Allowed

Hdfc Bank Limited v. M/S D.N.K.

DRT17 Feb 2026TA/2041/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the respondent bank's original application for recovery of a loan facility. The respondents failed to appear despite notice. The Tribunal held the evidence unchallenged and ordered payment of dues with interest, directing sale of mortgaged property and issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay Rs. 3,16,12,893.88 with interest and costs within 30 days; direction to recover from sale of mortgaged property and personal assets; Recovery Certificate to be issued.

Hdfc Bank Limited versus M/S D.N.K. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

Before SUSHIL^{KUMARRASTOGI, Presiding Officer} Debts RecoverY^{Tribunal-Il,Delhi}

¶2

TANo-2O4112022

¶3

HDFC BANK^{LIMITEDVS iUS D.N.K & ORS}

¶4

Reserued on^{: 20.01.2O26}

¶5

Prcnounced on =^L7.O2.2O26

HDFC Bank Limited

-^{Applicant bank}

Vs.

M/s D.N.K.

¶10

M/s SwaY^ExPort

¶11

M/s Wadhawan^Designs

¶12

M/s Vardaan^Fashion

¶13

Inderpal Singh^Wadhawan

¶14

SaWinder^{SinghWadhawan}

¶15

Defendants

¶16

Present: Shri Rahul^{Gupta,Counsel appears for} applicant bank. obiendants are^{ex-paftesince 12.06.2025'}

¶17

FINAL ORDER

¶18

This original application^{has been filed by the} applicant bank,^{on t0.02.2022 throughMs' Sampurna} Gupta, Legal^{Managerof the applicant bank,under} Section 19 of^{the RDB Act, 1993 against the} defendants^{for recovery of a sum of Rs'3,16,12,893'88} together with^{cost, charges and pendentelliteand} future interest @^{14.51olo p'a. from date of filing of} this O.A. till the^{realization in full.}

¶19

The brief facb^{of the case are that defendant} no.1 to 4 are unregistered^{partnership firms being} represented through^{defendantno.5 & 6 in capacity of} partners with equal holding^{with regard to rights and} liabilities. The^{defendant no.5 & 6 are the only} partners in the^{partnershipfirmsbeing arrayed as} defendant no.^{1 to 4 besidesco-obligants/borrowersin} the subject transaction^{og$1g[9-bility join and several}

,te,

TANO.204l of 2022

with the principal and other co-borrowers. At the request of the defendant/s the applicant bank sanctioned, on 29.08.2007, a CBL Loan Facility of Rs.2,42,00,000/- against the property bearing no.23C, on road no.77, situated in the area of village Basai Darapur, colony known as Punjabi Bagh, in class-A, New Delhi, measuring 610 sq. yds. An agreement for CBL Loan was executed by the defendant/s. In order to secure the repayment of the loan amount, defendant/s mortgaged the above said property in favour of the applicant bank which is constituting collateral security for repayment thereof.

¶24

It is further submitted that the defendants enjoyed and utilized the Loan facility, 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, hence the account was classified as NpA on 04.02.2020. Therefore, the applicant bank serued a legal notice dated 19.01.2021 to the defendants, demanding the amount due as on that date, but failed to recover the same. Thus, the present O.A.fi.A. is preferred by the applicant bank to recover its dues.

¶25

On notice by this Tribunal, defendants failed to put appearance at all, despite publication and accordingly defendants were proceeded against exparte on 12.06.2025.

¶26

The applicant bank Rled its evidence by way of the affidavit Ms. Sampurna Gupta, Legal Manager of the applicant bank as Annexure A-1 to Annexure A-10.

TANO. 2041of 2022

The documentary evidence filed by applicant bank have gone unchallenged and un-rebutted. Hence, the case of the applicant bank stands fully established against the defendants with respect to non payment of EMI/ outstanding amount.

¶31

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

¶32

In the light of the above discussions, the Transfer Application deserues to be allowed against the defendant no.1to 6.

¶33

ORDER

¶34

I hereby allow this O.A. of the Applicant Bank and direct the defendant nos. 1 to 6 to pay jointly and severally to the applicant bank within 30 days from today, a sum of Rs.3,16,12,893.88 along with cost, expenses and interest @ 13.610lo from the date of filing of this O.A. which has become T.A. till the date of realization.

¶35

In case of failure to deposit the above amount within the stipulated period, the same shall be recovered from the sale of the mortgaged propefi bearing no. 23C, on road no.77, situated in the area of village Basai Darapur, colon know n as Punjabi Bagh,

tDi

TANO.204l of2022 4

in class-& New Delhi, measuring 610 sq. yds. In case of shoft fall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of personal movable and immovable assets of the defendant no. I to 6.

¶40

Recovery Certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to Recovery fficer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi.

¶41

The registry of this Tribunal is hereby directed to issue free copy of the order and send the same to both the parties.

¶42

Pafties are directed to appear before the Ld. Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi on 17.04.2026. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

¶43

File be consigned to records.

¶44

¶45

\2 Y'v(o Date: t7.02.2026 (SUSHIL KU MAR RASTOGT)

¶46

PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

¶47

This judgement has been signed, dated and pronounced in open court.

¶48

( s0 Date: t7.02.2026 (SUSHIL KU D PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

¶49

Hdfc Bank Limited v. M/S D.N.K.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Limited v. M/S D.N.K.

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