Allowed

Axis Bank v. Ajeet Kumar

DRT25 Jul 2025OA/186/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the application of Axis Bank to recover a debt of Rs. 29.82 lakhs from two borrowers. The court rejected the developer's liability due to lack of signature on the tripartite agreement and proceeded ex-parte against non-appearing borrowers, issuing a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

A recovery certificate was issued ordering the payment of Rs. 29,82,428 along with interest and costs, and attaching mortgaged assets.

Axis Bank versus Ajeet Kumar — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

OA 186 of20241JI

DRT, PATNA

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna

¶5

Karpuri Thakur Sadan, Aashiana Digha Road Patna-800025

¶6

Presiding Officer : Shri Kaushalendra Yadav

¶7

OA Case No. 186 of 2024

¶8

Axis Bank Limited, at 2-d Floor, Sita Usha Square Complex, Kankarbagh, Patna 800020

¶9

. . . . . . .Applicant

¶10

Vs.

¶11

Ajeet Kumar, S/o Ganarui Sharma, residing at opp. of Ravishankar Apartment, C)pp. Pillar No. 15, Khajpura, Near Ravi Shankar Apartment, Patna, Bihar 800014

¶12

Also at:- Thakuri Thana, Paliganj Banauli Buzurg, Near Devi Mandir, Patna, Bihar- 800014

¶13

Mrs. Nibha Kumari, W/o Ajit Kumar, residing at Opp. Of Ravishankar Apartment, C)pp. Pillar No. 15, Khajpura, Near Ravi Shankar Apartment, Patna, Bihar 800014

¶14

Also at:- Thakuri Thana, Paliganj Banauli Buzurg, Near Devi Mandir, Patna, Bihar- 800014

¶15

M/s Mundeshwari Multicon Pvt. Ltd., a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, having its registered office at Bamhaur Palace, Main Road, Buddha Colony, District- Patna 800001

¶16

. . . . . . . Defendants

¶17

Present:

¶18

For the Applicant Shri Deepak Kumar, Advocate For the Defendant no.3 Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocate Shri Kirti Keshav, Advocate

¶19

Dated:25.07.2025

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The Applicant bank has made this application u/s 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (here-in-after referred to as Act) on 27.03.2024 against the defendants to recover its debts from defendants of Rs.29,82,428/- as on 05.10.2023 along with pendente-lite and future interest at the contractual rate from 06.10.2023 with costs till realization.

,iq

OA 186 of 2024IJI

DRT, PATNA

The application has been filed with the contention that the applicant bank, is a body corporate, carries on the business and is competent to file the suit through various branches including the applicant.

¶27

Defendant no.1 is a borrower and the defendant no.2 is the co-borrower and they approached the applicant bank for sanction of home Loan vide loan application dated 29.10.2020 to purchase the property being 606(F), Block A in Mundeshwari’s Jalalpur Tower at 6th Floor, at Abhimanyu Nagar, MouzaJalalpur, P.O.- Sahay Nagar (Dhanout), P.S.- Rupaspur, Danapur, Patna, measuring Super built up area- 1173 sq.R. (Carpet area measuring 705 sq.ft. Balcony (Excluding carpet area), measuring 127 sq.R. and common area measuring 341 sq.n. having two bed rooms, two toilet cum bath, one kitchen, one drawing cum dinning space & two balconies. The defendant no.3 is the developer and builder of the said abovementioned property.

¶28

In consideration of the loan application, the applicant bank sanctioned a Home Loan of Rs.30 Lakh vide sanction letter dated 28.11.2020, out of which a sum of Rs.27,24,3 19/- was disbursed directly to the defendant no.3 on various terms and conditions, as stipulated in the sanction letter, which were duly accepted by the defendants. To secure the loan facilities defendants have executed various loan and security documents.

