Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Shri Saket Kumar Jain

DRT9 Sept 2025OA/1152/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the bank's application for recovery of a loan of over Rs. 1.28 crores. Finding the loan documents and mortgage execution proved, the court directed defendants to pay dues within two months and ordered the issuance of a Recovery Certificate under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993.

What did the court decide?

Ordered payment of dues within two months; issued Recovery Certificate under Section 19(2) RDB Act 1993; restrained respondents from transferring assets.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Shri Saket Kumar Jain — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL

¶2

LUCKNOW

¶3

Dateoforderor .roceedinj	Order withsignatureofcourt		Officeaction takenwithdate
OA No.1m 09.09.2025	The Judgment is signed pronounced on separate sheets. Separ attachedin08 sheets.	and ately
	Order be uploaded on the Tribu website. (Dictated) D (PravasKumar,Si PresidingOffice (Manoj)	nal’s ngh) r

¶4

¶5

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT LU(_'KNOW

¶6

Present: Pravas Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

¶7

Original Application No. 1152 of 2023

¶8

Dated: 09.09.2025

¶9

Bank of Maharashtra, Branch at Noida . Sector -62, U.P. . . . . . . ..Applicant Bank Versus 1. SRI SAKET KUMAR JAIN S/o Sri Mr Ashok Kumar Jain lst Address House No. A2-702, Chloris Apartment, Sector 19, Faridabad, Haryana, 121002. 2nd Address: Finance Controller India and South Asia Abbott Healthcare Private Limited, The Suryaa, Office Floor, New Friends Colony, New Delhi- 110025 3RD Address: Villa No. A-0004, Amrapali Lesiure Valley, GH-2, Sectbr Tech Zone IV, Greater Noida, U.P. 2. M/S AMRAPLI LESIURE VALLY PRIVATE LIMITED, Having its Registered Office at 307, 3rd Floor Nipun Tower, Karkardooma Community Centre, Delhi- 110092. Corporate Office C-56/40, Sector 62, Noida Uttar Pradesh Site Office Plot G-2, Sector Tech Zone IV, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh. . . . . . . defendants

¶10

Counsel for applicant-bank: Shri Praveen Dwivedi , Advocate Counsel for the defendant no. 1:Shri R.K. Mishra, Advocate Counsel for the defendant no. 2: Ex -parte

¶11

a
W

¶12

¶13

O.A. N'. 1152 of 2023

¶14

JUDGEMENT

¶15

This Original Application has been filed by the applicant Bank under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts & BankruptcY Act) 19939 against the defendants for the recovery of Rs. 1,289899954/- (Rupees One Crorep Twenty Eight Lacs Eighty Nine Thousand, Nine Hundred Fifty Four Only) together with pendent-lite and future interest, costs and other reliefs etc.

¶16

The brief facts of case being that the defendants No.1 is the borrower and defendant no. 2 is the Developer /Builder, they entered in to the Tripartite Agreement with the defendant no. 1 and applicant bank. The defendant no.I approached the applicant bank for financial assistance. The applicant bank considered the request of the defendants and sanctioned Housing Loan Facility of Rs. 80.67 lacs vide sanction letter dt. 17.07.2014 (Exhibit A-3).

¶17

To secure the aforesaid credit facility, defendants had executed and signed various security documents in favour of the applicant-bank on 27.08.2014 loan and security documents (Exhibit A- 5 to A- 8).

¶18

The defendant no. 2 developer entered into Tripartite Agreement with the defendant no. 1 and applicant bank. As par Tripartite Agreement of para no.

¶19

That during the currency of the loan, the Borrower shall not transfer the said flat to any other person, without the prior written consent of the BOM. The Builder shall not issue the duplicate allotment

¶20

¶21

P\J

¶22

O.A. No. 1152 of 2023

¶23

letter/possession letter to the Borrower without the prior written consent of the BOM.

¶24

That in the event of any default by the Borrower, the BOM may at its discretion enforce the security by the sale and the Builder shall accept the Purchaser of the said flat in place of the Borrower, after the Purchaser complied with the necessary requirements of the Builder in this respect.

¶25

14 That the Builder assures the BOM that the construction shall be completed as per schedule and as per the sanctioned plans and on completion of construction, the title of the flat shall be conveyed in the name of the Borrower.

¶26

That it is further made clear and undersTood by all the parties that the non-completion of the project or the happening of any event shall not affect the obligations of the Borrower to repay the loan availed fom the BOM.

¶27

That the said flat is free from all encumbrances, charges, liens, Its pendence, attachments, trusts, prior agreements, whatsoever or howsoever. However, there is the fIrst charge of the Greater Noida Authority on the project and the Builder has provided or will provide the NOC, from the competent Authority in case any charge is created on the project

¶28

In order to further secure the repayment of the bank dues, the defendant No. 1created equitable mortgage in respect of property bearing Villa No. A-004, with super area 2525.00 sq. R. in project “Amrapali Leisure Valley”, being developed by Builder M/s Amrapali Leisure Valley Pvt Ltd at (JH-2, Sector Tech Zone IV, Greater Noida, U.P. (in

¶29

¶30

O.A. No. 1152 of 2023

¶31

the name of Mr. Saket Kumar Jain) in favour of the bank by deposit of title deed.

¶32

To avail the aforesaid credit facility, the applicant-bank opened loan account in the name of the defendant No. 1.

