Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Mrs. Jyoti Chauhan

DRT17 Oct 2025OA/833/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Bank of Baroda for recovery of a loan amount of Rs. 28 lakhs against the borrowers and guarantor, who were absent in ex-parte proceedings, directing issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the application and directed respondents to pay Rs. 28,57,688.50 with interest and costs within 30 days or face recovery from sale of hypothecated/mortgaged assets and other properties.

Bank of Baroda versus Mrs. Jyoti Chauhan — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

O.A. No.833 of 2023

¶2

Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi 4th floor, Jeevan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi

¶3

Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sharma

¶4

O.A. No. 833 of 2023

¶5

Bank of Baroda

¶6

(e-Vijaya Bank) 8, New Rajdhani Enclave Preet Vihar, Vikas Marg Delhi-110092 Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mrs. Jyoti Chauhan w/o Mr.Hirdesh Chauhan Plot No.120, Gali No.7/48/37

¶9

New Rohtak Road Industrial Area Anand Parbat, New Delhi-110005

¶10

Also at:

¶11

Mrs. Jyoti Chauhan w/o Mr.Hirdesh Chauhan 2nd floor, Plot no.4/40, Sector-04 Vaishali, Ghaziabad, U.P-201010

¶12

Mr. Ranveer Singh s/o Ram Avtar Chauhan I/o 36, Judge Colony near CNG Pump Sector-09„ Vaishali Ghaziabad, U.P-201010 Defendants

¶13

Present: Ms Sudha Shukla, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶14

Date of Reserve: 03.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 17.10.2025

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 16.09.2023 through Sh. Sunil Kumar Singh, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Bank and Financial Institution Act, .993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of

¶17

¶18

O.A. No.833 of 2023

¶19

is.28,57,688.50(Rupees Twenty Eight Lacs Fifty Seven Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Eight and paisa Fifty only) along With pendentelite and future interest @11.50% per annum 31ong with 2% penal interest with monthly rests from date of filing of this application till the date of realization and costs.

¶20

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant no.1 as proprietress of M/s Jyoti Enterprises vide loan application dated 11.03.2019, the applicant bank sanctioned Working Capital — Cash Credit facility for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs only) on 11.03.2019 for Business requirements against hypothecation of stocks, book debts and mortgage of property. The defendant no.2 stood as ?uarantor for the loan facility sanctioned in favour of defendant r.1 by the applicant bank.

¶21

That in order to avail the loan facility, the defendants ubmitted loan application dated 11.03.2019 and executed u^{nction Letter, Loan Agreement cum Hypothecation Deed} li.D0C-53 on 19.03.2019 with the applicant bank. The efendant no.2 executed Deed of Guarantee on 19.03.2019 for he loan facility availed by defendant no.1.

¶22

That in order to secure the loan facility, the defendant no.1 mortgaged the property being 2nd floor without roof rights On Plot no.4/40, Sector-04, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 15y depositing title deeds vide Memorandum dated 19.03.2019.

¶23

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the loan facility, the defendants miserably failed to r^{epay the loan amount and maintain financial discipline as per} terms and conditions of sanction. The applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 31.03.2021 as per RBI guidelines and

Sd-

0.A. No.833 of 2023

issued legal notice dated 12.06.2024 to the defendants to clear the dues but no response. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this tribunal for recovery of its dues from the 1efendants.

¶28

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and cIespite proper service through publication in newspapers, the defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 13.05.2025, the defendants have been Firoceeded ex-parte as they have not appeared before the Tribunal and even no written statement, evidence and affidavit 9f assets have been filed by the defendants.

¶29

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Sunil Kumar Singh, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has roved the documents as Power of Attorney, Gazette Notification, Loan Application, Sanction Letter, Loan Agreement um Hypothecation Deed, Guarantee Deed, Memorandum dated 19.03.2019, Copy of Title Deed, Legal Notice and Postal receipts, Letter dated 20.03.2021 marked as Ex.AW-1 to 17x.AW-12.

¶30

§. The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments made in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the Opplicant bank is based on the documents and the same have been duly proved.

¶31

The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and there is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant t^{ank and the applicant bank has proved its case beyond} reasonable doubts.

¶32

¶33

O.A. No.833 of 2023

¶34

In the light of the above discussions and documents on record, the Original Application deserves to be allowed.

¶35

ORDER

¶36

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank within a period of 30 days, jointly or severally, a sum of Rs.28,57,688.50 (Rupees Twenty Eight Lacs Fifty Seven Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Eight and paisa Fifty only) along with pendentelite and future interest @11.50% per annum with monthly rests and costs from date of filing of this application failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from sale of hypothecated stocks, book debts and Mortgaged property i.e. 2nd floor without roof rights of Plot rp.4/40, Sector-04, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. In case Of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of Movable and immovable assets of the defendants.

¶37

(II) The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi.

¶38

III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 16.12.2025.

¶39

Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be ent to all concerned free of cost.

¶40

See

¶41

(GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶42

Dictated and pronounced in open court) ated: 17.10.2025

¶43

Bank of Baroda v. Mrs. Jyoti Chauhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Mrs. Jyoti Chauhan

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

State Bank of India versus Anil Kumar Yadav

State Bank of India versus Ritu

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus Manjegowda G a and Others

Ms Balaji Steels and Pipes and Others versus PNB Housing Finance Limited

Central Bank of India versus M/S Kiwi Consultancy Pvt. Ltd.

Bank of India versus Santosh Chaudhary and Ors.