¶29

In respect of purchase of said property, a sale agreement was executed by and between the defendant no.1& 2 and defendant no.3 on 13.10.2020. Thereafter a Tripartite Agreement was executed between the defendant no,1, defendant no.3 and the applicant bank by virtue of which the defendant no.3 had agreed to get the said property registered in the name of defendant no. 1 and 2 by executing a sale deed upon the notice of the applicant bank in writing and also deliver the sale deed pertaining to the said property to the applicant bank secure the home loan amount sanctioned to the defendant no.1 & 2.

¶30

However, the defendant no.3 has failed to deliver the said sale deed to the applicant bank in breach of the terms of the said Tripartite Agreement thereby, affecting the rights and interest under the loan agreement dated + 28.12.2020. h VA'q

OA 186 of 20241JI

DRT, PATNA

After availing the sanctioned credit facilities, the defendants became irregular in repayment of their dues as per agreed terms and failed to adhere to the financial norms of the bank and avoiding the repayment of its dues to the bank, in spite of several assurances given by it to the applicant bank resulting in the account turning as NPA on 08.06.2023 .

¶35

Since, the defendants failed and neglected in spite of several reminders to make payment of the dues recoverable to the bank, hence this application has been filed by the bank.

¶36

The total liability in the loan account is Rs.29,82,428/- as on 05.10.2023 with pendente-lite and future interest contractual rate from 06.10.2023 till the realization.

¶37

This Tribunal issued summons/notices copies of application & paper book to the defendants by registered/speed post on 08.05.2024, requiring them to show-cause within 30 days of the service U/s 19 (4) of the Act & Rule of the DRT [Procedure] Rules, 1993. In response to the notice, the defendant no.3 has appeared by filing vakalatnama on 18.06.2024 but the defendant no.l&2 have not appeared, hence, the Registry of this Tribunal has ordered to publish the notice in newspaper and subsequently, substituted service by publication of notice by way of advertisement in newspaper was also made against the defendants no. I &2 on 07.08.2024 in “Morning India” and “Aaj” newspapers.

¶38

Despite the registered summons/notices and publication of notice in newspaper, the defendant no. 1 & 2 have not appeared before this Tribunal to contest the case. The sufficient time has been given to them to defend their case, but they failed to appear and to file WS, hence, the defendants no.I & 2 are proceeded ex-parte.

¶39

The defendant no.3 has filed written statement after closure of the right to file the same hence vide order dated 17.01.2025, written statement was ordered to be returned to the party who had filed it and further an opportunity was granted to the defendants to file the rebuttal evidence, but the same has not been filed. \ /An

OA 186 of 20241JI

DRT. PATIVA

To prove its case, the applicant Bank has referred various certified photocopies of documents before this Tribunal. The applicant bank has also given evidence on affidavit by way of affidavit by Shri Shut)ham Saurav, Authorized Signatory of the applicant bank. The details of documents are as follows:

¶44

SI.No	Description Documents Photocopies of	Dateof Execution	Amount (in Lakh)	Signature Executants	of	1Ex./ Ann No.
	Loanapplication	29. 10.2020	42.00	Def,no.1&2
	Loanagm Sanction letter, Power ofAttorney, Undertaking, additionalcustomer declarations, misc. declarations/ undertakin:	28.12.2020	30.00	Def.no.1&2
3	r	13.10.2020		Def.no.3 i.e. Mundeshwari Multicon Pv and Def.no.1&	M/s t.Ltd 2	3
4	r			Def.no.1&2. and one MortgageGua Corporation Ltd.	Bank India rantee Pvt.	4
	e			Bank’sadv.
	Foreclosure letter andstatementof account			Bank

¶45

Heard arguments and perused the case record. During the course of arguments, Id. counsel for the defendant no.3 has submitted that the defendant no.3 neither obtained any loan from the bank nor signed any loan documents as a loanee or guarantor and on the other hand the applicant granted loan to the defendant no. 1& 2 nor to the defendant no.3. He further submitted that due to non-payment of full consideration amount, the transfer of the flat has not been made and unless or until the full amount is not paid to the defendant no.3, the registration cannot be done.

