Allowed

Uco Bank v. Ms.Vandana Verma

DRT24 Dec 2024TA/2473/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application for recovery of outstanding home loan dues. Processing the case ex-parte due to respondent absence, the tribunal directed payment of the principal sum plus interest and recovery from the mortgaged flat within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Direct the respondents to pay Rs.29,82,466/- with interest at 11.60% p.a. within 30 days; direct recovery from sale of mortgaged flat; issue recovery certificate.

Uco Bank versus Ms.Vandana Verma — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

T.A. No.2473 of 2022

¶2

Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi 4th floor, Jeevan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi

¶3

Presiding Officer: Shri Govind BPIlabh Sharma

¶4

T.A. No. 2473 of 2022

¶5

UCO A-8, Opp May	Bank Archarya Niketan . Fine Home Apartments, ur Vihar Phase I, Delhi-110091 Applicant
Vers	us
1. At:	Ms Vandana Verma w/o Vijay Raj Singh Verma a) B-117, Mahindra Enclave Shastri Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP-201001
b)	KC-73, 1st Floor, Kavi Nagar Ghaziabad, UP-201001
c)	KC-85, 1st Floor, Kavi Nagar Ghaziabad, UP-201001
2. a)	Sh.Vijay Raj Singh Verma B-117, Mahindra Enclave Shastri Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP-201001
b)	KC-73, 1st Floor, Kavi Nagar Ghaziabad, UP-201001
c)	KC-85, 1st Floor, Kavi Nagar Ghaziabad, UP-201001 Defendants
Pre	sent: Sh. K.K.Tiwari, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶6

Date of Institution: 04.09.2021

¶7

Date of Pronouncement: 24.12.2024

¶8

FINAL ORDER

¶9

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 04.09.2021 before DRT-II Delhi & then transferred to DRT-I Delhi through Mrs Akriti Chaurasia, authorized

¶10

5c1--

¶11

T.A. No.2473 of 2022

¶12

representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.29,82,466/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lacs Eighty Two Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Six only) as on 23.08.2021 along with pendentelite and future interest @9.60% per annum plus @2% penal interest with monthly rests from 24.08.2021 till the date of its realization and costs.

¶13

2. The brief facts of the case are that on the request of defendants being borrower and guarantor vide their home loan application dated 20.08.2014, the applicant bank sanctioned Housing Loan of Rs.19.70 lacs on 27.082014 to be repayable in 240 EMI of Rs.19,273/- @10.20% interests with monthly rests from October 2014 in order to purchase Flat No.1204, 12th Floor, Maiya Marvel, Noor Nagar, NH-58, Raj Nagar Extension, Ghaziabad, UP to be constructed by M/s Maia Construction Pvt.Ltd. as per their allotment letter and agreement dated 13.08.2014. Further, an additional housing loan of Rs.6.75 lacs @9.75% interest per annum was sanctioned on 30.11.2015 for renovation of said flat to be repayable in 234 EMI of Rs.6,434/- from June 2016 by the applicant bank under UCO Top Up Home Loan.

¶14

That in order to avail the said loan facility, the defendants submitted home loan application and executed Loan Agreement, D.P.Note, Letter of Interest, Letter of Undertaking, Tripartite Agreement on 28.08.2014 in favour of applicant bank. Further, the applicant bank submitted Top Up Loan application and executed sanction letter dated 30.11.2015, Agreement of Top Up Housing Loan along with other security documents narrated above. The defendants also executed

¶15

T.A. No.2473 of 2022

¶16

letter of Undertaking to deposit sale deed as and when received from the concerned authorities after execution by the builder.

¶17

As per Tripartite Agreement dated '^{7.8.04.2014 executed} between defendants, builder along with applicant bank, the builder handed over the flat to the defendant and Sale Deed was executed on 01.09.2015 duly registered as Document No.11028, Volume No.10153, Book No.1, Pages 215 to 312 registered with Sub-Registrar II, Ghaziabad, UP.

¶18

The defendants signed and submitted balance confirmation letters dated 24.08.2016, 16.04.2018 and 11.03.2021 with the applicant bank.

¶19

That in order to secure the housing loan facilities, in order to create equitable mortgage, the defendants deposited the original Sale Deed of Flat No.1204, 12th Floor, Maiya Marvel, Noor Nagar, NH-58, Raj Nagar Extension, Ghaziabad, UP with one car parking having super area of 960 sq.ft. with the applicant bank

¶20

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facility, the defendants failed to maintain financial discipline and comply with the terms and conditions of loan despite several requests and reminders to pay the outstanding dues and monthly irstallments in time to the applicant bank. Ultimately, the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 31.03.2021 and issued legal demand notice dated 21.06.2021 but no response, hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶21

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and 8. despite proper service the defendants have chosen to absent

¶22

¶23

T.A. No.2473 of 2022

¶24

from the proceedings. As per order dated 05.08.2024, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as they have not appeared before the Tribunal nor written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have been filed.

¶25

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Mrs Akriti Chaurasia, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as Board Resolution Exh.AW1/1, Original Loan Application Exh.AW1/2, Housing Loan Applications Exh.AW1/3, Allotment Letter and Agreement Exh.AW1/4 & AW1/5, Sanction Memorandum Exh.AW1/6, Loan Agreement Exh.AW1/7 & AW1/14, DP Notes Exh.AW1/8 & AW1/15, Letter of Interest Exh.AW1/9 & AW1/16, Letter of Undertaking Exh.AW1/10 & AW1/17, Tripartite Agreement Exh.AW1f11, Top Up Home Loan Application Exh.AW1/12, Top Up Sanction Exh.AW1/13, Sale Deed Exh.AW1/18, Balance Confirmations Exh.AW1/19 to AW1/21, Legal Notice Exh.AW1/22, Statement of Account Exh.AW1/23.

¶26

10.^{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 proved.

¶27

11.^{The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and} there is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant bank and the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts

¶28

In the light of the above discussions, the Original Application deserves to be allowed.

¶29

T.A. No.2473 of 2022

¶30

ORDER

¶31

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.29,82,466/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lacs Eighty Two Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Six only) along with pendentelite and future interest @11.60% per annum with monthly rest from 24.08.2021 till its realization with costs, failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of Flat No.1204, Maiya Marvel, 12th Floor, Maiya Marvel, Noor Nagar, NH-58, Raj Nagar Extension, Ghaziabad, UP with one car parking. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶32

(II)^{The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent} to the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi.

¶33

(III)^{Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer,} DRT I, Delhi on 24.02.2025.

¶34

(IV)^{Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be} sent to all concerned free of cost.

¶35

5 4`-

¶36

(GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶37

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 24.12.2024

Uco Bank v. Ms.Vandana Verma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. Ms.Vandana Verma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ruchi Shukla versus Bank of India

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Sh. Rajesh Gupta

Canara Bank versus M/S Anjani Tiles and Sanitary Ware

State Bank of India versus Sh. Ashish Kumar

State Bank of India (E-State Bank of Hyderabad) versus Sh. Ankur Patahak

Bank of India versus Sh. Vinod Goswami