Allowed

Punjab and Sind Bank v. Mr Javed Naseer

DRT30 Oct 2025OA/276/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by a bank for recovery of an outstanding housing loan principal, interest, and costs. The court held respondents jointly and severally liable, directed payment within two months, and ordered the issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 26,10,430.36 + 9% interest and costs; restoration of security assets for sale; injunction against transferring assets; direction to pay within two months.

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Mr Javed Naseer — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

¶2

¶3

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW

¶4

l proceeding			Officeaction takenwith date
O.A. No.276/2022 30.10.2025	The Judgment is signed pronounced on separate sheets. Separ attachedin07 sheets. Order be uploaded on the Tribu website.	and ately nal’s
	(Dictated) (PravasKumar PresidingOffi (MK)	S,Jd)] cer

¶5

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT LUCKNOW

¶6

Present: Pravas Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

¶7

Case No. Original Application No.276 of 2022

¶8

Dated: 30.10.2025

¶9

Punjab And Sind Bank, having Branch at Alpha – 1 Branch lst Floor, Kaison Tower, Alpha Commercial Belt, Sector Alpha-1, Greater Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. ........Applicant-bank Versus 1. Mr. Javed Naseer S/o Mr. Naseerudding, R/a R-277, 2-d Floor, Back Portion, Rehmat Apartment, Jojabaye Extension, Jamia Nagar, Okhla Delhi. Also at: R/o 8/126, Abuhalim Patti Dilasa, Bibi Imambada, Aima Mau Aima, Allahabad 212507. 2. Mr. Rohit Kumar S/o Sh. Surendra Prasad Shabi, R/o Flat No.D-63, Mig Flat Sector-100, Noida Gautam Budh Nagar. 3. M/s Future World Green Homes Pvt. Ltd; A company within the meaning of Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at D- ...... Defendants 247/1, Sector 63, Noida U.P. – 201703. Ld. Counsel for Applicant-bank: Shri Vijay Prakash Tiwari, Advocate Ld. Counsel for the Defendants: None.

¶10

JUDGEIVIENT

¶11

This Original Application has been filed by the Applicant-bank under

¶12

Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendants for the recovery of Rs.26,10,430.36/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lac,

O.A. No.276 of 2022

Ten Thousand, Four Hundred Thirty and ThirtY Six OnIY) together with pendent_lite and future interest, costs and other reliefs etc.

¶17

The brief facts of case are that the defendants No.1 is a borrower and defendant No.2 is guarantor and the defendant No.3 is the builder. The defendants approached the Applicant-bank for financial assistance. The Applicant-bank considered the request of the defendants and sanctioned Housing Loan Facility of Rs.27.50 lacs vide its sanction letter dated 28.05.2015 on certain terms and conditions.

¶18

To secure aforesaid credit facility, defendants had executed and signed various security documents in favour of the Applicant-bank. The defendant No.2 signed and executed Guarantee Agreement dated 28.05.2015.

¶19

To secure the aforesaid housing loan facility of Rs.27.50 lacs, the i{till i defendants had executed and signed Housing Loan Agreement and Agreement to mortgage of Flat bearing No.1003, 10th Floor, Wing No.1, in Future Estate Proiect at Plot No.GH-16E. Sector-1 NDA WEST Gautam

¶20

Budh Nagar, in favour of the applicant-bank.

¶21

The defendant no.3 is builder with whom the defendant No.1 & 2 entered intro Tripartite Agreement dated 25.01.2016 with the applicantbank. As per the above Tripartite Agreement, the applicant-bank had disbursed the loan to the defendant. By executing the said Tripartite Agreement, the defendant no.3/builder also submitted that his no objection in the creation of mortgage and defendant No.3/builder shall not transfer the said flat to any other person without prior permission of the applicant-

¶22

O.A. No.276 of 2022

¶23

¶24

bank and if case of any default the builder shall paY the entire moneY so received by it from the borrower to the applicant-bank.

¶25

To avail the aforesaid credit facility, the Applicant-bank had opened loan accounts in the name of defendant No. 1 in order to maintain the credit facilities.

¶26

ABer availing the aforesaid credit facility, the defendants failed to maintain financial discipline and also failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, consequently, the loan account of the defendant no.1/firm was classified as NPA on 29.11.2021 by the bank as per RBI guidelines (Exhibit No. A-15), thereafter the Applicant-bank issued Demand Notice dated 01.12.2021 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to the defendants (Exhibit No. A-16), but, the defendants stated noresponse and they failed to repay the same and the loan accounts of the defendants are still un-liquidated, hence, this Original Application has been instituted.

¶27

As per books of the bank maintained in the usual and ordinary course of banking business, an outstanding of Rs.26,10,430.36/- (Rupees Twenty six Lac/ Ten Thousand, Four Hundred Thirty and Thirty Six Only) including interest UPto 31.01.2022, were lying due for payment/ 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_17) to this Original Application.

