The DRT allowed the bank's recovery application against borrowers and guarantors. The court rejected claims of forged signatures and protected the bank's right to enforce security over mortgaged land
Defendants 1 to 3 directed to pay Rs.30,12,542 along with interest; Recovery Certificate to be issued for enforcement via sale of mortgaged property.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Before SUSHILKUMARRASTOGI, Presiding Officer Debts RecoverY Tribunal-Il,Delhi
TAlts7sl2023
CANARA BANK(E- SYNDTCATEBANK) VS SUNDARESAN vAsu & oRs.
Reserued on : 25.08.2O25
Pronounced on: 29.O9.2025
Canara Bank (e- Syndicate Bank)
Vs.
Present: Ms.Rekha Rustagi, Counselappears for aPPlicant bank. None for defendants'
FINAL ORDER
This original applicationhas been filed by the applicant bank,on 07.06.2016 through Sh.S.E. Natraja, General Aftorneyand Asstt' General Manager of the dpplicant bank,under Section19 of the RDB Act, 1993 against the defendantsfor recoveryof a sum of Rs.30,12,542l- alongwith further interest thereupon @12.70o/op.a. from the date of filling of this O.A till the date of realizationin full'
of defendantno.1, the applicant bank sanctioneda S.I
TA NO/1575/20232 HousingLoan Facilityof Rs'25'00'000/-for purchaseof a Plot of Land Bearing No'C-16' Sawam :uyuntiPuram, Ghaziabad' U'P" measuring148'75 s0' mtrtodefendantno'1,tobere-paidin216months, vide sanctionletter dated 18'10'2007and fund was releasedin stages' An amountof Rs'12'35'000/-was releasedfor purchaseof the aforesaid property on 18.10.2007.The Housing Loan was securedby defendantno'2, who is the wife of the defendant no'1 and defendantno'3' The balanceamountof the loan was disbursedto the defendantno'1 on 15'11'2007' 08.01.2008,04'03'2008 and 3t'03'2008as per the demandsraised by the defendant no'l on the basis of constructionof the plot in question' The defendant no'1 alsomoftgaged the aforesaidproperry by way of unregisteredequitable mortgage' The defendants executedalt necessary loaning documents on 18.10.2007,13'10'2007',03'11'2007',05'11'2007' 08.01.2008and 04'03'2008'The defendantno'1' being the borrowerand the defendant nos'2& 3' being the suretyare now liable to pay the entire outstanding amountalong with interest'
)
TA NO/1s7512023
preferred bythe applicant bank to recover its dues' Thedefendantno.4toSwereimpleadedinthepresent maftervide order dated21'12'2016'
TA NO/1575/20234
in theform prescribedand is not accompanied by suchdocumentsand other evidence' It is further submittedthat Sh' S'E' Nataraj' Asstt'General Manager who instituted,signedand verified the applicationis neithercompetentnor authorized to do so' The present applicationis devoid of any cause of action against the defendantno'2' It is submifted that the applicant banksno jurisdiction to fited the present O'A before this HontleTribunal' The Present O'A filedby the applicant barredby limitation, loan was sanction in the year of 2007.The officials of the applicantbank visited the houseof the defendantno'2 and theygive the proposal for thepersonal loan and theycameto know husband of thedefendantno'2 left the houselast five years back,they alsocame to know she is hand to mount and leavingwith her daughterand thereis no male member in herfamity'Offrciats of the applicant won the confidenceof the defendant no'2and they receivethe securitychequesfrom the defendant no'2 for sanction thepersonal loan from the bank' It is further submitted thatthe defendant no'2 never ever deposited the amountin case with the applicant' Hencethis O'A applicationbe dismissed only this ground' It is prayed thatthisHonbleTribunalmaydismissthepresento.A'
6'In their written statementthe defendant nos'6 to 8 hasdenied the facts mentioned in the OA' It is submittedthat this Honble Tribunal has allowed an applicationunder Order1 Rule 10 of CPC wherebyby thedefendantshavebeenimpleadedasthedefendants in thematter' It is further submitted that the applicant bankis well aware that the defendants are the lawful' legitimateand legal owner aqd occupier of the property q
5
TA NO/1575/2023
in dispute,i'e., Plot No' 16' C-Block' SwaranJayanti Puram,Ghaziabad,(U'P)' However'the applicant bank deliberatelyand with mala fide intentions did not impleadthe defendantsas pafl in the presentcase as to obtaina favorable order from this Hon'ble Tribunal andgravely preiudicethe rights and interestsof the defendantsin the property in disputeboughtby them' videvalid and lawful manner'i'e'' registeredsale deeds.Therefore, the present case is not maintainable andis liable to be dismissedon this short ground only' It is submittedthat that the answering defendantshad appliedfor loan with their respectivebankers to purchasetheir respective flats in the property in dispute.The home loan was sanctioned and disbursed by therespective bankersin favourof the defendants andthe said loan amount was transferred to the originalowner of the flats' It is submittedthat it was the dutyand obligationof the loan disbursing banks to maketheadequateandproperenquiries/investigation aboutthetitleorotherlegalaspectsbeforedisbursing or sanctioningthe loan to the defendants' It is submittedthat since purchasingtheir respective flats in theproperty in dispute' the defendantswere in legal' actual,physicat and peacefulpossessionof the same' However,their peaceful and tranquil life received a big jott whenthe defendants saw a noticedated 26'08.2016purportedlyissuedby and on behalf of the applicantbank pastedon the property in dispute'The saidnotice has showna sum of Rs'29'04'912'38dues bwardsthe defendant no'1 and threatening to take possessionof the property in question'It is further submittedthat by Section20 of the SARFAESI Act' 2002it has created a Central Registry for the purpose A'
TA NO/I575/20236
of
