Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Rakesh Singh

DRT12 Aug 2025TA/1466/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's stay application for recovery of a car loan with interest and costs, directed immediate issuance of a recovery certificate, and ordered the recovery of the outstanding amount from the defendants' assets.

What did the court decide?

Direct defendants to pay Rs.10,39,944 with interest and costs within 30 days; direct issuance of recovery certificate to Debt Recovery Officer for recovery from hypothecated and other properties.

Bank of Baroda versus Rakesh Singh — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 1466 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.1466 of 2022
Bank of Baroda, Daryaganj Branch, 3631, Netaji Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, New Delhi- 110002 Applicant
Versus
1. Sh. Rakesh Singh S/o Shr. Akalesh Singh Plot No.- 95/20, Ground Floor, Block- A, Sector- 47, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh
Also at: Sole Proprietor of: M/S Kelly Holidays, Shop No.- 38, Pal Plaza, Karol Bagh, New Delhi- 110005
Sh. Alok Kumar S/o Shr. Ram Kishore House No.- D-179, Sector-105, Noida- 201304 Defendants
Present: Sh. Vineet Sharma, Counsel for the applicant bank
Date of Institution: 14.06.2019
Date of Pronouncement: 12.08.2025
5c/

¶5

T.A. No. 1466 of 2022

¶6

FINAL ORDER

¶7

This original application has been filed by the applicant ank on 14.06.2019 before DRT-III, Delhi and then transferred o DRT-I, Delhi through Shri Shambhu Singh Naruka, uthorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.10,39^{1944/- (Rupees} Ten Lacs Thirty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Four only) as on 28.02.2019 along with pendente lite and future interest ©10.20% per annum plus penal interest ©2% per annum from the date of filing of the present application till its realization along with costs. Further, the name of Shr. Manoj Kumar was substituted as authorized representative in place of Shr. Shambhu Singh Naruka erstwhile AR for the applicant bank.

¶8

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the defendant No. 1, the applicant bank sanctioned Car Loan on 30.03.2016 for a sum of Rs.8,00,000/^{- (Rupees Eight Lacs only)} for a period of five years under Dena Auto Finance Scheme for the purchase of Sail Diesel Lt ABS- TDI ©10.20% per annum interest which was repayable in 60 equated monthly installments of Rs.17,076/- (Rupees Seventeen Thousand Seventy Six Only) each as requested by the defendant against hypothecation agreement. Additionally, Defendant No. 2 stood as a guarantor to the loan facility sanctioned in favor of defendant No. 1 by the applicant bank.

¶9

In order to avail the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendants submitted and executed various documents like Agreement of Hypothecation, Letter of General Lien and set off for borrowing arrangements from the borrower, Letter of Sal

¶10

T.A. No. 1466 of 2022

¶11

uarantee, Letter of General Lien and Set Off from guarantor, I D^{eclaration in respect of pending court cases of banks and} inancial institutions dated 31.03.2016 and Consent Letter of he Guarantor dated 18.03.2016 with the applicant bank.

¶12

After completion of all the legal formalities, the bank issued a demand draft bearing No. HVE 684100 of Rs.8,33,041 (Rupees Eight Lacs Thirty Three Thousand Forty One Only) in favour of M/S Arya Automobiles, however upon a visit to M/S Arya Automobiles, it was revealed that the showroom has been closed and the defendant has committed a fraud by submitting forged invoice, receipts, insurance policy and registration number to the bank. Immediately bank lodged a criminal complaint against the defendants dated 18.08.2016.

¶13

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 not routed their transactions through the account. The applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 30.09.2016 as per RBI guidelines but defendants failed to regularize the accounts. The applicant bank issued a demand notice dated 15.05.2019 for adjustment of the account with interest but no response. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶14

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 23.06.2022, the defendant has been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared

¶15

T.A. No. 1466 of 2022

¶16

efore the Tribunal and even written statement, evidence and ffidavit of assets have not been filed by the defendant. I;

¶17

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its vidence by way of affidavit of Shri Manoj Kumar, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the Original/Copy documents as Power of Attorney, Sanction Letter, Letter of General Lien and set off for borrowing arrangements from the borrower, Letter of Guarantee, Letter of General Lien and Set Off from guarantor, Declaration in respect of pending court cases of banks and financial institutions, Consent Letter of the Guarantor, Letter of Acknowledgement of Debt, copy of Complaint, Certificate of NPA, Legal Notice along with Postal Receipts and Certified Statement of Account under Bankers' Books Evidence Act as EXHIBIT PW-1/1 to EXHIBIT PW-1/15.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

In the light of the above discussions, the Original Application deserves to be allowed. � 5d-

¶21

T.A. No. 1466 of 2022

¶22

ORDER

¶23

I, allow this OA and direct the defendant to pay to the applicant bank within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.10,39,944/-^{(Rupees Ten Lacs Thirty Nine Thousand Nine} Hundred Forty Four only) as on 28.02.2019 along with pendentelite and future interest @10.20% per annum plus penal interest @2% per annum (as per Sanction letter dated 30.03.2016 filed as Annexure 3) from the date of filing of the present application till the date of realization and costs; failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated asset. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendant.

¶24

The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent

¶25

(II) to the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi.

¶26

(III)^{Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery} Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 15.10.2025.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 12.08.2025

Bank of Baroda v. Rakesh Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Rakesh Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Tryambak So Ramrao Deshmukh Prop of Mahalaxmi Electrotech Services versus Nirmal Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Hdfc Bank versus Surinder Kumar

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Rajiv Kumar

Canara Bank versus M/S Rajat Enterprises

Central Bank of India versus M/S P. Pure and Admire

Indian Overseas Bank versus Sh. Surjit Singh