Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Ajay Pratap and Anr.

DRT20 Jun 2026TA/239/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of Rs. 27,83,173.93 plus interest and costs. The defendant did not appear. The guarantor was deleted as accounts were adjusted. Recovery was directed from the borrower's hypothecated vehicles and assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 27,83,173.93, interest, and costs from defendant no.1, failing which from sale of hypothecated vehicles or other assets. Recovery certificate issued.

Hdfc Bank versus Ajay Pratap and Anr. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

T.A. No.239 of 2023

¶2

Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi 4th floor, Jeevan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi

¶3

Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sharma

¶4

T.A. No. 239 of 2023

¶5

HDFC Bank Limited Plot No.31, Ist Floor, Tower A, Najafgarh Industrial Area, Shivaji Marg, Moti Nagar New Delhi-110015 Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Sh.Ajay Pratap Village Mirzapur Dhankaur Shiv Mandir, G.B.Nagar, Noida, UP-201306

¶8

Also at: Sh.Ajay Pratap M/s A and P Developers c/o Praveen Bhatia Gali No.6, Ground Floor, MSX Tower And Commercial Belt Alpha NEA, Noida, UP-201308

¶9

Also at: Sh.Ajay Pratap Prism Cement, Mankhari Satna Madhya Pradesh-485001 2. Sh.Ajit Singh Falaida Bangar, G.B.Nagar Greater Noida, UP-203135 Defendants

¶10

Present: Smt.Amita Kumari, Counsel for the applicant bank Date of Reserve: 26.05.2016 Date of Pronouncement: 20.06.2026 5 --

T.A. No.239 of 2023

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank before DRT III, Delhi and then transferred to DRT-I, Delhi on 09.10.2020 under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.27,83,173.93 (Rupees Twenty Seven lacs Eighty Three Thousand One Hundred Seventy Three & paisa Ninety Three only) as on 01.09.2020 along with pendentelite and future interest @18.00% per annum with monthly rest from the date of filing of this application till its realization and costs.

¶15

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant no.1 as borrower and defendant no.2 as guarantor vide their applications dated 17.03.2018 and 25.06.2018, the applicant bank sanctioned Commercial Vehicle facility of Rs.28,44,255/- @12.51% interest per annum on 26.07.2018 in order to purchase TATA LPK 2518TC to be repayable in 47 EMIs of Rs.76,855/-. The applicant bank sanctioned Two Wheeler loan of Rs.69,686/- @17.53% interest per annum to be repayable in 36 EMIs of Rs.2,503/- for purchasing Bajaj Pulsar 150 as per request of defendant no.1 and another Two wheeler loan of Rs.59,186/- @19.91% interest per annum for purchase of Hero HF Deluxe motorcycle Both the vehicle loans were against hypothecation, of vehicles. In addition, the applicant bank issued Credit Card facility to the defendant no.1. The defendant no.2 stood as guarantor for the loan facilities sanctioned in favour of defendant no.1. In case of default, the defendant agreed to pay penal interest @24% p.a. on the outstanding EMI amount and applicant bank entitled to take possession of commercial vehicle.

¶16

T.A. No.239 of 2023

¶17

That in order to avail the loan facilities, the defendant no.1 executed Agreement for Loan and Guarantee with Schedule, Loan cum Hypothecation Agreement and Irrevocable Power of Attorney etc. on 18.03.2018, 26.07.2018 and 20.08.2019 in favour of applicant bank.

¶18

That in order to secure the credit facilities, the defendant no.1 hypothecated the vehicles which were duly registered with RTO Records:

¶19

Loan No.	Vehicle Model	Chasis No.	Registration
83255664	TATA LPK 2518TC	MAT44821033F19525	UP16FT4023
55818267	Bajaj Pulsar 150	MD2A11C8JRK00365	UP16BV0588
6815098	Hero HF Deluxe	MBLHAW076K5G40965	NA

¶20

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to adhere to repayment schedule as per loan agreements despite several requests and neglected to regularize the accounts with the applicant bank. The applicant bank terminated the agreements and recalling financial facilities through legal notice dated 01.09.2020 calling the defendant no.1 to adjust the outstanding amount along with interest but defendants have failed to comply with the notice. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶21

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite proper service, the defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 01.12.2023, defendant no.1 has been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared before the Tribunal and even no written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have been filed by the defendant.

¶22

T.A. No.239 of 2023

¶23

During the proceedings on 23.12.2025, the applicant bank vide I.A.No.1633/2025 praying therein to delete the defendant no.2 from array of parties as loan accounts against which defendant no.2 had executed guarantee agreement with the applicant bank has been closed/adjusted. As per request of applicant bank, this Tribunal allowed the I.A. No.1633/2025 allowing deletion of defendant no.2 from the array of parties.

¶24

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Abhijeet Raj, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as Power of Attorney Exhibit AW1/1, Loan Applications Exhibit AW1/2(Colly), Loan Agreements Exhibit AW1/3(colly), Hypothecation Details Exhibit AW1/4(Colly), Legal Notice with Postal Receipts Exhibit AW1/5 (Colly), Delivery Reports Exhibit AW1/6(colly), Statement of Accounts and Credit Card Dues duly Certified under Bankers' Book of Evidence Act Exhibit AW1/7(Colly).

¶25

The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments made in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the applicant bank is based on the documents and the same have been duly proved.

¶26

10.^{The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and} there is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant bank and the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts.

¶27

In the light of the above discussions and documents on record, the Original Application deserves to be allowed.

¶28

T.A. No.239 of 2023

¶29

ORDER

¶30

I, allow this OA and direct the defendant no.1 to pay to the applicant bank within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.27,83,173.93 (Rupees Twenty Seven lacs Eighty Three Thousand One Hundred Seventy Three & paisa Ninety Three only) as on 01.09.2020 along with pendentelite and future interest @18.00% per annum with monthly rests and costs from 01.09.2020 failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from sale of hypothecated commercial vehicles namely TATA LPK 2518TC having registration no. UP16FT4023, Bajaj Pulsar 150 Motorcycle having Registration No.UP16BV0588 and Hero HF Deluxe Motorcycle. In case of shortfall/default the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable assets of the defendant no.1.

¶31

(II)^{The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent} the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi.

¶32

(III)^{Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery} Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 19.08.2026.

¶33

(IV)^{Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be} sent to all concerned free of cost.

¶34

(GOVIND BALLA H SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶35

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 20.06.2026

Hdfc Bank v. Ajay Pratap and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Ajay Pratap and Anr.

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

Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank) versus Ms Dolphin Electronics

Hitesh So Jaswant Gaupale versus Sitaara Housing Finance Limited Earlier Known as Sewa Grih Rin Limited

Mr Shivaraj Badigar and Another versus Jana Small Finance Bank Ltd.

Bank of Baroda versus Garvit

Bank of Baroda versus Shine Packaging

Indian Overseas Bank versus Naresh Kumar