Allowed

Idfc First Bank Limited v. Sanjeev Kumar Gupta

DRT28 Aug 2025TA/1025/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the application filed by IDFC First Bank for recovery of dues from Sanjeev Kumar Gupta. The Tribunal fixed the interest rate at 12% p.a., citing a drastic fall in global and domestic rates, and directed the defendant to pay the principal, interest, and costs within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the application and directed the defendant to pay Rs. 25,68,343.15 with 12% interest and costs within 30 days, subject to recovery from sale of properties.

Idfc First Bank Limited versus Sanjeev Kumar Gupta — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 1025 of 2022

¶2

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

¶3

Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sharma

¶4

T.A. No.1025 of 2022

¶5

IDFC First Bank

¶6

Upper Ground Floor No.62/ 20

¶7

Opposite New Prem Dhaba & Big Bazzar New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh New Delhi-110005

¶8

Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

Sanjeev Kumar Gupta J-3, B 2nd floor, Khirki Extension Malviya Nagar,

¶11

South Delhi-110017

¶12

Defendant

¶13

Present: Mr. Utkarsh, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶14

Date of Institution: 20.09.2021

¶15

Date of Pronouncement: 28.08.2025

¶16

FINAL ORDER

¶17

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 20.09.2021 before DRT-III Delhi and then transferred to DRT-I, Delhi through its authorized representative under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.25,68,343.15/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Sixty Eight Thousand Three Hundred Forty Three and Paisa Fifteen only) along with pendentelite and future interest as per the agreed

¶18

T.A. No. 1025 of 2022

¶19

loan agreement from the date of filing this application till the date of realization along with costs.

¶20

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the defendant, the applicant bank sanctioned Credit facilities of Rs.25,50,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Fifty Thousand only) @12% interest per annum which was to be repayable in 60 Equated Monthly Installments of Rs.56,724/- each. Further, on the request of the defendant, the applicant bank sanctioned GECL facility of Rs.4,71,581/- (Rupees Four Lacs Seventy One Thousand Five Hundred Eighty One only) @9.25% interest per annum, which was to be repayable in 48 Equated Monthly Installments of Rs.3636/- each.

¶21

In order to avail the loan facility, the defendant submitted loan application and executed Credit Facility Application Forms and Sanction letter with the applicant bank.

¶22

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facility, the defendant failed to comply with the terms and conditions of sanction and failed to repay the contractual dues / charges/ interest towards loan facility to regularize the account with the applicant bank. Ultimately, the applicant bank terminated the agreement and issued notice dated 25.08.2021 to make the payment but defendant neglected, hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶23

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendant and despite of proper service, the defendant has chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 13.05.2025, the defendant has been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared

¶24

¶25

T.A. No. 1025 of 2022

¶26

before the Tribunal and even written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have not been filed by the defendant.

¶27

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Sh.Farid Ahmed, authorized representative of the applicant bank, who has proved the documents as NCLT order dated 12.12.2018, Certificate of Incorporation, Mortgage loan agreement, Legal notice, Certificate of dues under Section 2A of the Banker's Book Evidence Act 1891 as Ex.AW-1/A to Ex.AW-1/G (Golly) .

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

As per the provision of Section 19(20) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 which is analogous to Section 34 of CPC, on filing of the suit/claim, the contract between the parties comes to an end and the Court/Tribunal has a discretion to award the same depending upon the circumstances of each case. Same principle has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra & Others. Taking stock of all the circumstances and keeping in view that there is a drastic fall in rates of interest globally and domestically, I am of the opinion that interest of justice will be served if the interest at the rate of 12% p.a. is awarded.

¶31

T.A. No. 1025 of 2022

¶32

In the light of the above discussions, the Original Application deserves to be allowed.

¶33

ORDER

¶34

I, allow this TA and direct the defendant to pay to the applicant bank, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.25,68,343.15/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Sixty Eight Thousand Three Hundred Forty Three and Paisa Fifteen only) together with pendentelite and future interest @12% per annum from the date of filing this application till the date of realization and costs; failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendant.

¶35

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

¶36

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 31.10.2025.

¶37

(IV) Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be sent to all concerned free of cost.

¶38

5d "-

¶39

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

¶40

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 28.08.2025

Idfc First Bank Limited v. Sanjeev Kumar Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idfc First Bank Limited v. Sanjeev Kumar Gupta

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

Manoj Cm versus Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Punjab National Bank versus Smt. Maninderjeet Kaur

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Dharmender

Andhra Bank versus Ms Ally India Products

Canara Bank versus Jitender Yadav

Hdfc Bank versus Ajay Sharma