Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Rohini Jewellers

DRT5 May 2026OA/995/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune allowed the original application filed by HDFC Bank Limited for recovery of dues. The Tribunal adjusted the claimed amount by deducting unclaimed penal interest and calculated future interest at 9% p.a. The application was disposed of in-favor of the bank with an order to issue a Recovery Certificate. Relief was specifically denied regarding hypothecated assets du

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly or severally to pay Rs. 2,02,43,981 plus future interest @9% per annum; Recovery Certificate issued.

Hdfc Bank versus Rohini Jewellers — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

Presented on .. 30.03.2022 Registered on .. 11.07.2023 Decided on .. 05.05.2026 Duration .. Y—M—D 04--01--05

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 995/2023.

¶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 and having 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

1 M/s. Rohini Jewellers, through its proprietor – Mrs. Mangal Kantilal Gundesha, Age 65 years, Occ. Business,

¶8

2 Mr. Jayesh Kantilal Gundesha, Age 41 years, Occ. Business,

¶9

3 Mrs. Rupali Jayesh Gundesha, Age 41 years, Occ. Business,

¶10

Sanap ( OA No. 995/2023 ) 1 of 9

¶11

4 M/s. Jjateen Jewell World, Through its proprietor – Mrs. Rupali Jayesh Gundesha, Age 41 years, Occ. Business, Nos.1 to 4 having address at – 409, D Ward, Ayarekar Galli, Gangavesh, Kolhapur 416 002. … Defendants

¶12

Appearances :- For Applicant Advocate Tejashree Hirve. For Defendants Ex parte.

¶13

Total Claim Amount – Rs.2,06,89,106=59

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

( Delivered on 05^th May, 2026 )

¶16

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.2,06,89,106=59 together with future interest @18% per annum from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendants.

¶17

Brief facts of the application are as under :-

¶18

Defendant No.1 borrower is a proprietary concern.

¶19

Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 are the guarantors and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are also mortgagors.

¶20

As per the loan application dated 16.08.2011 of defendant No.1 through its proprietor, the applicant

¶21

Sanap ( OA No. 995/2023 ) 2 of 9

¶22

Bank sanctioned and disbursed the Cash Credit facility of Rs.10,00,000/- for business purpose of defendant No.1 vide Sanction Letter dated 08.09.2011. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 stood guarantors for the repayment of loan availed by defendant No.1. In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the defendants have executed necessary loan and security documents along with letter of hypothecation in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶23

Thereafter, on the request of the defendants, the said Cash Credit facility was renewed on 04.09.2012, 07.09.2013.

¶24

Thereafter, as per request letters of the defendants for enhancement of the cash credit facility, the applicant Bank enhanced the cash credit facility from Rs.10,00,000/- to Rs.30,00,000/- on 04.12.2013; from Rs.30 Lakh to Rs.50 Lakh on 11.06.2014; from Rs.50 Lakh to Rs.75 Lakh on 18.03.2016 and from Rs.75 Lakh to Rs.150 Lakh on 07.03.2017. Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 stood guarantors for the enhanced cash credit facility and the defendants have also executed necessary loan and security documents in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶25

The defendants have also executed equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds in favour of the applicant Bank

¶26

Sanap ( OA No. 995/2023 ) 3 of 9

¶27

in respect of all that piece and parcel of property bearing Plot No. 16/3, admeasuring 348.2 square meters and RCC construction thereon admeasuring 231.32 square meters, City Survey No. 718 C/1/1/20, A Ward, Tiber Market, Kolhapur. The applicant Bank filed pursis Exhibit 9 stating that memorandum of deposit recording past transaction of mortgage by delivery of title deeds are filed in another Original Application No. 997/2023 as the property is commonly mortgaged in both the cases, and therefore, the applicant Bank could file originals only in one case.

¶28

Further, vide request letters dated 01.09.2017 and 31.08.2018 of the defendants, the applicant Bank renewed the said facility on 18.09.2017 and 10.09.2018.

¶29

Thereafter, again the defendants approached the applicant Bank for grant of Term Loan (GECL) during Covid-19. Accordingly, the applicant Bank sanctioned Term Loan GECL of Rs.33,46,000/- to the defendants on 03.09.2020 on execution of security documents by the defendants.