¶33

After availing the above mentioned credit facility from the applicant-bank, the defendants failed to maintain financial discipline and also failed to comply with the terms and conditions of agreement as required in the matter. The applicant-bank made all possible efforts through oral persuasion and letters etc. The defendants were reminded many times by several applications by the applicant-bank to regularize the loan account, but the defendants kept mum and have not come forward to make any efforts regarding payment of dues but the loan account of the defendants remained irregular and the defendants did not care to deposit the amount to adjust/ regularize the account despite various assurances given by defendants Consequently, the loan accounts of the defendant No.1 were classified as N.P.A. on 18.10.2017 by the applicant-bank as per RBI guidelines, therefore, the applicant-bank issued notice Dated 10.10.2023 (Exhibit No. A- 12) to the defendants and requested for repayments, but the Defendants did not pay any heed to the same, hence, this Original Application has been instituted.

¶34

As per books of the bank maintained in the usual and ordinary course of banking business, an outstanding of Rs. 1,28,89,954/- (Rupees One Crore, Twenty Eight Laos Eighty Nine Thousand, Nine Hundred

¶35

Fifty Four Only) including interest upto 22.09.2023, were lying due for

¶36

¶37

O.A. No. 1152 of 2023

¶38

¶39

payment9 for which the defendants are jointly and severally liable to repay the same, which they did not pay despite repeated requests and demand. The applicant bank filed the Statement of loan Accounts. (Exhibit No. A- 14)

¶40

The cause of action for filing the present application arose firstly when the aforesaid credit facility were sanctioned by the applicant Bank and the same were availed by the defendants and necessary documents were executed by the defendants on 27.08.2014 and 17.07.2014. The defendants have executed Balance Confirmation letter dated

¶41

02.08.2017, 30.07.2020, and 25.07.2023. The cause of action further arose on when Legal demand Notice dt. 28.07.2023 was sent to the defendants, recalling the entire outstanding dues and they failed to pay the same.

¶42

The summons were served upon the defendant through registered post, the defendant no. 1 appeared through counsel and filed written statement after statutory period and same was not taken on record and the defendant no. 2 did not appear before the Tribunal to contest his case, and the matter proceeded ex-parte against the defendant no. 2.

¶43

The only point of consideration before this Tribunal is as to whether bank is legally entitled to the amount as claimed in Original Application on the basis of documents and pleading submitted by it.

¶44

In support of the case Sh. Dhirendra Kumar, Chief Manager of the applicant bank has filed an affidavit.

¶45

f ,’ ---–b

¶46

O.A. No. 1152 of 2023

¶47

r 13. On a careful scrutiny of the evidence on affidavit and Exhibits marked as Exhibit No. A-1 to Exhibit No.A-15, it is proved that defendants had availed the credit facilities from the applicant-bank by executing loan and security documents detailed as above in favour of the applicantBank. A perusal of the application, evidence and documents relied upon clearly shows that the defendants had utilized the above loan facilities as granted to them. The applicant-bank had maintained the Books of account in the ordinary course of banking business showing disbursal of the loan amount. The Bank had also charged interest from time to time and the entries are relevant u/s 4 of the Banker Books of Evidence Act. It is also proved that the applicantbank’s claim is within limitation against defendants, therefore, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the dues.

¶48

Accordingly, the defendants are directed to pay the balance dues to the applicant bank within a period of two months from the date of judgement failing which the applicant bank will be entitled to sell the mortgaged property, hypothecated assets and personal assets/ properties of the defendants.

¶49

The interest claimed:[email protected]% per annum with monthly rest w.e.f. 01.11.2023 till the date of realization and costs

¶50

Interest allowed:- @9% per annum with monthly rest reducing balance from the date of filing of the O. A. till the date of realization with costs

¶51

O.A. No. 1152 of 2023

¶52

1 find that the bank has proved execution of loan documents and creation of mortgage in its favour. In the result, the Original Application succeeds as ex-parte against the defendants with costs. The liability of the defendant No. 1 & 2 are joint and several to be satisfied from mortgaged properties, hypothecated asset as well as the personal propertres.

¶53

It is, therefore , ordered

¶54

(i) That the Original Application No.1152 of 2023 of the applicant bank for issuance of Recovery Certificate to the tune of Rs. 1,28,89,954/- (Rupees One Crore, Twenty Eight Laos Eighty Nine Thousand, Nine Hundred Fifty Four Only) along with the interest @ 9% per annum with monthly rest from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 01.11.2023 till the loan is fully liquidated and costs succeed against the defendant No.1 & 2

¶55

(ii) The defendants are directed to pay the dues within a period of two months from the date of judgement, failing which the applicant bank will be entitled to recover the same from the secured assets, personal movables and immovable assets of the defendants.

¶56

(iii) The applicant–bank is entitled to recover aforesaid amount by sale of mortgage property & hypothecated assets (if not sold earlier under the provision of the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act 2002). The amount, if any already recovered by sale of any hypothecated

¶57

r&J -N\

¶58

¶59

O.A. No. 1152 of 2023

¶60

assets or otherwise shall be recoverable, if the dues of the applicant bank still remain unsatisfied, the same shall be recovered by attachment and sale of the personal movable assets of the defendant jointly and severally.

¶61

(iv) The defendants are here by restrained by means of injunction from depleting, transferring, encumbering, alienating or in any way dealing with their properties/estates without first paying the claim of the applicant-bank.

¶62

(V) Let Recovery C'ertificate be issued immediately u/s 19(22) of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993 by fixing 02.12.2025 before Recovery Officer, DRT, Lucknow.

¶63

Judgement is pronounced in the open court.

¶64

Dated: 09.09.2025. ,)” (Pravas Kumar :8) Presiding Officer

Bank of Maharashtra v. Shri Saket Kumar Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Shri Saket Kumar Jain

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

Canara Bank versus Mr Arun Prakash Singh

Lakhan Singh versus Bank of Baroda

Mohit versus India Shelter Finance Corporation Limited

Canara Bank versus Ms true empire

Arjun Singh versus Indian Overseas Bank

Smt Rashika Srivastava versus Idbi Bank