of of registrationof transaction Securitizationand Reconstructionof Financial Assets andcreationof securityinterest' It is submitted that Section23 of the SARFAESIAct makes it mandatoryfor the Banksand FinancialInstitutionsto file transactions of securitization,asset reconstruction and security interestover property within 30 days after the date of such transactionor creationof security' However' in thepresent case, it is evident that the applicantbank in collusionand connivancewith the defendantNo'1 did notfite the transactionwhereby the propertyin disputewas moftgage or a securityinterest over properfywas created' It is submittedthat the banks fromwhich the defendantshad taken home loan to purchasetheirrespectiveflatsinthepropertyindispute musthave,as a pre-caution'inspected/scanned the records/particularsof the transaction relatingto the propertyin dispute to satisfy themselves regarding non-creationof any security interest over the same' It is fufthersubmiftedthat the sequenceof events clearly proves thatthe applicantbank and its officials in collusionwith the defendantno' thad hatched a conspiracynot to file the details of the transaction enteredinto betweenthemwith the CentralRegistry and inthis manner' committed offencesof fraud' cheating,criminal conspiracy and abuse of official positionto obtain valuable but itlegal and wrongful gain and/orto cause illegal loss to the prospective genuine subsequentpurchasers' It is submittedthat that realizingthat above acts of the officials of the applicant bankand defendantno' t had committedthe above- referredoffences' the defendants have flted a complaintdated 30'09'2016 with the tocalpolice C-\
TA NO/1575/20237
stationfor registration of a case under the relevant provisionsof law againstthem' Accordingly'it is prayed thatthis HontleTribunal may dismiss the present O'A'
7.The applicant bank and the defendant nos'2 and defendantno' 6 to 8 have filed theirrespective evidence.
8.Heard the Ld' Counsel of the applicant bankand perusedthe record'
9.The defendant no'2 has filed the written statementand submittedthe OA has not been filedby thecompetentpersonwho is authorizedto verify and filethe present OA' From perusal of the recordit is clear thatthe officer of the bank has been authorized by the bankto fite the present OA and therefore' the contentionof the defendant no'2 that the OA has not beenfiled by authorized person has no force'
10.The next contention of the defendant no'2 is that thedocumentsoftheguaranteeareforgedand fabricated'But the contention of the defendant has no force.From perusal of the documents it is clear that thereis no discrepancyin the documents and the guaranteedocumentshavebeendulysignedbythe defendantno'2' Therefore' the contentionof the defendantno'2 has no force'
11.The defendant no'6 to I have filed the written statementand submittedthat they are the owners of the flatand has purchasedthe flat afterpayingdue consideration'From perusal of the record it is clear that theentire land on which the flats have been constructedby the defendanthas been moftgagedwith the applicantbank' If the defendant has constructed q)
TA NO/1575/20238
theflats and sold the same tothe other persons includingdefendantno'6 to 8 without obtainingNOC fromthe applicant bank' the defendant no'6 to I cannotderive any right on the subject property' If the propertyhas been wronglysold to the defendantno'6 to 8,he may recover the considerationpaid for the purchaseof the flat and the compensation fromthe defendantfrom whom they have purchasedthe flat' But theapplicant bank cannot be restrainedfrom takingactionagainstsubjectpropertywhichhasbeen mortgagedwith the applicantbank'
t2.From perusal of the entire evidence' it is clear that the defendantshave failed to prove their case as claimedin the written statement' On the other hand' the applicantbank has provedhis case against the defendantno' 1to 3 and therefore' the defendant nos' 1 to 3are liable to pay jointly and severallythe amount chimedby the appticant bank and the OAfl.A of the applicantbankis liable to be allowed'
the PresentTA In thetight of the above discussions' deservesto be allowed'
ORDER
1)I hereby allow this T'A' of the ApplicantBank and directthe defendantnos' 1 to 3 to pay jointly and severallyto the applicant bank within 30 days from alongwith cost' today,a sum of Rs'30'12 '5421expensesand interest @10'75%from the date of filing of thisO.A which has becomeTA till the date of realization'
S"\
a
TA NO/1575/20239
2)In case of failure to deposit the above amount withinthe stiputated period, the same shallbe recoveredfrom the sale of the mortgage Plot of Land BearingNo.C-16, SawarnJayanti Puram' Ghaziabad' U.P.-201001,measuring t48'75 sq' mtr' In case of shortfall, the sameshall be recoveredfrom the sale of the ofpersonal movableand immovable assets of the defendantnos.l to 3'
3)RecoveryCertificate be issuedforthwith and be senttoRecoveryofftcer,DebtsRecoveryTribunal.Il, Delhi.
5)Partiesare direct to appearbefore the Ld' RecoveryOfficer,DRT-II'Delhion 28'lt'2025'Pending IAs, ifanY, standdisPosed of'
Fite beconsigned to records' te)
(susHIL KUMARRASToGI) Date:29.09.2025 PRESIDINGOFRCER DRT-II,Delhi
signed,dated and Thisjudgement has been pronouncedin oPen court' (sil
(susHIL KUMARRASToGI) Date:29'09.2025 PRESIDINGOFFICER DRT-II,Delhi
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the guarantee executed by Defendant No. 2 was forged as claimed by her.
Whether the subsequent purchasers (Defendants 6 to 8) retain title over mortgaged land.
Whether the application for recovery of dues filed by the bank is maintainable and liable to be allowed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Canara Bank (e-Syndicate Bank)
Sundaresan Vasu
Mrs. Suja K.R.
Mr. A. Jayashankar
Sh. Rohit Sisodia
Sh. Yogender Sisodia
Sushil Kumar Rastogi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
