Allowed

Central Bank of India v. Smt Satyawati Singh

DRT8 Dec 2025OA/975/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of dues. It held that defendants executed loan documents, failed to repay, and the claim was within limitation. The application succeeded, directing payment and sale of secured assets. Future interest at 8% per annum was granted.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate for Rs. 31,27,430/- plus 8% pendent lite and future interest; sale of mortgage and personal properties; injunction against alienation of assets.

Central Bank of India versus Smt Satyawati Singh — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS REC'OVERY TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW

¶2

Date oforderor broceeding	Order withsignatureofcourt		Officeaction takenwithdate
O.A.No.975/2024 08.12.2025	Judgment is signed pronounced onseparate sheets. Separatelyattachedin06she Order be uploaded on Tribunal’swebsite.	and ets. the
	<br>(PravasKumar PresidingOf	[ Singh) ficer

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RE(...'OVERY TRIBUNAL AT LUCKNOW

¶5

Present: Pravas Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

¶6

Case No. Original Application No.975 of 2024 Dated: 08.12.2025

¶7

Central Bank of India, having Branch at Rae Bareli District Rae Bareli, Uttar Pradesh.

¶8

. . . . . . .. Applicant Bank

¶9

Versus

¶10

Smt. Satyawati Singh, W/o Shri Chandra Mohan Singh, Mo 310, Doorbhash Nagar Rae Bareli, Uttar Pradesh.

¶11

Mr. Ajeet Singh, S/o Shri Chandra Mohan Singh, R/o 310, Doorbhash Nagar Rae Bareli, Uttar Pradesh.

¶12

. . . . . . . Defendants

¶13

Ld. Counsel for applicant-bank: Mr. Sharad Kumar Shukla, Advocate. Ld. (_''ounsel for defendants: Mr. Raj Kumar Pandey, Advocate.

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

This Original Application has been filed by the applicant Bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993,againstthe defendantsfor the recovery of Rs.3 1,27,430/- (Rupees Thirty-One Lac, Twenty-Seven Thousand, Four-Hundred Thirty Only) together with pendent-lite and future interest, costs and other reliefs etc.

¶16

The brief facts of case: -The defendant nos.1& 2 are borrowers. The defendantsvide loan application dated 02.01.2019 approached the applicantbank for grant of Cent Home Loan Facility of Rs.20.00 lac, which was duly considered and sanctioned by the applicant-bank vide sanction letter dated

-><

O. A. No.975 of 2024

22.01.2019 on certain terms and conditions (Exhibit No. A-2 & Exhibit No. A-3) to this original application.

¶21

In order to secure the aforesaid Credit facility, the defendants had executed and signed various security documents in favour of the applicantbank on 22.01.2019 like An Article of Understanding, JUticles of Promissory Note and Loan Agreement (Exhibit No. A-4 to EHribit No.A-6) to this original application.

¶22

Further, in order to secure the repayment of bark dues, the defendant no.I had created mortgage of her immovable property i.e. Property bearing No.99 Ml, Village Ramner Mohiddinpur, Rae Bareli, up admeasuring 83.76 sq. mtrs. as detailed in the petition in favour of the bank (Exhibit No. A-7) to this original application.

¶23

To avail the aforesaid credit facility) the applicant_bank had opened a loan account in the name of defendant no.1 in order to maintain the credit facility.

¶24

After 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, consequently9 the loan account of the defendant no.I was classified as NPA on 31.3.202 1 by the applicant_bank as per RBI guidelines, therefore, the applicant-bank issued Demand Notice dated 12.5.2021 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and later on also issued Possession Notice dated 07.9.2021 under Section 13(4) of the Act (Exhibit No. A-8), but, the defendants stated no-response and failed to repaY the same and the loan account of the defendant no.1 is still un_ liquidated, hence, this Original Application has been instituted

¶25

O. A. No.975 of 2024

¶26

As per books of the bank maintained in the usual and ordinary course of banking business, an outstanding of Rs.3 1,27,430/- (Rupees Thirty One Lac9 Twenty SevenThousand, Four Hundred Thirty Only) including interest upto 24.7.2024 were lying due for payment, which theydid not pay despite repeated requests and demands. The applicant Bank has filed the copy of Statement of Accounts (Exhibit No. A-9) to this original application.