¶28

The cause of action for filing the present application arose firstly on 28.05.2015 when the aforesaid credit facility were sanctioned by the

¶29

J\ \i

¶30

O.A. No.276 of 2022

¶31

Applicant-bank and the same were availed by the defendants and necessarY documents were executed by the defendants. The cause of action further arose on when demand Notice dated 01.12.2021 was sent to the defendants, recalling the entire outstanding dues and they failed to pay the same.

¶32

The summons were served upon the defendants through registered post and paper publication, the defendant Nos.2 & 3 did not appear before the Tribunal to contest their case, the defendant No.1 appeared before this Tribunal and filed reply, the main contention of the defendant No.1 sent an e-mail i.e. 20.01.2018 intimating that he is not interested in continuance of the booking and requested of returned his 10% amount, but the defendant No.3 did not reply. It is submitted that the entire liability for payment of the debt lies upon the defendant No.3. 1 have considered the submissions. The defendant No.1 has filed an MOU executed between defendant No.1 & 3. It is upon the defendant noI to pursue against defending no 3. The bank is not a party in the said MOU, per contra the bank has filed Tripartite Agreement/ in which details of the payment has been described and there is no clause regarding liability of the defendant No.3 alone rather the defendant No.1 has agreed, acknowledged to the respondent bank to indemnify against lost or damage or „, with regard to the secured asset, thus the defence taken by the defendant No.1 is non est.

¶33

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.

r
d

O.A. No.276 of 2022

In support of the case Smt. Upma Dureja, Chief Manager of the

¶38

Applicant-bank has filed an affidavit.

¶39

On a careful scrutiny of the evidence on affidavit and Exhibits marked as Exhibit No.A-1 to Exhibit No.A-19, 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 Applicant-bank. A perusal of the application, evidence and documents relied upon clearly show that defendant 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 Applicant-bank’s claim is within limitation against defendants, therefore, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the dues.

¶40

Accordingly, the defendants are directed to pay the balance dues to the Applicant-bank within a period of 2 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. The defendant No.3/builder is also liable to pay the dues of the applicant-bank as per the terms and conditions of Tripartite Agreement.

¶41

The Applicant-bank has claimed [email protected]% per annum with monthly rest w .e.f. 31.01.2022 till the date of realization and costs. On the basis of foregoing discussion, interest of justice will be served if pendentlite and future interest is granted @9% per annum with monthly rest

O.A. No.276 of 2022

reducing balance from the date of filing of the O.A. till the date of realization

¶46

with costs.

¶47

1 find that the bank has proved the execution of loan documents and creation of mortgage in its favour. In the result, the Original Application succeeds as exparte against the defendant No.2 & 3 and proceeded against the defendant No.1 with costs. The bank has proved the loan execution of loan documents in favour of the bank and availment of credit facility. The

¶48

liability of the defendant Nos.1 to 3 are joint and several and mortgaged

¶49

property as well as the personal properties are to be sold.

¶50

It is, therefore , ordered

¶51

(i) That the Original Application No.276 of 2022 of the Applicant bank for issuance of Recovery Certificate to the tune of Rs.26,10,430.36/(Rupees Twenty Six Lac, Ten Thousand, Four Hundred Thirty and Thirty Six Only) along with the interest @9% per annum with monthly rest from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 08.03.2022 till the loan is fully liquidated and costs succeeds exparte against the defendant No.2 & 3 and proceeded against the defendant No.1. The defendant No.3/builder is also liable to pay the dues of the applicantbank as per the terms and conditions of Tripartite Agreement.

¶52

(ii) The defendant Nos.1 to 3 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

¶53

O.A. No.276 of 2022

¶54

¶55

(iii) The Applicant–bank is entitled to recover aforesaid amount by sale of mortgage property (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 or otherwise shall be recoverable, if the dues of the Applicantbank still remain unsatisfied, the same shall be recovered by attachment and sale of the personal movable assets of the defendant jointly and severally.

¶56

(iv) The defendants are hereby 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.

¶57

(V) Let Recovery Certificate be issued immediately u/s 19(22) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 by fixing 29.12.2025 before R.O., DRT, Lucknow.

¶58

(vi) The Applicant-bank is directed to file a memo of cost for preparing Recovery Certificate u/s 19(22) of the Recovery of Debts Bankruptcy Act, 1993 .

¶59

Judgment is pronounced in the open court.

¶60

Dated: 30.10.2025

¶61

h’ \h (Pravas Kumar\Singh) Presiding Officer

¶62

(MK)

Punjab and Sind Bank v. Mr Javed Naseer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab and Sind Bank v. Mr Javed Naseer

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 National Bank versus M/s. Al Noor and Sons

Axis Bank versus Nikhil Bansal

Ms Youth and Style through its proprietor mohd arif versus Jana Small Finance Bank Ltd.

Punjab National Bank versus Ms Geeta Trading Company

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Divine Construction

M S Balaji Enterprises versus Aryavart Bank