Allowed

State Bank of India v. Kailash Chand Mohta

DRT18 Sept 2025TA/1392/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the application filed by a bank for recovery of dues including principal, interest, and costs against two defendants who defaulted on a housing loan for a flat under construction. The court proceeded ex-parte after respondents' absence.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs. 21,04,383 with interest at 8.40% p.a. and costs within 30 days; failure allows recovery via sale of mortgaged property.

State Bank of India versus Kailash Chand Mohta — Cheque Dishonour | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No.1392 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. 1392 of 2022

¶5

State Bank of India (e-State Bank of Mysore) Stressed Assets Recovery Branch 23, First Floor, Najafgarh Road New Delhi — 110015

¶6

Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh.Kailash Chand Mohta

¶9

s/o Mr. Jagdish Prasad Mohta

¶10

C-68, 2nd floor, Vivek Vihar Phase-I Delhi-110095

¶11

Also at:

¶12

Sh.Kailash Chand Mohta s/o Mr. Jagdish Prasad Mohta 3418, Dharampura

¶13

Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031

¶14

M/s Alankrit Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. Through its Secretary 179, East Azad Nagar Delhi-110051 Defendants

¶15

Present: Ms. Shalini Upadhayay, Counsel for applicant bank Date of Institution: 25.09.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 18.09.2025

¶16

FINAL ORDER

¶17

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 25.09.2018 before DRT-II, Delhi and then transferred to DRT-I Delhi through Shri Pritam Singh, authorized Sc/

¶18

¶19

T.A. No.1392 of 2022

¶20

representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.21,04,383/- (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Four Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Three only) along with pendentelite and future interest @8.40% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing this application till the date of its realization and costs. Further, the name of Sh. Ashok Kumar was substituted as authorized representative in place of Shri Pritam Singh, erstwhile AR for the applicant bank.

¶21

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of defendant no.1, the applicant bank sanctioned Housing Loan for a sum of Rs.23,50,000/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Fifty Thousand only) and Rs.2,13,750/- (Rupees Two Lacs Thirteen Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty only) for insurance cover under the SBM Housing Loan Scheme on 16.06.2014 which was to be repayable in 234 Equated Monthly Installment of Rs.23,522/each against in order to purchase under construction flat being constructed by defendant no.2.

¶22

That in order to avail the housing loan facility, the defendant no.1 submitted housing loan application dated 05.06.2014 with Flat Buyer Agreement & necessary documents and executed Arrangement Letter for Housing Loan, Memorandum of Loan Agreement for Home Loan, Undertaking, Agreement to Mortgage, Affidavit, Self-attested copies of Aadhar Card, Telephone Bill, Driving license, Registration Certificate of Establishment, Share Certificate in favour of applicant bank on 13.06.2014 along with Tripartite Agreement executed with defendant no.2 and the applicant bank.

5d-

T.A. No.1392 of 2022

That in order to secure the loan facilities, the defendant no.1 created mortgaged One unit in Multi Storey Flats being constructed on lease hold land area measuring 5000 sq. mtrs at Plot no.A-1, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi-110032 being constructed by defendant no.2 - Membership No.157 with the applicant bank.

¶27

As per Tripartite Agreement dated 13.06.2014 executed by defendants with applicant bank, it was agreed that in the event of cancellation of the allotment by defendant no.2, it shall refund to the applicant bank forthwith the entire amount received on behalf of defendant no.1 to the applicant bank and non-completion of project shall not affect the liability of defendant no.1 towards the applicant bank.

¶28

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendant no.1 failed to maintain financial discipline and comply with the terms and conditions of loan and defaulted in payment of monthly installments in time to the applicant bank. Ultimately, the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 15.07.2018 and issued demand legal notice dated 18.08.2018 but defendants failed to regularize the account. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶29

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite proper service the defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 17.09.2019, defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as they have not appeared before the Tribunal nor written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have been filed.

¶30

¶31

T.A. No.1392 of 2022

¶32

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Pritam Singh, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as Gazette Notification, Housing Loan Application Form, Credit Report Declaration, Sanction Letter, Arrangement Letter for Housing loan, Memorandum of Loan Agreement, Undertaking, Agreement to Mortgage, Affidavit, Self attested copies of PAN Card, Aadhar Card, Telephone Bill, Driving License, Registration Certificate of Establishment, Share Certificate, Tripartite Agreement, Notice with Postal Receipts, Statement of Accounts duly Certified under Banker's Book of Evidence Act marked as Ex.AW-1/1 to Ex.AW-1/12.

¶33

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 proved.

¶34

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.

¶35

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

¶36

ORDER

¶37

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank, jointly or severally, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.21,04,383/- (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Four sd-

¶38

¶39

T.A. No.1392 of 2022

¶40

Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Three only) along with pendentelite and future interest @8.40% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing this application till its realization with costs, failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of mortgaged property being One unit in Multi storey flats at plot no.A-1, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi110032. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶41

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

¶42

(III) Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 17.11.2025.

¶43

(IV) Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be

¶44

sent to all concerned free of cost.

¶45

c 5 s )S'c, , (GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶46

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 18.09.2025

¶47

State Bank of India v. Kailash Chand Mohta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Kailash Chand Mohta

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

Mohammed Ashraf C a versus Indian Overseas Bank

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Akrosh Abdul Khan

Ms Siddhi Vinayak Steel and others versus Punjab National Bank

Central Bank of India versus M/S Khushboo Vastraalay

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Sunil Kumar

Punjab National Bank versus Smt. Poonam Devi