Partly allowed

State Bank of India v. Smt. Soni Singh

DRT14 Jul 2025OA/304/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Debts Recovery Tribunal case, the Bank sought recovery of a home loan default. The Tribunal allowed the application against the borrower, relying on documentary evidence and banker's book entries, but dismissed the claim against the builder defendant who was not a signatory to the agreement.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued against Defendant 1 for Rs. 43,98,846.79 plus future interest; application dismissed against Defendant 2.

State Bank of India versus Smt. Soni Singh — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

•

OA 304 ofl024!J!

DRT,PATNA

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna

¶5

Karpuri Thakur Sadau, Aashiaua Digha Road Patna-800025

¶6

Presiding Officer : Shri Kaushalendra Yadav

¶7

OA Case No. 304 of 2024

¶8

State Bank of India, Secretariat Branch, Patna through the Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Patna

¶9

,.... ,.Applicant

¶10

Vs.

¶11

Smt. Soni Singh, Borrower, Wlo Anjani Kumar, Permanent resident ofPrabhalaya, North T.N. Path, Mohalla- Chiraiyatand, District- Patna 800001, Bihar

¶12

2. MIs Syrus Business Solution Pvt. Ltd., Builder, Regd. Office at- V- 334, PIT Colony, Kankarbagh, District- Patna 800020, Bihar represented through its Director Sri Anjani Kumar, Sio Sri Umakant Singh

¶13

....... Defendants

¶14

Present:

¶15

For the Applicant Shri A.K. Sharan, Advocate For the Defendants None

¶16

Dated: 14.07.2025

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The Applicant bank has made this application uls 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (here-in-after referred to as Act) on 28.05.2024 against the defendants to recover its debts from defendants of Rs.43,98,846.79 as on 31.01.2024 along with pendente-lite and future interest at the contractual rate from 01.02.2024 with costs till realization.

¶19

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.

¶20

Defendant no.l approached the applicant bank for financial assistance for purchasing of under construction residential flat in an Apartment namely "Ganesh Mansion", on the price of Rs.49,71,500/- under the project of defendant no.2 through its director, Anjani Kumar and Shubham Kumar, who executed Tripartite Agreement in favour of the applicant bank and undertakes

~'l

DRT,PATNA

OA 304 of2024!J!

to return the entire amount with applicable interest and penal interest in the event of failure of the above or in the event of litigation affecting the said property.

¶26

Defendant no.l vide loan application dated 23.09.2020 with Registered Agreement for sale No.7935 dated 10.10.2020 approached the applicant bank and after due consideration, the applicant bank has duly sanctioned the Term Loan of Rs.41,87,366/- on 28.10.2020 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 in favour of the applicant bank, details of which are given in OA

¶27

As security to the loan, the defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 had executed a Tripartite Agreement in between the borrower, builder and the Bank on 28.10.2020 with certain terms and conditions with the intention to create equitable mortgage after execution of the Registered sale deed in favour of the borrower based on the registered agreement for sale dated 10.10.2020 as primary as well as collateral securities in favour of the applicant bank in respect of the property detailed in schedule-A of the OA.

¶28

Defendant no.2 has also executed Tripartite Agreement and noted the lien in favour of the applicant bank and to secure the loan amount as per the terms of the sanction letter besides executed of the loan documents, defendant no.2 assured the applicant bank that a charge would be created upon the flat in question by depositing the sale deed soon after completion of construction of the proposed vended Flat and execution of sale deed in favour of the defendant no. I. As per the terms of the Tripartite Agreement, if the borrower withdraw from the agreement or fails to pay the balance amount then defendant no.2 supposed to refund the entire outstanding due amount for the credit of the defendant no.l to the applicant bank immediately. But the defendant no.2 failed to discharge the legal obligation and delivered possession of the constructed flat to them even without the knowledge of the applicant bank. Defendant no.2 by executing Tripartite Agreement has extended the guarantee for the loan advanced to the defendant no.1towards the purchase of the flat and the same is still in force as the registration of the sale deed has not been done in favour of

DRT,PATNA

OA 304 ofl024!JI

the defendant no.1. The charge was also creation under the Central Registry in favour of the applicant bank on 27.11.2020.

