Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Rasul Gulab Shaikh

DRT8 Jan 2026OA/864/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an application by HDFC Bank Ltd. for recovery of a secured credit loan. Proceeding ex-parte due to the defendants' absence, the Presiding Officer reduced the contractual future interest rate to 9% per annum and directed the sale of hypothecated assets if dues remain unpaid.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs. 23,91,357.44 with future simple interest at 9% p.a. from filing date; permission granted to sell hypothecated assets.

Hdfc Bank versus Rasul Gulab Shaikh — Specific Performance | DRT (2026)

¶1

Presented on: 25.10.2024 Registered on: 07.11.2024 Decided on: 08.01.2026 Duration: Y M D 02 02 14

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD

¶3

(Before Shri Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.864/2024

¶4

HDFC Bank Ltd.

¶5

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 23,91,357.44/-

¶6

A Registered Company, Having its Registered

¶7

Office at HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, (West), Mumbai. And having its Branch office at HDFC Bank Ltd., Siddheshwar Complex, Georai Road, Dharur

¶8

… Applicant

¶9

Road, Majalagaon, District Beed- 431131. Through its Authorized Signatory Shri. Rahul

(OA No.864-2024)

Page 1 of 9

[Ambadas]

S/o Tatyasaheb Gade, Age: 41 Years, Occ. Service, R/o: C/o. HDFC Bank Ltd., Divekar Plaza, Padampura Chowk, Station Road,

¶14

Aurangabad- 431001. Mobile:-9421800308. E-mail:- [email protected]

¶15

Versus

¶16

Rasul Gulab Shaikh,

¶17

… Defendants's

¶18

Age: 37 Years, Occ. : Business,

¶19

R/o. At Zopadpatti, Po. Gangamasla,

¶20

Tq. Majalgaon, Near Kadam Kirana,

¶21

District Beed- 431131.

¶22

PAN:- HBZPS1719D,

¶23

Mobile:- 9922316156.

¶24

E-mail:- [email protected]

(OA No.864-2024)

Page 2 of 9

[Ambadas]

Arefa Rasul Shaikh,

¶29

Age: 30 Years, Occ. Home Maker/Business,

¶30

R/o. At Zopadpatti, Po. Gangamasla,

¶31

Tq. Majalgaon, Near Kadam Kirana,

¶32

District Beed- 431131.

¶33

PAN:- IIIPS6911J,

¶34

Mobile:- 9028237362.

¶35

E-mail:- [email protected].

¶36

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

¶37

J U D G M E N T Delivered on (08.01.2026)

¶38

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs. 23,91,357.44 (Rs. Twenty Three Lakhs, Ninety-One Thousand, Three Hundred Fifty-Seven and Forty-Four Paisa Only) together with contractual interest

(OA No.864-2024)

Page 3 of 9

[Ambadas]

@13.01% on Credit Loan facility from 09.10.2024 till the full realization of the entire dues and costs from the Defendants.

¶43

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶44

That the Defendants approached the Applicant Bank and requested for the sanction of a Credit Loan Facility. Upon considering the Defendant’s representation, request and financial needs, the Applicant Bank sanctioned the Credit loan Facility of Rs.22,88,303/- (Rs. Twenty-Two Lakhs, Eighty-Eight Thousand, Three Hundred and Three Only) for Purchase and against Hypothecation of vehicle Tata LPT 1512. vide sanction letter dated 16.12.2022, executed by Defendants on certain terms & conditions.

¶45

The agreed rate of Fixed interest for the Credit loan facility was @13.01% p.a. with monthly rests.

¶46

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

(OA No.864-2024)

Page 4 of 9

[Ambadas]

letter, hypothecation agreement, letter of undertaking etc.

¶51

The Applicant Bank contended that to secure the Credit Loan facility, the Defendants have executed Agreement for Loan and Guarantee dated 16.12.2022, of the following

¶52

property/hypothecation in favour of the Applicant Bank:

¶53

Description of Hypothecated Assets:-

¶54

Tata LPT 1512 registered with Registration

¶55

No. MH-44-U-2556 with an Endorsement of

¶56

Hypothecated in favour of the Applicant Bank.

¶57

The Applicant Bank further contended that the Defendants have 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

(OA No.864-2024)

Page 5 of 9

[Ambadas]

repeatedly made demand of loan amount and called upon the Defendants to pay 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 13.10.2023. Therefore, the Applicant Bank issued legal notice to the Defendants through their Advocate on 03.11.2023. Despite service of Notice, the Defendants failed and neglected to repay the outstanding dues of the Applicant Bank. Hence, this application is filed.

¶62

Despite Service through RPAD, the defendants failed to appear. Hence, they were proceeded ex-parte vide Order dated 24.01.2025.

¶63

The Applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence at Exhibit-4 of Mr. Rahul S/o Tatyasaheb Gade, Officer of the Applicant Bank and has produced on record the copies of 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. The Applicant Bank has also filed original loan

(OA No.864-2024)

Page 6 of 9

[Ambadas]

documents as Exh. AW-1/1 to AW-1/6 along-with Claim Affidavit Exh-10 of Smita Manoj Ghadmode,

¶68

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

¶69

Since the Defendants failed to 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.

¶70

The Applicant Bank has claimed future interest at @13.01% p.a. with monthly rests on loan from 09.10.2024 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 @9% per annum (simple) on outstanding amount, it would be just and reasonable.

¶71

Hence, I pass the following order.

ORDER

(OA No.864-2024)

Page 7 of 9

[Ambadas]

(A) Original Application No. 864/2024 is allowed with costs.

¶77

(B) The Defendants shall pay Jointly and Severally to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 23,91,357.44 (Rs. Twenty Three Lakhs, Ninety-One Thousand, Three Hundred Fifty-Seven and Forty-Four Paisa Only) along-with future interest at @9% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the Original Application, i.e., 25.10.2024, till full payment/ realization of the said amount.

¶78

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by Hypothecation Agreement in favour of the Applicant Bank vide document Exh.AW-1/3 and Exh. AW-1/4 in list of Documents Exh.5. Description of Hypothecation :-

¶79

Tata LPT 1512 registered with Registration No. MH-44-U-2556 with an Endorsement of

(OA No.864-2024)

Page 8 of 9

[Ambadas]

Hypothecated in favour of the Applicant Bank.

¶84

(D) The Applicant Bank is entitled to sell the hypothecated

¶85

Vehicles/ articles/goods etc., to recover its dues.

¶86

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶87

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

¶88

(G) File be consigned to the record room.

¶89

Sd/-

¶90

(Dr. J. R. Chauhan) Place : Aurangabad Presiding Officer Date : 08.01.2026 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶91

(OA No.864-2024)

¶92

Page 9 of 9

¶93

[Ambadas]

Hdfc Bank v. Rasul Gulab Shaikh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Rasul Gulab Shaikh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Baban Shivdas Nagrale

State Bank of India versus Mr. Sandip Bhimrao Awasarmol

Maharastra Gramin Bank versus M/s Dnyanai Agro Processing Centre

Hdfc Bank versus Vitthal Prabhakar Bade

Icici Bank Limited versus Bapu Sukhdeo Pawar

Union Bank of India versus Rajendra Trymbak Patil