Allowed

Central Bank of India v. Vipin Gupta

DRT4 May 2024TA/821/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application for recovery of dues. The bank filed an original application under Section 19 of the RDBFI Act for ₹59,46,360 against borrowers who failed to repay a term loan secured by an equitable mortgage. The defendants did not appear or file a written statement. The court held the bank proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and directed r

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate to be issued for ₹59,46,360 plus interest and costs, to be recovered from sale of mortgaged or defendants' other properties.

Central Bank of India versus Vipin Gupta — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

T.A. No.821 of 2022

¶2

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

¶3

Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sharma T.A. No. 821 of 2022
Central Bank of India 2/121, Industrial Area Main Rohtak Road, Anand Parbat Branch New Delhi-110005 Applicant
Versus
1. Vipin Gupta sib Ram Niwas Gupta R/o D-1/16, Jeevan Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059
2. Meenakshi Gupta w/o Vipin Gupta R/o D-1/16, Jeevan Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059
3. Ram Niwas Gupta s/o Om Prakash Gupta R/o D-1/16, Jeevan Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059 Defendants
Present: Sh. Subodh Kumar Singh, Counsel for applicant bank
Date of Institution: 20.06.2018
Date of Pronouncement: 04.05.2024

¶4

FINAL ORDER

¶5

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 20.06.2018 through Shri Mahender Singh, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of Rs.59,46,360/-

¶6

¶7

T.A. No.821 of 2022

¶8

(Rupees Fifty Nine Lacs Forty Six Thousand Three Hundred Sixty only) as on 13.06.2018 along with pendentelite and future interest ©13.10°/o per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing of this application till its realization and cost. Further, the name of Sh.R.S.Mishra was substituted as authorized representative in place of Sh.Mahender Singh, erstwhile AR for the applicant bank.

¶9

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of defendant no.1 to 3, the applicant bank sanctioned term loan facility of Rs.49.00 lacs under CENT Mortgage Loan scheme for business purpose on 21.03.2014 on the rate of interest as per circulars/directives of RBI against property situated at Jeevan Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. The loan was to be repayable in 120 EMI of Rs.75,345/- by the defendants.

¶10

That in order to avail the said loan facility, defendants submitted application on 15.03.2014 and executed Term loan agreement, Letter of Interest, Consent Clause, Affidavit, Declaration and undertaking on 21.03.2014.

¶11

That in order to secure the loan facility, the defendant no.1 created the equitable mortgage of property bearing no. D-1/16, Khasra No.16/22, Jeevan Park, Uttam Nagar, area of Village Asalatpur, New Delhi measuring 100 sq.yds.by depositing Sale Deed dated 13.03.2014 towards loan sanctioned by the applicant bank.

¶12

It has been submitted that after availing the aforesaid loan facility, the defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions and despite several request letters issued, the defendants failed to pay dues and monthly installments in time to the applicant bank. Ultimately, the account was

¶13

T.A. No.821 of 2022

¶14

declared NPA on 28.11.2015 as per applicable guidelines but no response from the defendants hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶15

Notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 dated 06.04.2016 was issued by the applicant bank calling upon the defendants to pay the dues within 60 days but no response from the defendants. The applicant bank issued notice under Section 13(4) on 10.08.2016 for taking symbolic possession duly published in newspapers and moved application u/s 14 and got appointed Court Receiver but defendants filed SA no.39/2017 before this tribunal for restraining bank from proceeding against the property in question. The applicant bank taken physical possession of property on 06.07.2017 as defendants failed to comply with the directions of Hon'ble Tribunal. Later on, it was found that sale deed deposited by defendants with the bank is fake and fabricated as opined by panel lawyer of applicant bank.

¶16

Notices of this O.A. were issued and served through all modes but defendants did not appear before this tribunal despite publication notice in newspapers. As per order dated 01.06.2022, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as no written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have been filed.

¶17

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way filing the original documents as Power of attorney Annexure A-1, Loan application form Annexure A-2 (colly), Term loan agreement Annexure A-3, Letter of interest Annexure A-4, Consent Clause Annexure A-5, Affidavit

¶18

sci

¶19

T.A. No.821 of 2022

¶20

Annexure A-6, Declaration Annexure A-7, Copy of Sale Deed Annexure A-8(colly), Notice under Section 13(2) along with postal receipts Annexure A-9(colly), Notice u/s 13(4) Annexure A-10, Newspapers copy Annexure A-11, CMM order Annexure A-12, Order of Tribunal Annexure A-13, Order dated 01.06.2017 Annexure A-14(colly), Panchnama & Inventory Annexure A-15(colly), Certified Statement of Account under Banker's Book Evidence Act Ex.AW1/16(colly).

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

(I) I, allow this OA and direct the defendants, jointly or severally, to pay to the applicant bank, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.59,46,360/- (Rupees Fifty Nine Lacs Forty Six Thousand Three Hundred Sixty only) as on 13.06.2018 along with pendentelite and future interest @13.10% per annum with monthly rest from date of filing of this application till the date of realization and costs, failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of

¶26

T.A. No.821 of 2022

¶27

mortgaged property bearing no.D-1/16, Khasra No.16/22, Jeevan Park, Uttam Nagar, area of Village Asalatpur, New Delhi measuring 100 sq.yds. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶28

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

¶29

(III) Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 0107.2024.

¶30

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

¶31

**,s-3**

¶32

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

¶33

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 04.05.2024

Central Bank of India v. Vipin Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Central Bank of India v. Vipin Gupta

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

Trade World Enterprises Prop Mohd Farhan Hashim versus Idbi Bank

Bank of Baroda versus Balkrishna Traders

Shri Vitthal So Bapurao Wanode versus Bank of Baroda

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Om Sai and Sai Company

Canara Bank versus Sri Sanjay Bhardwaj

Jagdish Sons and Co. versus Idfc First Bank Ltd.