¶33

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 fmancial 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 22.09.2023.

¶34

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.

¶35

The total liability in the loan account is Rs.43,98,846.79 as on 31.01.2024 with pendente-lite and future interest contractual rate from 01,02.2024 till the realization.

¶36

This Tribunal issued summons/notices copies of application & paper book to the defendants by registered/speed post on 28.06.2024, requiring them to show-cause within 30 days of the service V/S 19(4) of the Act & Rule of the DRT [Procedure] Rules, 1993. The notice dated 26.09.2024 has also been pasted on the outer wall of the defendants addresses mentioned in the summon on 14,10.2024,21.10.2024 & 30.10.2024, which has been affirmed on affidavit sworn by Shri Manoj Kumar Ojha, Chief Manager of the applicant bank.

¶37

Despite the service registered summons/notices, the defendants have not appeared before this Tribunal to contest the case. The sufficient time has been given to the defendants to defend their case, but they failed to appear and to file WS, hence, the Tribunal has passed an order to proceed ex-parte against the defendants on 02.04.2025.

¶38

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 Manoj Kumar Ojha, Chief Manager of the applicant bank. The details of documents are as follows:

OA304ofl024lJI

DRT,PATNA

SI.No	Description of Documents Photocopies	Date of Execution	Amount (In Lakh)	Signature of Executants	Ex.! Ann. No.
I	Loan application	23.09.2020	40.00	Def.no.!	I
2	Photocopy of agreement of sale	10.10.2020	--	Between Def.no.!&2	2
3	Arrangement letter	28.10.2020	39.70 Rs.2,17,366/-	Bank and accepted by def.no.1	3
4	Memorandum of loan agreement for Home Loan	28.10.2020	Rs.4I,87,366/-	Def.no.1	4
5	Deed of undertaking, agreement to mortgage & affidavit	28.10.2020	Rs.4I,87,366/-	Def.no.1	5
6	Undertaking cum declaration cum indemnity	28.10.2020	Rs.41_,87,366/-_	Def.no.1	6
7	Agreement under PDR	28.10.2020	Rs.4I,87,366/-	Def.no.!	7
8	Draft Tripartite Agreement	28.10.2020	--	Def.no.! & 2	8
9	CERSAI details	--	--	--	9
10&11	Interest calculation chart & Statement of accounts	--	--	Bank	10&11
12	Legal notice	18.12.2023	--	Bank's adv.	12

¶43

Heard arguments and perused the case record.

¶44

9, Ld. Counsel of applicant bank submitted that the defendant no.l has 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 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 Icompound 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,

¶45

It is further submitted by ld. 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 ~A.

¶46

It has been established that defendant is living and carrying on her 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

'V(V-'-J

OA 304 ofl014!JI

DRT,PATNA

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.

¶52

On the issue of Limitation, to prove it, the applicant bank has submitted that the applicant bank has declared the account as NPA on 22.09.2023, whereas the present application has been filed on 28.05.2024. 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 oflimitation.

¶53

Shri Manoj Kumar Ojha, Chief Manager 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.

¶54

Section 19(3) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 provides that the application u/s S.l9 (I) shall be accompanied with true copies of all the documents relied on in support of the claim.

¶55

The rule 12 (10) of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993,providesthat if the defendantdenieshis liabilityto pay the claim made by the applicant,the tribunalmay act upon the affidavitof the applicantwho is acquaintedwith the facts of the case or who has on verificationof the record sworn the affidavit in respect of the contents of the applicationand the documentsasevidence.

¶56

The rule 12 (11) of the aforesaid Rules, provides that the provisionscontainedin section4 of the Banker's Booksevidence that Act, 1891(18 of 1891)shall apply to a certifiedcopy of an entry in a Banker's Booksfurnishedalongwith applicationfiled undersubsection1of section19bythe applicant.

