Advocate for the applicant

¶14

Defendants already ex-parte vide order dated 08.08.2025

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.27,40,061.07 (Rupees Twenty Seven Lacs Forty Thousand Sixty One & Paise Seven Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Rajendra Prasad, Authorized Representative of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Board resolution dated 15.04.2023, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶17

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant no. 1 through its proprietor defendant no. 2 approached the applicant for grant of

¶18

¶19

OA NO.766/2025 HDFC BANK LIMITED VS. M/S VALUE MAX CLOTHING AND ANOTHER

¶20

Car Loan of Rs.42.82 Lacs vide Loan application dated 15.05.2023, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶21

The applicant sanctioned the Car Loan of Rs.37.52 Lacs and terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. 4. Defendant no. 1 through its proprietor defendant no. 2 hypothecated vehicle namely TOYOTA FORTUNER (AT) 2WD 2.8L 6AT Bearing Chassis No. MBJAA3GS000589277-0523 engine No.1GDA720988 vide agreement for loan cum hypothecation dated 31.05.2023, which is Annexure A3 to this OA.

¶22

In compliance to order dated 27.10.2025, the applicant

¶23

filed an affidavit of Sh. Deepak Sharda, Authorized Representative on 14.01.2026 vide diary no. 816. It is deposed in the affidavit that the defendant did not get the vehicle registered with Registration Authority, hence no registration details are available with the applicant. The copy of the invoice of the vehicle issued by the dealer was attached with the affidavit.

¶24

Documents executed: Statement of Account, which is Annexure A4 to this OA; Legal notice dated 1305.2025, along with postal receipt, which are Annexures A5 to A7 to this OA.

¶25

The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account there was a debit of Rs.27,40,061.07, which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notices but they did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶26

The defendants were served notices to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 08.08.2025.

¶27

¶28

OA NO.766/2025 HDFC BANK LIMITED VS. M/S VALUE MAX CLOTHING AND ANOTHER

¶29

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Rajendra Prasad, Authorized Representative, HDFC Bank Limited, has been filed.

¶30

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶31

It was argued by learned counsel that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted,

¶32

the applicant bank had proved its case. From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A7 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant for availing of the loan facility which were granted to them and for that they had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. The defendants failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, account of the defendants was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.27,40,061.07 (Rupees Twenty Seven Lacs Forty Thousand Sixty One & Paise Seven Only) along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the accounts.

¶33

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @8.70%p.a. from date of filing of this application till the realization.

¶34

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, undertaking of the defendants, quantum of loan 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 uniform simple interest @8.00%p.a. in

¶35

¶36

OA NO.766/2025 HDFC BANK LIMITED VS. M/S VALUE MAX CLOTHING AND ANOTHER

¶37

the loan account from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly. 11. In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.27,40,061.07 (Rupees Twenty Seven Lacs Forty Thousand Sixty One & Paise Seven Only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00%p.a. in the loan account 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 hypothecated vehicle of defendants 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 assets of the defendants. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law. 12. Any other application pending stands disposed of . 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 11.02.2026. 15. 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. Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 29.01.2026. (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Hdfc Bank Limited v. M/S Value Max Clothing and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Limited v. M/S Value Max Clothing and Another

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

State Bank of India versus Sh.Jatinder Singh

Axis Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Davinder Singh and Another

State Bank of India versus Sh. Satish Kumar and Others

State Bank of India versus Messrs Ks Toor Commission Agent and Others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Ranveer Singh and Others

Bank of Baroda versus Late Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma through His Legal Heirs and Others