¶30

Thereafter, again the defendants approached the applicant Bank for grant of EEG Term Loan for working capital. Considering the request of the defendants, the

¶31

Sanap ( OA No. 995/2023 ) 4 of 9

¶32

applicant Bank sanctioned EEG Term Loan of Rs.15,00,000/- to the defendants on 26.07.2021 on execution of security documents by the defendants.

¶33

The applicant Bank contended that the defendants committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the accounts. Therefore, on 03.12.2021, the applicant Bank has classified the account of the defendants as Non-Performing Asset in accordance with guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. Thereafter, on 24.03.2022, the applicant Bank issued legal Notice to the defendants. Despite service of Notice, the defendants failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank.

¶34

Hence, this application is filed.

¶35

The defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte against the defendants as per Order dated 09.07.2025 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶36

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Mr. Shivaji Vitthal Kale, 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 AW1-72 along with list

¶37

Sanap ( OA No. 995/2023 ) 5 of 9

¶38

(Exhibit 7), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶39

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

¶40

Since the defendants failed to appear and contest the application, I find no reason to disbelieve evidence of the applicant Bank.

¶41

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

¶42

The applicant Bank has claimed Penal Interest of Rs.1,76,170/- towards Cash Credit facility, which cannot be granted and the same is required to be deducted from the total claim amount of Cash Credit. Therefore, the total claim amount of Rs.1,55,78,598/- is reduced to Rs.1,54,02,428/- towards the Cash Credit facility.

¶43

So also, the applicant Bank has also claimed Penal Interest towards Term Loan (GECL) and EEG-Term Loan facilities, which cannot be granted. The applicant Bank has claimed outstanding amount of Term Loan (GECL) Account No. 8513843 of Rs.34,20,870/-, however, the account extract produced by the applicant Bank shows

¶44

Sanap ( OA No. 995/2023 ) 6 of 9

¶45

outstanding amount of Rs.32,62,974/-. Thus, the applicant Bank is entitled to the said amount of Rs.32,62,974/- + unapplied interest of Rs.45,771/- total of Rs.33,18,745/- towards Term Loan (GECL) facility.

¶46

Further, the applicant Bank has claimed outstanding amount of EEG Term Loan Account No. 85638400 of Rs.15,44,919/-, however, the account extract produced by the applicant Bank shows outstanding amount of Rs.15,00,000/-. Thus, the applicant Bank is entitled to the said amount of Rs.15,00,000/- + unapplied interest of Rs.22,808/- total of Rs.15,22,808/- towards Term Loan (GECL) facility.

¶47

Therefore, the applicant Bank is entitled to Rs.1,54,02,428/- towards the Cash Credit facility + Rs.33,18,745/- towards Term Loan (GECL) facility + Rs.15,22,808/- towards Term Loan (GECL) facility i.e. total of Rs.2,02,43,981/-.

¶48

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @18% 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.

¶49

Hence, I pass the following order.

¶50

Sanap ( OA No. 995/2023 ) 7 of 9

¶51

O R D E R

¶52

A} Original Application No. 995/2023 is allowed with costs.

¶53

B} Defendant Nos.1 to 4 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.2,02,43,981/(Rupees Two Crore Two Lakh Forty Three Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty One only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 30.03.2022 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶54

C} The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting mortgage in respect of all that piece and parcel of property bearing Plot No. 16/3, admeasuring 348.2 square meters and RCC construction thereon admeasuring 231.32 square meters, City Survey No. 718 C/1/1/20, A Ward, Tiber Market, Kolhapur, more particularly described in the Para No. 5.35 of the Original Application.

¶55

D} The applicant Bank is entitled to sell the mortgaged property to recover its dues.

¶56

E} Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶57

Sanap ( OA No. 995/2023 ) 8 of 9

¶58

F} The Registrar is directed to send the copy of Judgment and Recovery Certificate to the applicant and defendants.

¶59

Sd/( Dilip G. Murumkar ) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date : 05.05.2026 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶60

Sanap ( OA No. 995/2023 ) 9 of 9

Hdfc Bank v. Rohini Jewellers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Rohini Jewellers

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

Ms Vrushali Vinod Kadam versus State Bank Of India

State Bank of India versus Ms S S Gruh Udyog Prop. Mr. Jakir Sikandar Bagwan

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Siddhram Mhetre

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) versus Aniket

Federal Bank versus Ramgonda Kalgonda

Canara Bank versus Nilesh