¶57

Seetion 4 of Banker's Books evidence Act, 1891 runs as under- S,4. Mode of proof of entries in bankers' books.--Subject to the provisions of this Act, a certified copy of any entry in a banker's book shall in all legalproceedings 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 notjurther or otherwise.

¶58

As such the certified true copies of the documents are admissible in evidence. The statement of account maintained in the ordinary course of

OA 304 of20241JI

DRT.PATNA

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.

¶63

On perusal of the application, documents, affidavit and on consideration of the arguments, it is proved that the defendant no.l has 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 defendant no.1 has executed various loan documents, as stated in the application and proved by aforesaid evidence. Defendants have neither denied the utilization of funds advanced by applicant bank nor have pointed out any specific error and discrepancy in the Statement of Accounts.

¶64

In the present case, the applicant bank has sanctioned Home Loan facility of Rs.39.70 Lakh and further Rs.2,17,366/- as Home Insurance Cover amount for purchasing of under construction residential flat in Apartment namely "Ganesh Mansion, under the project of defendant no.2 namely Mis. Syrus Business Solution Pvt. Ltd. -Builder,

¶65

The applicant bank has also requested for issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendant no.2 i.e. Builder on the basis of the nonadherence to the terms of the Tripartite Agreement as Annexure-8 above but on perusal of the Tripartite Agreement dated 28.10.2020, it appears that Defendant no.1 namely Smt. Soni Singh and two Directors of the Mis. Syrus Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. i.e. Defendant no.2, Builder only have executed the Tripartite Agreement. None has put signatures for the applicant bank on this so called tripartite agreement. Failing which there exists no legal contract creating rights and contractual obligation of the defendant no.2.

¶66

The applicant bank has not made any contract with the defendant no.2 i.e. Builder hence the defendant no.2 i.e. Builder is not liable to pay the dues to the applicant bank.

¶67

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 31.01.2024

•

OA 304 ofl0241J!

DRT,PATNA

has been proved to be Rs.43,98,846.79 only by way of statement of accounts. 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.

¶73

In my view, facts of the case stand proved by evidence of the applicant bank. Accordingly, the applicant bank is entitled to recover from defendant no.l, Rs.43,98,846.79 along with pendente-lite and future interest @ 9.75% p.a. with compounded monthly rests from 28.05.2024 (The date of filing of this OA) till realization. So the final order may be passed accordingly, to meet the ends ofjustice.

¶74

ORDER

¶75

In the result, the application of the applicant bank is allowed and debt is determined with costs against the defendant no.l. The defendant no.I is hereby, ordered to pay the applicant bank its debt amounting to Rs.43,98,846.79 along with pendente-lite and future interest @ 9.75% p.a. with compounded monthly rests from 28.05.2024 (The date of filing of this OA) till realization of the entire sum due and recoverable with costs. The O.A. is dismissed as against defendant no.2.

¶76

It is made clear that any amount deposited by the defendant no.l, be deducted in the claim amount, if not deducted.

¶77

Defendant no.I is 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 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 RegistrarlSub- Registrar to endorse the charge over the secured assets.

¶78

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

~V-"

•

OA 304of20l4[J[

DRT.PATNA

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 defendant no.I, by sale of mortgaged! hypothecated assets as well as other personal movable/immovable assets of the defendant no.1. The Recovery Officer will issue demand notice to the Certificate debtors only after the proof of compliance under rule 16 ofDRT (Procedure) Rules 1993, is submitted. The copy of this judgment be uploaded in the website of the Tribunal.

¶85

Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT, Patna on 25.08.2025. The order be communicated accordingly.

¶86

Judgment signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open court on 14thday of July, 2025.

¶87

Dictated &corrected by me.

