HDFC BANK LIMITED vs MANISH KAPOOR on 5 August 2026

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on zL.Lz'z}Lgthrough Shri' Ritesh Kumar Manager Legal of the applicant bank' under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993 against the sole defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.35,43,850'33 together with cost' charges and pendentellite and future interest @15'50o/o p'a' from date of fiting of this O'A' titl the realization in full'

2. The brief facts of the case are that at the request of sole defendant, the applicant bank sanctioned a BusinessLoanofRs'27,50,000/-inrespectofloan account bearing No.51006126 to the sole defendant' The sole defendant undertooK to repay the loan in 36 monthly g\

installments of Rs.96,004, payable on 4s day of every calendar moth spanning from 04.tL.20L7 to 04'10'2020'

3. It is further submitted that the sole defendant enjoyed and utilized the Loan facilities, but failed to maintain the flnancial discipline and failed to repay the due amounts. The applicant bank requested the sole defendant to regularize the loan account by visits and letters, but there was no response from the sole defendant. The applicant bank served a recall notice dated 10.12.2019 to the sole defendant but failed to recover the same Thus, the present O.A.ff.A' is preferred by the applicant bank to recover its dues.

4. On notice by this Tribunal, sole defendant failed to put appearance at all, despite publication. Accordingly, the sole defendant was proceeded against exparte on 03.06.2025.

5. The applicant bank has flled evidence by way of affidavit of Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Manager Legal of the applicant bank as Annexure - A1 to Annexure -A11, which have gone unchallenged and un-rebutted. Hence, the case of the applicant stands fully established against the sole defendant with respect to nonpayment of outstanding amount.

6. 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 fited by the applicant bank not rebutted by the sole defendant by cl..

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. In the light of the above discussions, the present T.A. deserves to be allowed.

ORDER

1) I hereby allow this T.A. of the applicant bank and direct the sole defendant to pay to the applicant bank within 30 days from today, a sum of Rs'36,43,850.33 along with cost, expenses and interest @15.50o/o from the date of filing of this O.A. which has become T.A till the date of realization.

2) In case of failure to deposit the above amount within the stipulated period, the same shall be recovered from the sale of personal movable and immovable assets of the sole defendant.

3) Recovery Certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi.

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

5) Parties are directed to appear before the Ld' Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi on 05'10'2026' Pending IAs, if any, stand disPosed of. Fite be consigned to records. Date : 05.08.2026 This judgement has been signed, dated and pronounced in oPen court. s"\, Date : 05.08.2026 (susHrl KUMAR nAStoGt) PRESIDING OFRCER DRT-II, Delhi <r)' r -rrrr )t (susHrl KUMAR dnsroq) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi