Allowed

Yes Bank Ltd. v. Sh. Vipin Sharma

DRT26 Nov 2025OA/1281/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed Yes Bank Limited's application against Vipin Sharma for recovery of Rs.34,00,445.58 arising from a vehicle loan default. The tribunal, ruling ex-parte against the defendant, directed recovery from hypothecated assets or personal assets via attachment.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.34,00,445.58 with 8% simple interest; issue of Recovery Certificate; liberty to enforce via sale of hypothecated or personal assets.

Yes Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Vipin Sharma — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1281/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 16.09.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 26.11.2025

¶6

Yes Bank Limited, a banking company, carrying on the banking business under the Banking Regulation Act 1949, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and having its Registered Office at YES BANK House, off Western Express Highway, Santacurz (E) Mumbai-400055 and one of its branch offices amongst other places known as YES Bank Ltd. Situated in SCO No.129-130, 2^nd Floor, Sector 9C, Near Citco Petrol Pump, Chandigarh-160009 through its Manager, Sh. Aashiv Bhayana.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Vipin Sharma S/o Sh. Suresh Chand Sharma R/o H. No. B-1665/4/A/2, Street No.9, New Kumdanpuri, Ludhiana-141001. 2^ND Address: SCO-21, Cabin No.13-14, Feroz Gandhi Market, Ludhiana141001.

¶10

. ….……Defendant

¶11

Advocates:

¶12

Argued by: Ms. Seerat Sharma, Advocate proxy for Sh. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for the applicant

¶13

None for Defendant

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendant for recovery of Rs.34,00,445.58 (Thirty Four Lakhs Four Hundred Forty Five and Paise Fifty Eight Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Aashiv Bhayana, Authorized Signatory, of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original

¶16

2 OA/1281/2025 YES BANK LTD. VS SH.VIPIN SHARMA

¶17

Application vide General Power of Attorney of dated 28.03.2025, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶18

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant had approached the applicant for the grant of Term Loan of Rs.50.00 Lacs for purchase of used car Toyota Fortuner vide loan application form dated 17.01.024, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶19

The applicant sanctioned the two vehicle loans of Rs.24,78,280/and of Rs.13,71,134/- and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant. Terms and conditions applicable to vehicle loan dated 24.01.2024, which are Annexure A5 to this OA.

¶20

Defendant had hypothecated Vehicle namely “FORTUNER SIGMA4” bearing Registration no. PB10FN0777, Engine no.1GDA549152 and Chassis no. MBJBA3FS400828089~0921. Registration certificate of the vehicle, which is Annexure A6 to this OA. Documents executed: - Loan disbursement letter, loan agreement dated 24.01.2024, which are Annexures A3 and A4 to this OA; Recall notice dated 22.07.2025, which is Annexure A7 to this OA; Foreclosure letters and Statement of accounts, which are Annexures A8 to A11 to this OA.

¶21

The loan accounts became irregular and were classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan accounts there was a debit of Rs.34,00,445.58, which is recoverable and the defendant was served recall notices but he did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶22

The defendant was served notices to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and he was proceeded ex-parte on 21.11.2025.

¶23

3 OA/1281/2025 YES BANK LTD. VS SH.VIPIN SHARMA

¶24

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Aashiv Bhayana, Authorized Signatory, Yes Bank Ltd., has been filed.

¶25

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶26

It was argued by learned proxy counsel that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case. From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A11 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant approached applicant for availing of the loan facilities which were granted to him and for that he had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. The defendant failed to pay back the loans as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, accounts of the defendant were classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.34,00,445.58 (Thirty Four Lakhs Four Hundred Forty Five and Paise Fifty Eight Only) along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the accounts.

¶27

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @16.10% p.a. with monthly rest from 22.07.2025 till the realization.

¶28

The Tribunal is of the considered opinion that sometimes in appropriate cases the prerogative of mercy is the brightest jewel in the crown of the Judge. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case including nature of the mortgaged property/hypothecated assets, undertaking of the defendant, quantum of loans and prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yester years, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @8.00%p.a. in both the loan accounts from the date of filing of the OA

¶29

4 OA/1281/2025 YES BANK LTD. VS SH.VIPIN SHARMA

¶30

till realization of the amounts ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶31

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.34,00,445.58 (Thirty Four Lakhs Four Hundred Forty Five and Paise Fifty Eight Only), with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00%p.a. in both the loan accounts from the date of filing of OA till the date of realization of the amounts. Accordingly, the applicant shall be entitled to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of hypothecated vehicle of the defendant in execution proceedings if not sold earlier under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. If the dues of the applicant still remain unsatisfied, it shall be entitled to recover the same by attachment and sale of personal assets of the defendant. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law. 12. Any other application pending stands disposed of. 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 06.12.2025. 15. Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant and be sent to defendant through registered/speed post and this order be also uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal and record be consigned. Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal. Dated: 26.11.2025. (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Yes Bank Ltd. v. Sh. Vipin Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yes Bank Ltd. v. Sh. Vipin Sharma

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

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Sh. Ram Tirath Singh Alias Tirath Singh Alias Ram Tirath Singh Kang

State Bank of India versus Sh. Gursharanpreet Singh Sandhu and Another

State Bank of India versus Sh. Kaur Singh

Yes Bank Limited versus Puri Bath Care and another

Yes Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Najar Singh and Others

Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited versus Multani Oil Mills and Others