Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. M/S.Ravindra Shashikant Shah Prop. Mr. Ravindra Shashikant Shah

DRT23 Apr 2026OA/910/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application for recovery of dues arising from a defaulted cash credit facility, fixing the payable amount after deducting penal interest and capping future interest at 9% per annum.

What did the court decide?

The defendant is directed to pay Rs. 17,15,306/- along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing the application.

Hdfc Bank versus M/S.Ravindra Shashikant Shah Prop. Mr… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

Presented on	..	05.09.2018
Registered on	..	14.10.2022
Decided on	..	23.04.2026
Duration	..	Y—M—D
		07--07--18

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 910/2022.

¶3

HDFC Bank Limited,

¶4

A Banking Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at HDFC Bank House, C.S. No. 6/242, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013 and office at Department for Special Operations, Peninsula Business Park, B Wing, 4^th Floor, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai 400 013.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr. Ravindra Shashikant Shah, Proprietor of M/s. Ravindra Shashikant Shah, Age 58 years, Occ. Business, Address – Ward No. 21, H. No. 1146, Jawaharnagar, Ichalkaranji 416 415.

¶8

… Defendant

¶9

Appearances :-

¶10

For Applicant Advocate Tejashree Hirve. For Defendant Ex parte.

¶11

Sanap ( OA No. 910/2022 ) 1 of 5

¶12

Total Claim Amount – Rs.18,02,105/-

¶13

JUDGMENT ( Delivered on 23^rd April, 2026 )

¶14

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.18,02,105/- together with future interest @11.35% per annum from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendant.

¶15

Brief facts of the application are as under :-

¶16

As per the loan application dated 24.11.2014 of the defendant, the applicant Bank sanctioned and disbursed the Cash Credit loan facility of Rs.15,00,000/- to the defendant vide Sanction Letter dated 30.12.2014.

¶17

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the defendant has executed necessary loan and security documents in favour of the applicant Bank along with letter of hypothecation.

¶18

Further, as per request letter dated 03.12.2015 of the defendant, the applicant Bank has renewed the Cash Credit facility of Rs.15,00,000/- as per Sanction Letter dated 16.12.2015.

¶19

The applicant Bank contended that the Defendant committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the accounts. Therefore, on 29.10.2017, the

¶20

Sanap ( OA No. 910/2022 ) 2 of 5

¶21

applicant Bank has classified the account of the Defendant as Non-Performing Asset in accordance with guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. Thereafter, on 08.08.2018, the applicant Bank issued Recall Notice to the defendant. Despite service of Notice, the defendant failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank.

¶22

Hence, this application is filed.

¶23

The defendant failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte against the Defendant as per Order dated 17.07.2025 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶24

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Mr. Ashwin Narayan Indulkar, Senior Manager and Authorized Signatory of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW1-1 to AW1-15 along with list (Exhibit 12), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶25

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

¶26

Since the Defendant failed to appear and contest the application, I find no reason to disbelieve evidence of the

¶27

Sanap ( OA No. 910/2022 ) 3 of 5

¶28

applicant Bank. Therefore, the applicant Bank is entitled for reliefs as claimed.

¶29

The applicant Bank has claimed relief in respect of hypothecated assets. However, there is no detailed description with respect to the hypothecated assets, therefore, the relief in terms of hypothecated assets cannot be granted.

¶30

The applicant Bank has claimed Penal Interest of Rs.86,799/-, which cannot be granted and the same is required to be deducted from the total claim amount. Therefore, the total claim amount of Rs.18,02,105/- is reduced to Rs.17,15,306/-.

¶31

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @11.35% per annum. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% per annum (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶32

Hence, I pass the following order.

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

A} Original Application No. 910/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶35

B} The defendant shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.17,15,306/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakh Fifteen

¶36

Sanap ( OA No. 910/2022 ) 4 of 5

¶37

Thousand Three Hundred Six only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 05.09.2018 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶38

C} Issue Recovery Certificate. D} The Registrar is directed to send the copy of Judgment and Recovery Certificate to the applicant and Defendant.

¶39

Sd/( Dilip G. Murumkar ) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date : 23.04.2026 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶40

Sanap ( OA No. 910/2022 ) 5 of 5

Hdfc Bank v. M/S.Ravindra Shashikant Shah Prop. Mr. Ravindra Shashikant Shah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. M/S.Ravindra Shashikant Shah Prop. Mr. Ravindra Shashikant Shah

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

Hdfc Bank versus Punam Enterprises through Its Proprietor Mrs. Punam Matte

Canara Bank versus Bhaskar Veer

Bank of Maharashtra versus Nazma

Canara Bank versus Pravin Sawant

Federal Bank versus Sarjerav

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Siddhram Mhetre