¶27

The cause of action for filing the present application arose firstly on 22.01.2019 when the abovementioned credit facility was sanctioned by the applicant-bank and necessary documents were executed by the defendants. The cause of action further arose on 07.9.2021 when the applicant-bank had issuedpossession notice under Section 13(4) of the Act recalling the defendants to repay the dues of the applicant-bank, but, the defendantsfailed to pay the same.

¶28

The summons was served upon the defendants through registered poston 14.10.2024. The defendants appeared before this Tribunal to contest the case and filed their written statement on 15.01.2025 along with condonation of delay i.e. after expiry of statutory periods a delay condonation application on medical ground, without any proof of medical evidence.

¶29

The only point of consideration before this Tribunal in as to whether the bank is legally entitled to the amount as claimed in Original Application on the basis of documents and pleading submitted by it?

¶30

11 . In support of the case Mr. Ashwani Sahu, The Chief Manager of the applicant Bank has supported its caseon affidavit.

¶31

On a careful scrutiny of the evidence on affidavit and EMlibit marked

¶32

as (Exhibit No. A-1 to Exhibit No. A-9 to this original application)9 it stands

¶33

O.A. No.975 of 2024

¶34

¶35

proved that the defendants had availed the credit facility 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 establishes that defendants had utilized the above loan facilities as granted to them. The applicant bank has maintained the Books of account in the ordinary course of banking business showing disbursal of the loan amount.It further shows that bank had regularly credited the amount paid by the defendants in the books of account. The Bank had also charged interest from time to time and the entries is relevant u/s 4 of the Bankers Book Evidence Act. It is also proved that the applicant bank’s claim is within limitation against the defendants, therefore, the defendants are liable to pay the dues.

¶36

13' AccordingIY9 the defendants are directed to pay the balance dues to the applicant bank within a period of two months from the date of judgment failing which the applicant bank will be entitled to sell the mortgage property as well as personal properties of the defendants.

¶37

The applicant-bank has claimedinterest @8.60% per annum in the above Loan Account together with pendent lite and future intereston contractual rate till the actual date of its realization and costs. On the basis of the foregoing discussion, interest of justice will be served ifpendent_lite and future interest is granted @8.00% per annum in the above loan accounts with monthly rest on reducing balance from the date of filing of the O.A. till the date of realization with costs.

¶38

1 find that the bank has proved theexecution of loan documents in its favour. In the result, the Original Application succeeds against the defendants with costs. The defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay

¶39

O.A. No.975 of 2024

¶40

¶41

the dues of the applicant-bank and themortgage propertyas well as the personal properties are liable to be sold.

¶42

16.It is, therefore,ordered :

¶43

(i) That the Original Application No.975 of 2024 of the applicant bank for issuance of Recovery Certificate to the tune of Rs.31,27,430/- (Rupees Thirty One Lac, Twenty Seven Thousand, Four Hundred Thirty Only) together with future and pendent lite interest @8.00% per annum in all the above loan accountsfrom the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 30.8.2024 till the loan is fully liquidated and costs succeeds and is hereby allowed against the defendants.

¶44

(ii) The defendantsaredirected to pay the dues within a period of two months from the date of judgment, failing which the applicant bank will be entitled to recover the same from the secured assets9 personal movables and immovable assets of the defendants.

¶45

(iii) The applicant-bank is entitled to recover aforesaid amount by sale of mortgage property (if not sold earlier under the provisions of the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act 2002). The amount) if any, already recovered by sale of mortgage property or otherwise shall be adjusted towards the debt and only the balance amount shall be recoverable. If the dues of the applicant_bank still remain unsatisfied, the same shall be recovered by attachment and sale of the personal movable and immovable assets of the defendants. The applicant bank shall provide details of the statement of account

¶46

6 O.A. No.975 of 2024

¶47

(iv) Thedefendants are hereby restrained by means of injunction from depleting, transferring, encumbering, alienating or in any way dealing with theirproperties/estates without first paying the claim of the applicant bank.

¶48

(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 09.02.2026 before R.O., DRT, Lucknow.

¶49

Judgment is pronounced in the open court.

¶50

Dated: 08.12.2025

¶51

{}P (Pravas Kun_~ ' Singh) Presiding Officer

¶52

(Veeresh)

Central Bank of India v. Smt Satyawati Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Central Bank of India v. Smt Satyawati 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

Canara Bank versus Mr Arun Prakash Singh

Naveen Kumar versus Union Bank of India

Bank of India versus M/S Ur Mart

Federal Bank versus Raghuveer Singh

Axis Bank versus Mohd Shadab

Ramesh Chandra Patwa versus Canara Bank