¶46

Ld. Counsel of applicant bank submitted that the defendants have taken the loan and utilized the same and also executed the various loan documents to secure the loan. Further, submitted that the claim of the bank has been proved Ca

OA 186 of2024jJI

DRT, PATN A

by documentary evidence. All the transactions were entered in the ledger of the loan accounts in the name of the defendant duly maintained by the applicant bank in its usual course of business. The interest /compound interest has been charged at such rates, and capitalized at such periodical rests as are permitted by and do not run counter to the directives of Reserve Bank of India.

¶51

It is further submitted by Id. Counsel of applicant bank that there is no stay granted by any Higher Court, in respect of the proceedings of the present OA and requested to issue recovery certificate, as claimed for, in OA.

¶52

It has been established that defendants are living and carrying on their business in the state of Bihar. Cause of action also arose in the State of Bihar. The said claim on the date of filing of application exceeded Rs.20 lacs. The applicant bank is functioning within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Therefore, this Tribunal has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present application.

¶53

On the issue of Limitation, to prove it, the applicant bank has submitted that the applicant bank has declared the account as NPA on 08.06.2023, whereas the present application has been filed on 27.03.2024. Even, it is counted for the purpose of Limitation, then it is established that the applicant bank has filed the case within the limitation period. As such, it is established that the present application has been filed well within the period of limitation.

¶54

Shri Shubham Saurav, Authorized Signatory of the applicant bank has filed the affidavit in support of contents of application and the documents as evidence and proved on oath the pleadings and documents of the applicant bank as stated above.

¶55

Section 19(3) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 provides that the application u/s S.19 (1) shall be accompanied with true copies of all the documents relied on in support of the claim.

¶56

The rule 12 (10) of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993, provides that if the defendant denies his liability to pay the claim made by the applicant, the tribunal may act upon the affidavit of the applicant who is acquainted with the facts of \A

OA 186 of20241JI

DRTq PATNA

the case or who has on verification of the record sworn the affidavit in respect of the contents of the application and the documents as evidence.

¶61

The rule 12 (11) of the aforesaid Rules, provides that the provisions contained in section 4 of the Banker’s Books evidence that Act, 1891 (18 of 1891) shall apply to a certified copy of an entry in a Banker’s Books furnished along with application filed under sub section 1 of section 19 by the applicant.

¶62

Section 4 of Banker’s Books evidence Act, 1891 runs as underS.4. Mode of proof of entries in bankers’ books.–Subject to the provisions of this Act, a cert Bed copy of any entry in a banker’s book shall in all legal proceedings be received as prima facie evidence of the existence of such entry, and shall be admitted as evidence of the matters, transactions and accounts therein recorded in every case where, and to the same extent as, the original entry itself is now by law admissible, but not further or otherwise.

¶63

As such the certified true copies of the documents are admissible in evidence. The statement of account maintained in the ordinary course of business is not only admissible but shall be taken as the correct statement of account, more so since the entries in the statement of account have not been challenged.

¶64

The applicant bank has also sought for issuance of Recovery CertifIcate against the defendant no.3, M/s Mtmdeshwari Multicon Pvt. Ltd i.e. Builder on the basis of the Tripartite Agreement as Annexure-4 above but on perusal of the Agreement dated 25.03.2021, it appears that the defendant no.1 namely Ajeet Kumar and Defendant no.2 namely Mrs. Nit)ha Kumari, W/o Ajit Kumar, Applicant bank and one India Mortgage Guarantee Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (who is not a party/defendant in this case), have executed the Tripartite Agreement. None has put signatures for M/s Mundeshwari Mutticon Pvt. Ltd., (Defendant no.3 i.e. Builder) on this so called Tripartite Agreement. As such there exists no legal contract creating rights and contractual obligation of the defendant no.3 .

¶65

As the applicant bank has not made any contract with the defendant no. 3 M/s Mundeshwari Multicon Pvt. Ltd i.e. Builder hence the defendant no. 3 i.e. Builder is not liable to pay the dues to the applicant bank.

