Allowed

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Sh. Sukhwinder Singh

DRT25 May 2026OA/817/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the bank's application for recovery of a commercial loan of approximately Rs. 23.25 lakhs against the borrower and guarantor, recognizing an ex-parte case due to respondent absence and entitling the bank to recovery via asset sale.

What did the court decide?

Declaratory relief that respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 23,25,323.90 plus costs and simple interest at 7.67% p.a.; Recovery Certificate issued.

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sh. Sukhwinder Singh — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 817/2023

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 02.06.2023

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 25.05.2026

¶6

HDFC Bank is a Body incorporated under the name and title as HDFC Bank Ltd. under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is having its Registered Office at Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400013 and one of its Branches at Retail Loan Service Centre, HDFC Bank, 3^rd Floor, B-21-14570, GT Road, Dholewal Chowk, Adjoining Gulzar Motors, Ludhiana, Punjab through its Principal Officer and Constituted Attorney, Sh. Rajendra Prasad, Legal Manager posted at HDFC Bank, Industrial Area, Phase 1, Chandigarh

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, S/o Sh. Gurcharan Singh, R/o House no. 6794/2, Street no. 8, near Inder Gas, New Janta Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab- 141003

¶10

Smt. Narinder Kaur, W/o Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, R/o House no. 6794/2, Street no. 8, near Inder Gas, New Janta Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab- 141003

¶11

….……Defendants

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

Argued by Sh. K.P.S. Dhillon, Advocate for applicant (through VC) None for defendants (already ex-parte vide order dated 03.09.2025)

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

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. 23,25,323.90 (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Twenty Five Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Three and Paise Ninety Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Rajendra Prasad, Legal Manager of the applicant, who is

¶16

2 OA NO.817/2023 HDFC BANK VS. SUKHWINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶17

competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 03.11.2021, which isAnnexure P/Ato this OA.
2. The brief facts of the OA are that defendant no. 1 approached
the applicant for grant of Commercial Loan of Rs. 14.30 Lacs vide Loan
Application dated 15.03.2021, which isAnnexure A1to this OA.
Thereafter, defendant no. 1 approached the applicant for grant of
Commercial Loan of Rs. 16.00 Lacs vide Loan Application dated
20.07.2021, which isAnnexure A2to this OA.
3. The applicant sanctioned Commercial Loan of Rs. 14,89,935.00
vide Loan Agreement dated 18.03.2021, which isAnnexure A3to this
OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the
defendants. Thereafter, the applicant sanctioned Commercial Loan of
Rs. 15,82,223.00 vide Loan Agreement dated 02.08.2021, which is
Annexure A4to this OA. Defendant no. 2 stood as guarantor in both
the loan accounts.
4. Defendant no. 1 hypothecated his commercial vehicles namely:
i. Eicher Pro 2095XP CNG K CBC bearing Registration no. PB10HQ8472, Chassis no. MC2EBKRC0MC487322 and Engine
no. E416NCMC343610 vide RC filed on 29.11.2025 in
compliance of order dated 01.11.2025.
ii. Eicher Pro 2095XP CNG K CBC bearing Registration no. PB10HP2672, Chassis no. MC2EBKRC0MA478932 and Engine no. E416NCMA339566 vide RC filed on 29.11.2025 in compliance of order dated 01.11.2025.
Documents executed:Statements of Accounts, which areAnnexure
A5 and A6to this OA; Demand Notice dated 19.04.2023, which is
Annexure A7to this OA and Legal Notice dated 25.04.2023, which is
Annexure A8to this OA.
5. The loan accounts became irregular and were classified as NPA
and after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account there
was a debit of Rs. 23,25,323.90 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.

¶18

3 OA NO.817/2023 HDFC BANK VS. SUKHWINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶19

The defendants were served summons to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 03.09.2025. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Rajendra Prasad, Legal Manager, HDFC Bank, has been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record. 9. It was argued by learned counsel (through VC) that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant bank had proved its case. From the perusal of all the Annexure P/A and A1 to A8 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant no. 1 approached the applicant for availing of the loan facilities which were granted to him. Defendant no. 2 stood as guarantor in both the loan accounts. Defendants had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. The defendants failed to pay back the loans as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, accounts of the defendants were classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 23,25,323.90 (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Twenty Five Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Three and Paise Ninety 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. 10. In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @7.90%p.a. in Loan Account no. 117973282 and @7.67% p.a. in Loan Account no. 120500492 plus @2% penal interest with monthly rests w.e.f. 20.04.2023 till the realization. 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 loans and prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yester years, while

¶20

4 OA NO.817/2023 HDFC BANK VS. SUKHWINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶21

exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @7.67% p.a. in both 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. 11. In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.23,25,323.90 (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Twenty Five Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Three and Paise Ninety Only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @7.67% p.a. in both 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 hypothecated assets of defendant no. 1 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 16.06.2026. 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: 25.05.2026 (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Sh. Sukhwinder Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Sh. Sukhwinder Singh

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

Union Bank of India versus Messrs Honey Enterprises

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/s Geomovers Infra Pvt. Ltd.

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Honey Singh

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/s Ajmer Fuelogic Pvt. Ltd.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Karam Singh

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sh. Kartar Singh