Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. M/S Libra Four Wheels Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

DRT25 Aug 2026TA/1542/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the application by HDFC Bank Ltd for recovery of outstanding dues of Rs. 8.18 crores owed by M/s Libra Four Wheels Pvt Ltd and individual guarantors, directing payment within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Direction to pay Rs. 8,18,11,770.69 with cost and interest at 12% p.a. within 30 days; issue Recovery Certificate; recovery from assets if not paid.

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Libra Four Wheels Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

Before SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI, Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi

¶2

TA No.1542 OF 2022

¶3

HDFC BANK LTD VS ],US UBRA FOUR WHEELS PvT LTS & ORS

¶4

Reserued on t L5.O7.2O26 Plonounced on : 25.O8.2O26

HDFC BanK Ltd

-Applicant bank

Vs.

M/s Libra Four Wheels.tut Ltd

¶9

Mr. Manreet Singh

¶10

Ms. Parveen Kaur

¶11

Mr. Harjit Singh

¶12

Defendants

¶13

Present: Shri Geetansh Kathuria, Counsel appears for applicant bank. Defendants are exparte, since, 04.05.2026.

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 29.0t.2019 through Mr. Pravan Saxena, Manager of the applicant banlg under Section 19 ofthe RDB Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.8,18,11 ,770.69 together with cost, charges and pendentellite and future interest @24olo p.a. from date of filing of this O.A. till the realization in full.

¶16

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant no.l, the applicant bank sanctioned an Inventory Funding (AUIF) of Rs.7.00 Cores for 60 days and Inventory Funding (AUIF) Adhoc valid till 15s Nov 2012 of Rs.3.00 Crores for 60days, vide sanction letter g.

¶17

¶18

TANO. l542of 2022

¶19

dated 04.07.2014 to meet its working capital requirement for purchase of vehicles and spare^parts from Hyundai Motor India Limited. The aforesaid credit facilities were secured by execution of^personal guarantee by defendant nos.2 to 4, hypothecation of stocks and book debts by the defendant no.l company. The defendant nos.1 & 2 executed all necessary loaning documents on 04.07.2014, 05.04.2014 and 05.07.2014. Again, at the request of defendant no.1, the applicant bank enhanced the inventory funding facility from Rs.7.00 Crores to Rs.10.00 Crores, vide sanction letter dated 14.03.2015 and the adhoc facility was cancelled. Again, at the request of defendants, the applicant bank renewed/enhanced the aforesaid credit facilities time to time and lastly was renewed/enhanced on 13.08.2018 i.e., Inventory Funding (AUIF) of Rs.10.00 @res for 75 days and Inventory Funding (AUIF)- adhoc valid till 5b Oct. 2018 of Rs.4,00 Crores for 75 days.

¶20

It is further submitted that the defendants enjoyed and utilized the Loan facilities, but failed to maintain the financial discipline and failed to repay the due amounts. The applicant bank requested the defendants to regularize the loan account by visits and letters, but there was no response from the defendants. The applicant bank served a recall notice dated 27.LL.20L8 to the defendants but failed to recover the same Thus, the present O.A.ff.A. is preferred by the applicant bank to recover its dues.

¶21

On notice by this Tribunal, defendants^put appearance through counsel but failed to file written statement and the right to file written statement of +

¶22

TANO. 1542of2022 3

¶23

defendants was close vide order dated 07.03.2020. Thereafter, the defendants failed to put appearance in the matter, despite issuance of default notice. Accordingly, the defendants were proceeded against exparte on 04.05.2026.

¶24

The applicant bank has filed evidence by way of affidavit of Shri. Somnath Pandey, Senior Manager of the applicant bank as Annexure A-1 to Annexure A-25, which have gone unchallenged and un-rebutted. Hence, the case of the applicant stands fully established against the defendants with respect to nonpayment of outstanding amount.

¶25

After^perusing the records, this Tribunal is of the view that the applicant bank has^proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. The evidence and documents filed by the applicant bank not rebutted by the defendants by not placing any evidence and there is no question of disbelieving the evidence and documents filed by the applicant bank based upon the written/printed documents.

¶26

In the light of the above discussions, the^presentT.A. deserves to be allowed.

¶27

ORDER

¶28

I hereby allow this T.A. of the applicant bank and direct the defendant nos.1 to 4 to^{pay jointly} and^severally to the applicant bank within 30 days from today, a^sum of Rs.8,18,11,770.69 along with cost, expenses^and interest @12.00o/o from the date of filing of this O.A. which has become T,A till the date of realization.

c>'

TA NO. 1542 of 2022

In case of failure to deposit the above^amount within the stipulated^period, the same shall^{be recovered} from the sale of hypothecated assets.^{In case of short} fall, the same shall be recovered from the^{sale of personal} movable and immovable assets of^{the defendant nos'1 to} 4.

¶33

Recovery Certificate be^{issuedforthwith and be sent} to Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il,^Delhi.

¶34

The registry of this Tribunal is^{hereby directedto} issue free copy of the order^{and send the same to both} the^parties.

¶35

Parties are directed to^{appear before the Ld.} Recovery Officer, DRT-II,^Delhi on^{26.10.2026.Pending} IAs, if any, stand disposed^of.

¶36

File be consigned to^records.

¶37

Date : 25.08.2026

¶38

E} (susH r L KrlFi-AR nlBtbcil PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

¶39

This^judgement has been^{signed, dated and}

¶40

pronounced in oPen court.

¶41

Date : 25.08.2026

¶42

SA (susHrl KUMAR nnsiocr) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

Hdfc Bank v. M/S Libra Four Wheels Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. M/S Libra Four Wheels Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

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