Allowed

State Bank of India v. Naveen Kumar

DRT21 Aug 2025TA/1030/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Reserve Bank of India (RDB) Act 1993 application by State Bank of India to recover loan dues Rs 10.87 lakhs from a defendant who failed to repay a car loan after hypothecating the vehicle. Tribunal allowed the application in default of appearance.

What did the court decide?

Defendant directed to pay Rs 10,87,702.65 plus interest and costs within 30 days; Recovery Certificate issued; assets to be attached in case of default.

State Bank of India versus Naveen Kumar — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Before SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI, Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi

¶2

TA NO/103O 12024

¶3

STATE BANK OF INDIA VS SHRI^{NAVEEN KUMAR}

¶4

Reserved on =^23.O7.2025

¶5

Pronounced on : 21.08.2025

¶6

State Bank of india Vs.

¶7

Shri. Naveen Kumar

¶8

-Applicant bank

¶9

Defendant

¶10

Present: Mr. Jaya Tomar, Counsel for applicant^bank. Defendant is expaite dated 03.02.2025.

¶11

FINAL ORDER

¶12

This original application has^{been filed by the} appiicant baiik, crn 13.04.2018^{tltrough Sir. Naveen} Kaushik, Branch Manager of^{the applicant bank, under} Section 19 ol' the RDB Act,^{1993 againstthe scle} defendant for reco'.'ery of a^{Eum of R.s'10,87,702.65} together rvith cost, charges and^{pencienteliiteand} future intere:;l @9.103/o^{p.a. in respect from date of} filing of this C.A. tiil the realization^{in full.}

¶13

The brief facls^oF the^{case are that at the. reqiest} of sole defendant, the applicant^{bank sanctioned a Car} Loan Faciiity of Rs.9,50,000/- for^{purchase of Maruti} Ciaz ZDI car krearing^{ncr. DL5CL15L7on 2?-.06.20L5.} The sole detendant executed all^{necessaryloaning} document on 22.06.2C15. It^{is submittedthat in} consideraticrt of satiction altd^{disbursal of the atrove} loan the clgfenciant for repayrnent^{of ioan toqether with} interest hypothecated ife-ltqruti^{CiazZDI car bearing} 1).-

¶14

¶15

TN103012024

¶16

no. D15CL1517, Engine No. D13A2590537, Chassis No. MA3FXEB1S00148972, Body-Saloon, Colour^-G. Grey, Diesel,' Manufacturing Year 2015 with the applicant bank and the said vehicle stands hypothecated with the applicant bank in accordance with terms and conditions of the loan cum hypothecation agreement and applicant has a^primary charge over the said Car but later on applicant bank come to known that the defendant with malafide intention has sold the hypothecated car to one Sudhir Kumar Chhikara on 10.07.2015.

¶17

It is further submitted that the^{sole defendant} enjoyed and utilized the Loan facility, but failed to maintain the financial discipline and failed to^{repay the} due amounts. The applicant bank^requested the^sole defendant to regularize the loan account^{by visits and} letters, but there was no response from the^sole defendant, hence the account was^classified as^NPA dated 3L.L2.2015. Therefore, the applicant^bank serued a notice dated 05.02.2016 and legal^demand notice 15.02.2018 to the sole defendant but^{failed to} recover the same. Thus, the^present O.M.A.^is preferred by the applicant bank to recover its dues.

¶18

On notice by this Tribunal, the^{sole defendant} failed to put appearance at all, despite^publication' Accordingly, the sole defendant^{proceeded against} exparte on 03.02.2025.

EJt

TNt030/2024

The applicant bank has filed evidence by^way of affidavit of Sh. Ankita Thareja,^{Branch Managerof} the applicant bank as Paper No.01 to^{Paper No.54} which have gone unchallenged and un-rebutted. Hence, the case of the applicant bank stands fully established against the sole defendant with^{respect to} nonpayment of outstanding amount.

¶23

After^perusing the records, this^{Tribunalis of the} view that the applicant bank has^{provedits case} beyond reasonable doubts. The^evidenceand documents filed by the applicant^{banknot rebuttedby} the sole defendant by not^placing any^evidenceand there is no^question of disbelieving^{the evidence and} documents filed by the applicant^{bank based upon the} written/pri nted documents.

¶24

In the light of the above discussions,^{the present T.A.} deserves to be allowed.

¶25

ORDER

¶26

I hereby allow this T.A. of the^{Applicant Bank and} direct the sole defendant to^{pay to the applicant bank} within 30 days from tociay, a^{total sum of Rs' 10,87,702.65} along with cos! expenses^{and interest} @9.107o^{from the} date of filing of this OA which^{has become T.A till the date} of realization.

¶27

In ca-ce of failure to deposit^{the above amountwithin} the stipulated^period, the^{same shallbe recoveredfrom} sale of^personal movable and^{immovable assets of the} sole defendant. €.<sup>-

¶28

TNt030/2024

¶29

¶30

Recovery Certificate be issued forthwith and^{be sent} to Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il,^Delhi.

¶31

The registry of this Tribunal is hereby directed to issue free copy of the order and send the same to both the pafties.

¶32

Parties are direct to appear before the^{Ld. Recovery} Officer, DRT-II, Delhi on 22.10.2025.^{PendingIAs, if any,} stand disposed of.

¶33

File be consigned to records.

¶34

( g,\ Date : 21.08.2025 (susHrl KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

¶35

This^judgement has been signed, dated^and

¶36

pronounced in open court.

¶37

9"\

¶38

Date : 21.08.2025

¶39

(SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

State Bank of India v. Naveen Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Naveen Kumar

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