HDFC BANK vs Praveenkumar T on 29 May 2026

1) Praveenkumar T., S/o. Madhav, Nellissery House, S.N. Puram P.O., Thampanveli Company, Cherthala-688 582.

2) Madhuree Devi.K., Nellissery House, S.N. Puram P.O., Thampanveli Company, Cherthala-688 582. …Defendants

This Original Application having been heard on 26.05.2026 in the presence of Advocate Smt. Saraswathy for the applicant bank and stood over to this day for consideration, the Tribunal delivered the following:

F I N A L O R D E R

This Original Application has been filed under S.19(1) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 – for short ‘the Act’ - for recovery of a sum of Rs.10,80,286.92 due under the personal loan account together with future interest @18% per annum with monthly rests from the defendants jointly and severally and their assets. Facts of the case:

2. The applicant is a banking company constituted under the Companies Act, having its registered office at Mumbai and the account being operated through Cherthala Branch.

3. The 1st defendant as borrower and 2nd defendant as co- borrower applied for loan of Rs.15,00,000/- on 25.08.2013. After scrutinizing the application of the defendants, the applicant bank sanctioned a personal loan for Rs.9,43,000/- which was availed by them after executing loaning/security documents. After availing the loan, the defendants failed to make repayment and hence a lawyer notice was issued on 02.04.2015 recalling the dues. Despite the notice, the defendants did not take any step to clear the liability. Hence the applicant bank was constrained to file the OA claiming the following reliefs:

(i) To recover a sum of Rs.10,80,286.92 together with pendente lite and post decree interest thereon from the defendants jointly and severally and their assets;

(ii) To recover the costs, charges and expenses from the defendants;

(iii) To issue Recovery Certificate to the Recovery Officer with a direction to recover the amount and pay it to the applicant bank.

4. The defendants were served with summons by way of substituted service by effecting publication of summons in ‘Mathrubhumi” daily dated 23.04.2024. But they neither appeared nor were they represented in the proceeding. Proof Affidavit:

5. In order to establish the claim on behalf of the applicant bank, one Mr. Shyam Prasanth H., Manager (Legal) of the applicant bank has filed proof affidavit and produced the loan documents marked as Exhibits A1 to A7. The proof affidavit filed by AW1 and the documents produced in this case are not challenged by the defendants. The availing of the credit facility is well established from the documents placed by the applicant bank. As on 21.04.2015, a sum of Rs.10,80,286.92 is outstanding in the loan account, which is clearly established from the account statement marked as Ext.A7.

6. It could be seen from Ext.A7 account statement that applicant bank has charged an amount of Rs.56,353/- by way of late payment penalty charges in the loan account. It is well settled that penalty charges cannot be capitalized and no interest can be charged over it. Hence the applicant bank is not entitled to get any pendente lite and post-decree interest on the aforesaid amount of Rs.56,353/- charged in the loan account.

7. Further, Ext.A7 statement would show that the applicant bank has debited a sum of Rs.28,889.49 towards ‘prepayment charges @4.49% on outstanding principal’ in the loan account. The Legal Manager of the applicant bank filed an affidavit on 23.01.2026 stating that as there were no prepayments in the account, the aforesaid sum of Rs.28,889.49 is not being claimed and the same may be deducted from the amount claimed in the OA.

8. The applicant bank filed IA No.1301/2015 seeking conditional attachment of the property described in the attachment schedule belonging to the 2nd defendant. The Tribunal directed the defendants to furnish security to the tune of Rs.8,15,100/- or to appear and show cause why such security should not be furnished on the appointed date. But they failed to comply with the direction of the Tribunal and hence the attachment schedule property was ordered to be attached on 22.04.2026. Therefore, the applicant bank is entitled to realize the amount found due as above by sale of the attached property also.

9. Considering the amount advanced, interest and penal interest applied and default committed, I am of the view that applicant bank is entitled to recover the sum of Rs.10,51,397.43 (i.e., after excluding the prepayment charges of Rs.28,889.49 from the OA claim amount of Rs.10,80,286.92) together with pendente lite and post decree interest @12% per annum on the sum of Rs.9,95,044.43 (i.e., after excluding the late payment penalty charges of Rs.56,353/- from Rs.10,51,397.43), which is reasonable in the facts and circumstance of the case.

10. The applicant bank, therefore, is entitled to get a final order on the following lines: In the result, the applicant bank is given a final order allowing it to recover:

(i) the sum of Rs. 10,51,397.43 (Rupees ten lakhs fifty one thousand three hundred and ninety seven and

Paise forty three only) due under the personal loan account from the defendants jointly and severally and their assets and by sale of the property attached under IA No.1301/2015;

(ii) pendente lite and post decree interest @12% per annum on the sum of Rs.9,95,044.43 (Rupees nine lakhs ninety five thousand and forty four and Paise forty three only) from 12.05.2015 till realization from the defendants jointly and severally and their assets and by sale of property attached under IA No.1301/2015; and

(iii) costs and expenses borne by it for realization of the loan from the defendants.

11. Schedule to IA No.1301/2015 shall be appended to this final order.

12. The applicant bank shall file memo of costs within ten days from the date of this final order.

13. Recovery Certificate shall be drawn up and issued to the Recovery Officer in terms of the final order.

14. Communicate copy of this order to both parties as provided in R.16 r/w R.2(c) of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993. (Dictated to my PA, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 29th day of May, 2026)

[SOVAN KUMAR DASH] PRESIDING OFFICER

A P P E N D I X Witness for Applicant: AW1: Sri. Shyam Prasanth H., Manager (Legal) of the applicant bank.

Witness for Defendant(s): Nil

Applicant’s Exhibits

Ext.No Date Particulars of documents

A1 25.08.2013 Loan application form submitted by the 1st defendant to the applicant bank. A2 25.08.2013 Loan application form submitted by the 2nd defendant to the applicant bank. A3 31.08.2013 Undertaking given by the 1st defendant to the applicant bank. A4 31.08.2013 Loan agreement No.00461180 executed by the defendants in favour of the applicant bank. A5 31.08.2013 Demand promissory note of Rs.9,43,000/- executed by the defendants in favour of the applicant bank. A6

02.04.2015 True copy of the lawyer notice issued to the defendants. A7

21.04.2015 Statement of account of loan account No.25419078 from 07.10.2013 to 21.04.2015 as certified under the Bankers Book Evidence Act.

Defendants’ Exhibits – Nil

PRESIDING OFFICER

PRESIDING OFFICER

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

Dated the 29th May,2026

TA No.1617/2016 (OA No.230/2015)

Between

HDFC Bank Ltd, Business Banking Division, Rep. Manager (Legal), Shyam Prasanth H., Cochin Branch. …Applicant

And

Praveenkumar T., S/o. Madhav, Nellissery House, S.N. Puram P.O., Thampanveli Company, Cherthala-688 582 and Another. …Defendants F I N A L O R D E R