¶88

[KaushalendraYadav] Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna

¶89

FORM NO. 9 [See Regulation 24(1)]

¶90

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL PATNA .. 2nd Floor. (A. B & F Wing) Karpuri Thakur Sedan. Ken2aramchari Parisar (GPOA). Ashiana Digha Road, Pa

¶91

.. tna-

¶92

AD WITH SECTION I9IU) OF THE RECOVERY RECOVERY CERTIFICATE UNDER SECTION 19m J.RE~\I!1u!DEEI!Dc.lFR!:&OllM!!uTIM;lOOU:E"'Il.lo.u.IlMEJlD""OFDEBTS&BANKRUPTC¥Acr,~ASAMENI! __

BC No. 21512025

Case No: OAl304/2024

In the Matter of:

(CH- I) STATE BANK OF INOlA SECRETARIAT BRANCH PATNA THROUGH THE STRESSED ASSETS Applicant(s) RECOVERY BRANCH PATNA ,BIHAR -80000 I

¶98

-----Versus -------

¶99

To, (CI>- I) SMT. SONI SINGH. WIFE OF ANJANJ KUMAR Permanent Resident of- PrabhaJaya, North T.N. Defendanl(s) Path Mohalla Chiraiyatand Patna ,BIHAR -800001

¶100

Rmwn Certificate (or Rs^4398846,79 (_Rupees FoID Three Lakhs Ninety...Eigbt Thousands Eight Hundred

¶101

.fw:tY. Six And Paise SeventY. Nine ()nIY_1

¶102

In terms of final order dated 14/07/2025 passed by this Tribunal in the above mentioned case, it is ordered that the Applicant Certificate Holder Bank is entitld to recover a sum f Rs. 43?8846.79 along with cost, expenses and interest from the 28/0512024 i.e. date of fihn.g 1 ."'l effectie. date of the ON304/2024 and future interest from order date till the date of realisation In full, JOIntly or severally from the Certificate Debtors, hereinafter referred to as:-

¶103

._." f , Sr.no , ! il II	CD Name SMT. SONI SINGH	Loan: 'lYpe	Int. 'lYpe!Mode ,Compound [lnterest '(Monthly)	a Int. Rate I 9.75	._. Effeetive Date 28/051202jC	Order Date I07/2025 J	.. . Amount(Ra.) ,~398846. 79 L_	Liability 1YPe IrUIIY	IInterest (as on Order Date) Interest IAson IOrder 'Date	RC AmouDt(Rs.) 14398846.79	Remark

¶104

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

¶105

The mortgaged or hypothecated assets to secure the loan in question are hereby attached and shall be subject to the final order under the recovery proceeding in pursuance of the Recovery certificate issued WIderSection 19(22) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993. Parties are directed to appear before ASHISH KUMAR , Recovery Officer, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL PATNA on 25108/2025.

¶106

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.

¶107

This Certificate has been issued under my signature and seal of the Tribunal on this 16/07/2025

¶108

0'10,
Reg"",ar
Debt. Recovery Trl.....
PaIn.

¶109

PRESIDINU:R DEBTS RECOVERY TRffiUNAL PATNA

¶110

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

¶111

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL PATNA

¶112

2nd Floor, (A. B & F Wing) Karpuri Thakur Sadan, Kendriya Karamchari Parisar (GPOA), Ashiana Digha Road, Patna-800025.

¶113

SCHEDULE TO RECOVERY CERTIFICATE MEMO OF COSTS

RC No. 215/2025

Case No: OA/304/2024

Applicant(s): STATE BANK OF INDIA

¶118

Versus

¶119

Defendant(s): SMT. SONI SINGH

¶120

Sr. No.	~tem of Costs	Amount in Rs.
1.	Fee on the application	1!6000
2.	Process Fees(Inc. Publication)	0
3.	Advocate Fees	0
4.	CommissionerlReceiverNaluationiSecurity Fee	0
5.	Miscellaneous Charges ",.-,.,.•----	0
	Total Costs: Rs.	46000

¶121

Place: PATNA

¶122

Date: 16/07/2025

¶123

PRESIDING OFFICER DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL PATNA

¶124

Note: Strike out whichever is not applicable

State Bank of India v. Smt. Soni Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Smt. Soni Singh

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

Hdfc Bank versus Ishu

Icici Bank Limited versus Dalbir

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus Ms Arbaz Fruit Company

Punjab National Bank versus Manjit Singh

State Bank of India versus Rajinder Singh

Sri Anurag Das Prop of Ms Suparna Industries and Anr. versus Punjab National Bank