[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jyoti vs Hdfc Bank Ltd. (2026:Rj-Jd:5655) on 30 January, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:5655]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24910/2025
1. Jyoti D/o Late Shri Chimanlal, Aged About 35 Years,
Resident Of Ward No.18, Durga Colony, Hanumangarh
Junction, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh.
2. Manju @ Neha Garg D/o Late Shri Chimanlal, W/o Shri
Nishant Garg, Aged About 49 Years, Resident Of Block
Area, Sriganganagar.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Hdfc Bank Ltd., Registered Office Hdfc Bank House,
Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West) Mumbai-
400013 And Branch Office 4Th Floor, 10 Central Spine
Times Square Building Vidyadhar Nagar, Jaipur Through
Authorised Officer Daljeet.
2. Beena Kumari W/o Chiman Lal, Resident Of Ward No.18,
Durga Colony, Hanumangarh Junction, Tehsil And District
Hanumangarh.
3. Rajesh Kumar S/o Chiman Lal, Resident Of Ward No.18,
Durga Colony, Hanumangarh Junction, Tehsil And District
Hanumangarh.
4. Anju Goyal D/o Chiman Lal, W/o Arun Goyal, Resident Of
Riddhi-Siddhi, Sector No.5, Sriganganagar.
5. Urvashi Gupta W/o Sh. Narendra Gupta, R/o House
No.4/30, Housing Board Colony, Hanumangarh Junction,
Tehsil And District Hanumangarh.
6. Babbu Singla D/o Chiman Lal, Resident Of Ward No.18,
Durga Colony, Hanumangarh Junction, Tehsil And District
Hanumangarh.
7. Tola Ram Karwa S/o Sh. Shiv Bhagwan Karwa, R/o Ward
No.9 New 8 Tehsil Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aakash Kukkar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arpit Mehta
(Uploaded on 30/01/2026 at 06:36:21 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/01/2026 at 09:51:03 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5655] (2 of 5) [CW-24910/2025]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
30/01/2026
1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking following
reliefs:-
"(i) The impugned order dated 05.12.2024 (Annex.2) passed
by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate,
Hanumangarh in Case Number 15/2024 insofar as iat directs to
handover the possession of the property of the petitioners in
dispute to the respondent Bank may kindly be declared illegal
and be quashed and set aside;
(ii) That further any other proceeding regarding this
dispossession from the property of the petitioners by the
respondent Bank or its disposal/auction or transfer in any
manner may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set
aside;
(iii) That the Respondent HDFC Bank Ltd. may be directed to
provide complete and accurate statements of all loan accounts,
including detailed break-up of the principal, interest, penal
charges and charges levied, in the name of Laet Shri Chimanlal,
Loan Agreement, Hypothecation documetns and any other
documents which may be required, to the petitioners within a
strict time frame, to enable them to exercise their right to
redemption and reach a final settlement;
(iv) That is further petitioners are ready to deposit due
amount of the loan regarding property on settlement with the
bank till then the bank may be restrained to take possession of
the property of the petitioner."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, submits
that the petitioners do not intend to press the present writ petition
on merits and confines the submissions to a limited extent. It is
submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, an M.O.U.
dated 17.01.2026 was arrived at between the respondent-bank
and the petitioners' uncle, Rajesh Kumar, who was a co-borrower
of the loan initially obtained by the petitioners' late father.
2.1 It is submitted that as per the M.O.U. dated 17.01.2026, the
outstanding due amount was to be paid in two installments,
(Uploaded on 30/01/2026 at 06:36:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5655] (3 of 5) [CW-24910/2025]
namely, a sum of Rs.50 lakhs on or before 17.01.2026 and the
second installment of Rs.80 lakhs on or before 30.01.2026.
Learned counsel submits that the amount of Rs.50 lakhs has
already been deposited on 17.01.2026 itself. Though the M.O.U.
was executed between the respondent-bank and the uncle of the
present petitioners, the said amount was paid by the petitioners
themselves. It is further submitted that the petitioners are ready
and willing to pay the second installment of Rs.80 lakhs as
agreed; however, they seek extension of time for making the said
payment and pray that a further period of 30 days be granted to
deposit the second installment.
2.2 It is also submitted that the petitioners have lost their father
and the entire burden of repayment of the loan has now fallen
upon them. The petitioners are in the process of arranging the
requisite amount by availing a loan from another financial
institution and are hopeful of securing the same within a short
period.
3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent-Bank vehemently opposes the submissions advanced
by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the M.O.U.
itself clearly stipulates that in the event the agreed amount is not
paid within the prescribed time, the M.O.U. would lose its
significance and the borrower would be liable to pay the actual
outstanding amount. Since the terms and conditions of the M.O.U.
have not been complied with, the petitioners are not entitled to
any extension of time.
3.1 The Officer-in-Charge of the respondent-Bank also appeared
through video conferencing and submitted that the Bank is not in
(Uploaded on 30/01/2026 at 06:36:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5655] (4 of 5) [CW-24910/2025]
a position to grant any further extension. It is further submitted
that in case the petitioners fail to deposit the amount as agreed,
the Bank shall not be bound by the said M.O.U. and shall proceed
to recover the entire outstanding amount in accordance with law.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. This Court would ordinarily have refrained from entertaining
the present writ petition; however, since the petitioners
themselves have submitted that they do not intend to press the
writ petition on merits and have confined their submissions only to
seeking extension of time, the matter was heard.
6. This Court takes note of the fact that the M.O.U. was entered
into between the petitioners' uncle and the respondent-Bank,
wherein it was amicably agreed that the borrower would pay a
sum of Rs.1,30,00,000/- as a full and final payment towards the
loan in question. The petitioners have partially honoured the said
M.O.U. and have paid a sum of Rs.50 lakhs on 17.01.2026, as
agreed. The second installment of Rs.80 lakhs, which was required
to be paid on or before 30.01.2026, could not be deposited due to
non-availability of funds. It has been submitted that the
petitioners are in the process of arranging the requisite amount by
availing a loan from another financial institution, for which
sanction is awaited, and they are hopeful of obtaining the same
shortly. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank fairly
concedes that the amount of Rs.50 lakhs was paid on 17.01.2026;
however, he submits that the Bank is not inclined to grant any
further extension of time and that failure to pay the second
installment by 30.01.2026 would render the M.O.U. ineffective,
(Uploaded on 30/01/2026 at 06:36:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5655] (5 of 5) [CW-24910/2025]
thereby making the petitioners liable to pay the entire outstanding
loan amount.
7. Considering the exceptional facts and circumstances of the
case, as indicated by the petitioners, this Court deems it
appropriate to grant a further period of three weeks, i.e. up to
20.02.2026 to the petitioners to pay the second installment, as
agreed under the M.O.U. dated 17.01.2026.
8. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
9. Needless to observe that if the petitioners fail to pay the
second installment by 20.02.2026, the respondent-Bank would not
be bound by the terms and conditions of the MOU and would be
free to proceed further in accordance with law.
10. All pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of
accordingly.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J
265-skm/-
(Uploaded on 30/01/2026 at 06:36:21 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