¶66

15 . On perusal of the application, documents, affidavit and on consideration of the arguments, it is proved that the defendants no. 1 & 2 have applied for loan and the bank had sanctioned the loan and to secure the loan and for repayment of loan amount with interests etc., the defendants have executed v/q

OA 186 of2024jJ1

DRT, PATNA

various loan documents, as stated in the application and proved by aforesaid evidence. Defendants no.1 & 2 have neither denied the utilization of funds advanced by applicant bank nor have pointed out any specific error and discrepancy in the Statement of Account.

¶71

The evidence discussed above goes to establish that the amount of loan as mentioned in the O. A., was availed by the borrower under the agreed terms and conditions for repayment with interest. The balance amount till 05.10.2023 has been proved to be Rs.29,82,428/- only by way of statement of account as well as affidavit. There is nothing to prove the amount more than that disclosed in the aforementioned statement. As such this amount is recoverable till full and final realization of the claim.

¶72

In my view, facts of the case stand proved by evidence of the applicant bank. Accordingly, the applicant bank is entitled to recover from defendants no.1 & 2 jointly and severally of Rs.29,82,428/- along with pendente-lite and future interest @ 11% p.a. with compounded month]y rests from 27.03.2024 (The date of filing of this OA) till realization. So the final order may be passed accordingly, to meet the ends of justice.

¶73

ORDER

¶74

In the result, the application of the applicant bank is allowed and debt is determined with costs against the defendants no.1 & 2. The defendants no. 1 & 2 are hereby jointly and severally, ordered to pay the applicant bank its debt amounting to Rs.29,82,428/- along with pendente-lite and fUture interest @ 11% p.a. with compounded monthly rests from 27.03.2024 (The date of filing of this OA) till realization of the entire sum adjudicated due and recoverable with costs.

¶75

It is made clear that any amount deposited by the defendants no. 1 & 2, be deducted in the claim amount, if not deducted.

¶76

Defendants no.1 & 2 are debarred from transferring, alienating encumbering or otherwise dealing with or disposing of the mortgaged or hypothecated or any other properties and assets without paying the aforesaid adjudicated dues to the applicant bank to secure the ends of justice. The mortgaged or hypothecated assets to secure the loan in question are hereby

OA 186 of20241JI

DRT, PATNA

attached and shall be subject to the final order under the recovery proceedings in pursuance of the Recovery certificate issued under Section 19(22) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993. The applicant may submit the certified copy of this Judgment and the Recovery Certificate before the Registrar/Sub- Registrar to endorse the charge over the secured assets.

¶81

Let a certificate of recovery be drawn up forthwith and put up for signatures in terms of provisions contained in Section 19(22) of the Act to be issued, on the basis of the order of the Tribunal to the Recovery Officer. The Recovery Officer shall realize the amount as per the certificate in the manner and mode prescribed under the Act from the defendants no.1 & 2, by sale of mortgage(1/ hypothecated assets as well as other personal movable/immovable assets of the defendants no.1 & 2. The Recovery Officer will issue demand notice to the Certificate debtors only after the proof of compliance under rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules 1993, is submitted. The copy of this judgment be uploaded in the website of the Tribunal.

¶82

Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT, Patna on 03.09.2025. The order be communicated accordingly.

¶83

Judgment signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open court on 25th day of July, 2025.

¶84

Dictated &corrected by me. r _. v/'IU'i \-JY- ' CV [KaushalendraYadav] Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna

¶85

FORM NOI 9

¶86

[See Regulation 24(1)]

¶87

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL PATN A

¶88

2nd Floor1 (A. B & F Wing) Karpuri Thakur Sadant Kendriya Karamchari Parisar (GPC)A), Ashiana Digha Road, Patna-800025.

