Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sh Mohanlal Tomar

DRT24 Dec 2024TA/401/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an original application under Section 19 of the RDB Act, the State Bank of India sought recovery of outstanding dues from a defaulting vehicle loan borrower. The Tribounal, finding the bank's evidence unrebutted, ruled in favor of the applicant and directed the recovery of the principal amount, interest, and costs.

What did the court decide?

Direction to pay Rs.11,79,170/- with interest within 30 days; direction to recover shortfall from sale of the hypothecated vehicle and other assets; issuance of recovery certificate.

State Bank of India versus Sh Mohanlal Tomar — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

T.A. No.401 of 2023

¶2

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

¶3

Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sharma

¶4

T.A. No. 401 of 2023

¶5

State Bank of India RACPC (Central), Gr.Floor, A Block Applicant 11, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001 Versus

¶6

Sh.Mohan Lal Tomar s/o Sh.Radhey Shyam R/o 1239, 1st Floor, Shora Kothi Gali Jaipuria, Old Subzi Mandi Malkaganj, Delhi-110007

¶7

Also at: Sh.Mohan Lal Tomar s/o Sh.Radhey Shyam Proprietor of M/s MLA Enterprises 800/12, Ground Floor 1st Floor, Shora Kothi Subzi Mandi, Near Rawalpindi Jewellers Defendant Clock Tower, Delhi-110007 Present: Sh.Jeewan Parkash Gupta, Counsel for the applicant bank Date of Institution: 24.08.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 24.12.2024

¶8

FINAL ORDER

¶9

This original application has been tiled by the applicant bank on 24.08.2017 through Sh.Vijay Kumar, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.11,79,170/- (Rupees Eleven Lacs Seventy Nine Thousand One Hundred Seventy

¶10

T.A. No.401 of 2023

¶11

only) as on 18.08.2017 along with pendentelite and future interest @10.05% per annum with monthly rest plus 2% simple penal interest from date of filing of O.A. and costs till the date of realization. Further, the name of Mr. R.K.Garg was substituted as authorized representative in place of Mr.Vijay Kumar, erstwhile AR for the applicant bank.

¶12

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant vide loan application dated 04.08.2014 along with Proforma invoice dated 15.07.2014, the applicant bank sanctioned Vehicle Loan of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs only) on 04.08.2014 @10.95% interest subject to change from to time & penal interest @2% in the event of default or delay in repayment schedule to be repayable 84 monthly instalments of Rs.17,096/- from September 2014 in order to purchase Volkswagon Vento 1.6L Diesel CLM Car from M/s Globus Cars Pvt. Ltd.

¶13

That in order to avail the said loan facility, the defendant submitted Loan application and executed Sanction / Arrangement Letter, Loan cum Hypothecation Agreement, Letter of Authority and Undertaking all dated 04.08.2014 in favour of the applicant bank.

¶14

That in order to secure the car loan facility, the defendant hypothecated the Volkswagon Vento 1.6L Diesel CLM Car having Registration no. DL-8CY-2239, Engine No.CLN263537, Chasis No.VVVVVA14605ET045067 in favour of the applicant bank.

¶15

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facility, the defendant failed to comply with the terms and conditions and despite request

¶16

T.A. No.401 of 2023

¶17

dated 24.06.2015, failed to pay the outstanding dues and monthly instalments in time to the applicant bank. The applicant bank classified the account as Non Performing Asset on 04.10.2015 and issued legal demand notice dated 06.05.2017 to adjust the dues of the applicant bank along with interest but defendant has failed to comply with the notice. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶18

Notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 dated 12.11.2015 was issued to the defendant calling upon them to pay the entire outstanding dues with the applicant bank.

¶19

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendant and despite proper service, the defendant chose to absent from the proceedings and none appeared on behalf of defendant, hence proceed ex-parte. As per order dated 19.11.2019, the defendant has been proceeded ex-parte due to non filing of written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets before this Tribunal.

¶20

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri R.K.Garg, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as Gazette Notification Ex.AW1/1(colly), Loan Application Ex.AW1/2, Proforma Invoice Ex.AW1/3, Sanction / Arrangement Letter Ex.AW1/4, Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement Ex.AW1/5, Letter of Authority Ex.AW1/6, Undertaking Ex.AW1/7, Covering Letter Ex.AW1/8, Retail Invoice Ex.AW1/9, Receipt Ex.AW1/10, Insurance Cover Note Ex.AW1/11, Certificate of Registration Ex.AW1/12, Vehicle

¶21

54"

¶22

T.A. No.401 of 2023

¶23

Delivery Letter Ex.AW1/13, ECS Mandate Ex.AW1/14, Letters dated 12.11.2015, 23.11.2016 & 07.12.2016 Ex.AW1/15 to Ex.AW1/17, Notice u/s 13(2) Ex.AW1/18, Legal Demand Notice Ex.AW1/19, Speed Post Ex.AW1/20(colly), AD Card Ex.AW1/21 to Ex.AW1/23, Certified Statement of Accounts Ex.AW1/24 to Ex.AW1/26, Assets & Liabilities Statement Ex.AW1/27.

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

In the light of the above discussions and documents on record, the Original Application deserves to be allowed.

¶27

ORDER

¶28

I, allow this OA and direct the defendant to pay to the applicant bank within 30 days, a suns of Rs.11,79,170/(Rupees Eleven Lacs Seventy Nine Thousand One Hundred Seventy only) along with pendentelite and future interest @12.05% per annum with monthly rest and costs from filing of this O.A., failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from sale of Volkswagon Vento 1.6L Diesel CLM Car having Registration no. DL-8CY-2239, Engine No.CLN263537, Chasis No.\ANWA14605ET045067. In cese of shortfall, the

¶29

T.A. No.401 of 2023

¶30

same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable assets of the defendant.

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

Sci -

¶35

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

¶36

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 24.12.2024

State Bank of India v. Sh Mohanlal Tomar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sh Mohanlal Tomar

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

Uco Bank versus Ms.Vandana Verma