Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
HDFC BANK vs M/S M R ENTERPRISES on 17 January 2026
Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi
4th floor, Jeevan Tara Building,
Parliament Street, New Delhi
Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sharma T.A. No. 2467of 2022
HDFC Bank Ltd.
Department for Special Operations
5th Floor, Ansal Classique Tower
Plot No.1, J Block, Community Centre
Opposite Surya Continental,
Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027
Versus
1. M/s M.R. Enterprises
Proprietorship of Mr. Rakesh Aggarwal
C-811, Mandir Marg
Krishna Nagar, New Delhi-110051
Also at:
M/s M.R. Enterprises
Shop no.2/468, Teliwara,
Near Geeta Bhawan
Shandara, Delhi-110032
2. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Aggarwal
s/o Jai Prakash Aggarwal
R/o 281, Jagriti Enclave, 2nd Floor,
Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051
Also at:
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Aggarwal
498-A, Bhola Nath Nagar
Shandara, Delhi-110032
Applicant
3. Mr. Mukesh Aggarwal s/o Jai Prakash Aggarwal (Guarantor)
R/o 281, Jagriti Enclave, 2nd Floor,
Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051
Defendants
Present: Shri Ronnie S. Brara, Counsel for applicant bank Date of Reserve: 23.12.2025
Date of Pronouncement: 17.01.2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
FINAL ORDER
This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 10.06.2019 before DRT-II, Delhi and then transferred to DRT-I, Delhi under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of Rs.47,76,824.32 (Rupees Forty Seven Lacs Seventy Six Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty Four and paisa Thirty Two only) as on 31.05.2019 along with pendentelite and future interest @18% per annum with monthly rests from 01.06.2019 till the date of realization with costs.
2. The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant no.1 through its proprietor/guarantor being defendant no.2 to take over the Cash Credit limit from Karnataka Bank, the applicant bank sanctioned Cash Credit limit for a sum of Rs.50.00 Lacs on 23.07.2015 @10.70% interest per annum which was renewed from time to time lastly on 27.07.2017 for Rs.40.00 lacs @8.15% interest against hypothecation of stocks, book debts and mortgage of property of defendant no.2. The defendant no.3 stood as guarantor for the loan facilities sanctioned in favour of the defendant no.1 by the applicant bank.
3. That in order to avail the credit facility, the defendant no.1 through its proprietor being defendant No.2 submitted loan application dated 21.07.2015 and executed Master Facility Agreement, Letter of Hypothecation, Power of Attorney, Demand Promissory Note, Undertaking cum Indemnity, Declaration for Submission of Cheques, Amendment Agreement etc. on 23.07.2015, 18.7.2017 & 21.07.2017 in favour of the applicant bank.
4. That in order to secure the loan facility in favour of defendant no.1, the defendant no.2 created equitable sd- mortgage of his property no.281, 2nd floor, Jagriti Enclave, Krishna Nagar, New Delhi-110031 with the applicant bank on 24.08.2015 vide Memorandum Recording Past Transaction of Creation of Mortgage by Delivery of Title Deeds which was extended during renewal of limit. The aforesaid immovable property was cross collateralized in another account namely M/s Jai Apparels, another proprietorship concern of defendant no.3.
5. It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the credit facility, the defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions despite several requests and reminders. The defendants failed to pay the outstanding dues in time to the applicant bank, ultimately, the applicant bank issued recall notice dated 17.01.2019 calling upon the defendants to pay the entire outstanding dues but the defendants did not clear the dues. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.
6. Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite of proper service the defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 14.10.2025, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as they have not appeared before the Tribunal and even no written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets has been filed on behalf of the defendant.
7. In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Ankush Saini, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents such as Board Resolution, Loan Request Letter, Loan Application Form, Sanction Letters, Title Deeds of the Mortgaged Property, Master Facility Agreement, Letter of Hypothecation of Stocks and Book Debts, Power of Attorney, Demand Promissory Note, Letter of Continuing Guarantee, „Cd-
Undertaking cum Indemnity, Declaration for Submission of Cheques, Memorandum recording past transactions of Creation of Mortgage by delivery of Title Deeds, Amendment Agreement, Request Letters, Loan Recall Notice alongwith Postal Receipts, Statement of Account alongwith Certificate under Bankers' Book of Evidence Act, Valuation report marked as Ex.AW-1/1 to Ex.AW-1/23.
8. 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 approved.
9. The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and there is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts.
10. As per the provision of Section 19(20) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 which is analogous to Section 34 of CPC, on filing of the suit/claim, the contract between the parties comes to an end and the Court/Tribunal has a discretion to award the same depending upon the circumstances of each case. Same principle has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra & Others. Taking stock of all the circumstances and keeping in view that there is a drastic fall in rates of interest globally and domestically, I am of the opinion that interest of justice will be served if the interest at the rate of 12% p.a. is awarded.
11. In the light of the above discussions, the Original Application deserves to be allowed.
ORDER
I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank, jointly or severally, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.47,76,824.32 (Rupees Forty Seven Lacs Seventy Six Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty Four and paisa Thirty Two only) along with costs, pendentelite and future interest @12.00% per annum with monthly rest from the date of filing of this O.A. till the date of realization, failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from sale of the hypothecated stocks, book debts and mortgaged property bearing no.281, 2nd Floor, Jagriti Enclave, Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110031. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable/immovable properties of the defendants. (II) The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi. (III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 18.03.2026. (IV) Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be sent to all concerned free of cost. (GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI (Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 17.01.2026