¶89

F:b E (baF•q1 (b ) V E IIL Y (b &qrI E IILT I F 1 (b1qATIR::Irb }gjll g ;!E§?yES]THE iT;i;E tUrl :Hr8 :FRi:BC ( ) VERbY () F DEBT III

¶90

RC NQ. 247/2025 IN

¶91

Case No: OA/186/2024

¶92

In the Matter of: (CH- 1) AXIS BANK AT 2ND FLOOR SITA USHA SQUARE COMPLEX KANKARBAGH,

Applicant(s)

PATNA ,BIHAR -800020

(CD- 1) AJEET KUMAR S/o- Ganauri Sharma Residing at Opp. of Ravishankar Apartment, opp. Pillar No. 15, Khajpura, Near Ravi Shankar Apartment, Patna .BIHAR -800014 Also At THAKURI TH ANA, PALIGANJ BANAULI BUZURG, NEW DEVI MANDIR, PATNA, BIHAR- 800014

¶97

Defendant(s)

¶98

(CD- 2) MRS. NIBHA KUMARI WIFE OF AJIT KUMAR. RESIDING AT

¶99

RAVISHANKAR APARTMENT OPP. PILLAR NO. 15, KHAJPURA. NEAR RAVI SHANKAR APARTMENT, PATNA BIHAR- 8000 14

¶100

Also At

¶101

THAKUR[ TH ANA, PALIGANJ BANAULI BUZURG,

¶102

NEW DEVI MANDIR, PATNA, BIHAR- 800014

¶103

¶104

In terms of anal order dated 25/07/2025 passed by this Tribunal in the above mentioned case, it is ordered that the Applicant Certificate Holder Bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 2982428.00 along with cost, expenses and interest from the 27/03/2024 i.e. date of filing / with effective date of the OA/1 86/2024 and future interest from order date till the date of realisation in full, jointly or severally from the Certificate Debtors, hereinafter referred to as:-

¶105

CD Name	Loan Type	Int. lype/Mode	Int. Rate	Date	lrder Date	lount(Rs.	Liability	ViI RC Amount(Rs.)
UMAR		Interest (Monthly )				:428.00	::. N	j 182428.00
El-Rg HA KUMARI		'ompound FInterest :Monthly)				:428.00		:428.00

¶106

In case of failure to pay the aforementioned adjudicated amount within 30 days, same shall be recovered from the sale of the mongaged/hypothecated assets as well as other personal movable/ Immovable assets of the certificate debtors.

¶107

The mortgaged or hypothecated assets to secure the loan in question are hereby attached and shall be subject to the anal order under the recovery proceeding in pursuance of the Recovery certificate issued under Section 19(22) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993.

¶108

Parties are directed to appear before MAN(N KUMAR , Recovery Officer, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL PATN A on 03/09/2025.

¶109

The Recovery Officer shall realize the amount as per this Certificate in the manner and mode prescribed under Sections 25 to 28 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (as amended from time to time) from the above named Certificate Debtors.

¶110

This Certificate has been issued under my signature and seal of the Tribunal on this 25/07/2025

¶111

( t'
Registrar
D9bb Recbvery Triban81

¶112

\D P If:FI DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL PATNA

¶113

FORM NO. 10 [See Regulation 24(2)]

¶114

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL PATNA

¶115

2nd Floor, (A. B & F Wing) Karpuri Thakur Sadan, Kendriya Karamchari Parisar

¶116

(GPOA), Ashiana Digha Road, Patna-800025 .

¶117

SCHEDULE TO RECOVERY CERTIFICATE MEMO OF COSTS

RC No. 247/2025

Case No: OA/186/2024

Applicant(s): AXIS BANK Versus

¶122

Defendant(s): AJEET KUMAR

¶123

temofCosts	I Amount inRs
)	m3
r	@
c	[0
rmmm==;Fi;	ro
s	ro
Total Costs:Rs	}m3

¶124

Place: PATNA

¶125

Date: 25/07/2025

¶126

PRESIDING OFFICER DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL PATNA

¶127

Note: Strike out whichever is not applicable

Axis Bank v. Ajeet Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Axis Bank v. Ajeet Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus Sh Harkirat Singh Dhillon

Bank of India versus Sh Sarbjeet Singh @ Sarabjeet Singh

Punjab National Bank versus Buta Singh

Hdfc Bank versus Naseeb Chand

Hdfc Bank Limited versus M/s Laxmi Bhandar

Punjab National Bank versus M/s Patanjali Chikitsalay