DrT-I Delhi allowed ICIG Bank's original application for recovery of loan dues of Rs. 24,45,267 from respondents. Court directed payment within 30 days and sale of mortgaged property in case of default.
Order allowed; directed respondents to pay Rs. 24,45,267 with interest within 30 days; directed sale of mortgaged property for recovery of shortfall.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Before SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI, Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi
oA 280 0F 2022 ICIq BANK LTD. VS. AIEET KUMAR SINGH AND ORS.
Reserued on : 16.11.2023 Pronounced on = 2O.L2.2O23
ICIG BANK LTD. Vs.
-Applicant bank
1.Sh. Ajeet Kumar Singh
2.Rita Singh
3.M/s Ajnara Realtech Ltd.
Present: Sh. Pafth Kaushik, Counsel appears for applicant bank. None for defendants.
FINAL ORDER
This original application has been filed by the applicant ban( on 20.04.2022 through Shri Dinesh Sharma, Authorised Officer of the applicant bank, under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financia! Institution Act, 1993 against the defendant no. 1 to 3 for recovery of a sum of Rs.24,45,2671- together with cost, charges and pendentellite and future interest @ 31.45o/o p.d. from date of filing of this O.A. till the realization in full.
oA NO. 280 0F 20222
Gautam Budh Nagar, UttarPradeshfrom defendant no.3. In order to avail the abovesaid loan facility the defendant no.1 has executedvarious loaning documents dated 26.10.2015and 06.01.2016.The defendant no.1 also createdequitable mortgage in respect of the above mentionedpropefiin favourof the applicant bank.
QANO. 280 0F 2022 3
Hence, the case of the applicant bank stands fully established against the defendants with respect to non payment of EMI/ outstanding amount.
In the light of the above discussions, the Original Application deserues to be allowed against defendant no.1 & 2.
ORDER
oA NO. 280 0F 2022
4
File be consigned to records.
Date :20.L2.2023
gJ //' (SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi
Thisjudgement has been signed, dated and pronounced in open couft.
Date :20.L2.2023
,^ >2oiao _/ (susHrL KUMAR RASTOGT) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi
M
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the original application filed under Section 19 of the RDBFIA for recovery of dues is maintainable and deserves to be allowed.
Whether the respondents are liable to pay the outstanding loan amount along with interest and costs as directed by the Tribunal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
ICIG BANK LTD.
AJEET KUMAR SINGH
RITA SINGH
M/S AJNARA REALTECH LTD.
SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
