Allowed

City Union Bank Limited v. Ashish Dhingra

DRT19 Apr 2025TA/1216/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the Applicant Bank's original application for recovery of dues from co-borrowers who failed to repay a housing loan secured by an equitable mortgage, proceeding ex-parte due to their absence.

What did the court decide?

Direction to defendants to pay Rs.45,10,507.29 with interest and costs within 30 days; recovery from sale of mortgaged property; issuance of recovery certificate.

City Union Bank Limited versus Ashish Dhingra — Civil Procedure and Limitation | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 1216 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

T.A. No.1216 of 2023

¶5

City Union Bank Limited F-120, Main market Laxmi Nagar

¶6

Delhi-110092 Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

1.^{Ashish Dhingra s/o Mr. Kishan Lal Dhingra} 2. Arti Dhingra w/o Mr. Ashish Dhingra

¶9

Both at: House no.55, Ground Floor, Block-1 Eros Garden, Suraj Kund Road Charm Wood village, Faridabad Haryana-121009

¶10

Defendant

¶11

Present: Shri Devendra Sain, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶12

Date of Institution: 17.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 19.04.2025

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 17.06.2022 before DRT-II, Delhi and then transferred to DRT-III through Sh.Aman Goel, authorized represerr`ative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendant for recovery of a

¶15

¶16

T.A. No. 1216 of 2023

¶17

sum of Rs.45,10,507.29 (Rupees Forty Five Lacs Ten Thousand Five Hundred Seven and paisa Twenty Nine only) as on 19.05.2022 along with pendentelite and future interest @11.25% per annum with annual rests from the date of filing this application till the date of realization along with costs.

¶18

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the defendants as co-borrowers vide their loan application dated 03.06.2019, the applicant bank sanctioned a sum of Rs.37,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Seven Lacs only) on 01.07.2019 to be repayable in 180 EMIs of Rs.42,677/- (Rupees Forty Two Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Seven only) ©11.25% interest with annual rests in order to purchase house under Swayam Griha-Non Salaried scheme against mortgage of property.

¶19

In order to avail the loan facility, the defendants submitted Loan Application dated 03.06.2019 and executed Demand Promissory Note dated 01.07.2019, Sanction Letter for advances dated 29.06.2019, Application cum Undertaking for Loan and Guarantee Agreements dated 01.07.2019 with the applicant bank.

¶20

That in order to secure the loan facility, the defendant no.1 created equitable mortgage of property of Entire Ground and First Floor without roof rights, measuring area 38 square yards (each floor), bearing No.346, Ward no.III, out of Khasra no.642, Pathanpura Village Chandrawali Alias Shandara, illaqa Shandara, Delhi-110032 in favour of the applicant bank by deposit of entire chain of documents of the property on 29.08.2019 by executing Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds with applicant bank.

¶21

¶22

T.A. No. 1216 of 2023

¶23

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the housing loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions of sanction and failed to deposit monthly installments and regularize the account with the applicant bank. Ultimately, the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 31.07.2020 as per RBI guidelines but defendants did not clear the overdues, hence the applicant bank has approached this tribunal for recovery of its dues.

¶24

Notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 dated 07.10.2021 was issued to the defendants calling upon them to pay the entire outstanding dues with the applicant bank but the defendants did not clear the dues.

¶25

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite of proper service, the defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 08.10.2024, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared before the Tribunal and even written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have not been filed by the defendants.

¶26

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Sh.Aman Goel, authorized representative of the applicant bank, who has proved the documents as Power of Attorney Ex.AW-1/1, Demand Promissory note Ex.AW-1/2, Sanction Letter Ex.AW-1/3, Application cum undertaking for loan Ex.AW-1/4, Guarantee agreements dated 01.07.2019 Ex.AW-1/5 & Ex.AW-1/6, Title Deed Ex.AW-1/7, Sale Deed dated 28.02.1957 Ex.AW-1/8, General Power of Attorney Ex.AW-1/9, Agreement to Sell dated 21.04.1995 Ex.AW-1/10, Will dated 21.04.1994 Ex.AW-1/11,

¶27

cc(--

¶28

T.A. No. 1216 of 2023

¶29

Sale Deed dated 20.12.1995 Ex.AW-1/12, Sale Deed dated 21.07.1997 Ex.AW-1/13, Sale Deed dated 28.06.2000 Ex.AW1/14, Agreement to Sell dated 25.05.2019 Ex.AW-1/15, Sale Deed dated 18.07.2019 Ex.AW-1/16, Statement of Account Ex.AW-1/17 & Banker's Certificate Ex.AW-1/18, Notice under Section 13(2) Ex.AW-1/19, Postal Receipts Ex.AW-1/20 & AW1/211^{Newspaper Publication Ex.AW-1/22 & AW-1/23,} Enveloped Unserved Ex.AW-1/24 & AW-1/25.

¶30

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.

¶31

10.^{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.

¶32

11.^{In the light of the above discussions, the Original} Application deserves to be allowed.

¶33

ORDER

¶34

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.45,10,507.29/^{- (Rupees Forty Five Lrcs Ten} Thousand Five Hundred Seven and Paisa Twenty Nine only) as on 19.05.2022 together with pendentelite and future interest @11.25% per annum with annual rests 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

¶35

5671

¶36

T.A. No. 1216 of 2023

¶37

of mortgaged property being Entire Ground and First Floor without roof rights, measuring area 38 square yards (each floor), bearing No.346, Ward No. III, out of Khasra no.642, Pathanpura Village Chandrawali Alias Shandara, illaqa Shandara, Delhi-110032. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶38

(II)^{The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent} to the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Del'ii.

¶39

(III)^{Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery} Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 18.06.2025.

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 19.04.2025

City Union Bank Limited v. Ashish Dhingra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

City Union Bank Limited v. Ashish Dhingra

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

Icici Bank Limited versus Prahalad Verma

Hdfc Bank versus Babu Khan

Bank of India versus M/S Gupta Traders

Bank of India versus Dilip Kumar

State Bank of India versus Mr. Daljit Singh

Punjab National Bank versus Neeraj Khullar