Allowed

Suraksha Asset Reconstruction Ltd. v. Mrs. Sunita Kumar

DRT6 Mar 2025TA/1839/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allowed a debt recovery application filed by Suraksha Asset Reconstruction Limited against two borrowers and a Resolution Professional. The applicant proved loan defaults and assignment of rights, leading to an ex-parte judgment directing repayment of approximately Rs. 93.26 lakhs with interest, enforceable against mortgaged flats.

What did the court decide?

Direction to pay Rs. 93,26,093.65 with interest within 30 days; enforcement via sale of mortgaged flats if unpaid.

Suraksha Asset Reconstruction Ltd. versus Mrs. Sunita Kumar — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No.1839 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. 1839 of 2022

¶5

Suraksha Asset Reconstruction Limited 301, 3rd Floor, Kanchanjunga Building Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001

¶6

Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mrs. Sunita Kumar (Borrower) CPO-13, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar Madangir, New Delhi-110062

¶9

Sh.Ramesh Kumar (Co-Borrower) CPO-13, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar Madangir, New Delhi-110062

¶10

Sh.Anil Matta, Resolution Professional Primrose Infratech Pvt.Ltd Matta & Associates, 308, RG Trade Tower Plot No.B-7, Netaji Subhash Place Pitampura, Delhi-110034

¶11

Also at:

¶12

GH1-1A, Gurgaon One Apartments Sector 22, Gurgaon, Haryana-122015

¶13

Performa Defendant

¶14

Present: Sh. Arvind Kumar Jadon, Counsel for the applicant

¶15

Date of Institution: 30.05.2022

¶16

Date of Pronouncement: 06.03.2025

5d-

T.A. No.1839 of 2022

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant FI on 30.05.2022 before DRT-III Delhi & then transferred to DRT-I Delhi through Shri Tej Singh, authorized representative of the applicant FI/ARC under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 read with Rule 8 of Debt Recovery (Procedure) Rules 1993 (as amended upto date) against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.93,26,093.65 (Rupees Ninety Three Lacs Twenty Six Thousand Ninety Three and paisa Sixty Five only) as on 15.04.2022 along with pendentelite and future interest @10.35% per annum from 16.04.2022 till the final realization of dues and costs.

¶21

The brief facts of the case are that as per Assignment Agreement dated 29.12.2017, the Assignor (L&T Housing Finance Ltd.) assigned the debts of defendant no.1 and 2 in favour of the applicant FI/ARC together with underlying security interest created and all the rights, title and Intel est etc. to initiate legal proceedings against the defendant no.1 and 2. The defendant no.3 has been made Proforma Party being the Resolution Professional of Primrose Infratech Pvt.Ltd., which is under CIRP and no relief has been claimed.

¶22

It has been submitted that the Assignor FI sanctioned the loan against property of Rs.35.00 lacs (Rupees Thirty F.ve lacs) each to the defendant no.1 and 2 on 21.01.2016 but disbursed an amount of Rs.24,50,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Fifty Thousand only) each after acknowledging and execution of terms and conditions of sanction in favour of Assignor FI. The loan amounts were sanctioned @10.35% interest per annum (floating) to be repayable in 240 EMI of Rs.24,184/- each.

¶23

T.A. No.1839 of 2022

¶24

That in order to avail the loan facilities, the defendant no.1 and 2 executed Power of Attorneys, Declarations, Demand Promissory Notes and MOD & Letter evidencing creation of equitable mortgage on 31.01.2016 in favour of the Assignor FL

¶25

That in order to secure the loan facilities, the defendant no.1 and 2 created mortgage of flats purchased by depositing original title deeds of:

¶26

Flat no.C-2/T-8, Ryne Primrose, Plot No.GH-06A, Sector CHI-V, Greater Noida, UP measuring 1595 sq.ft;

¶27

Flat No.C-1/T-8, Ryne Primrose, Plot No.GH-06A, Sector CHI-V, Greater Noida, UP measuring 1595 sq.ft. in favour of Assignor.

¶28

It has been submitted by the applicant FI that after availing the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendants have failed to pay interest and other charges, making defaults with the terms and conditions despite several requests and reminders by the Assignor Bank. The defendants committed defaults in repayment of overdue installments and failed to regularize the accounts resulting the account was classified as NPA by Assignor FI as per RBI guidelines and issued notice dated 05.05.2022 calling upon the defendant to pay the outstanding dues but no response, hence the applicant FI/ARC has approached this tribunal for recovery of the dues.

¶29

Notices of this O.A. were issued to defendants and despite proper service, the defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 02.01.2C24, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared

¶30

T.A. No.1839 of 2022

¶31

before the Tribunal and even no written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have been filed by the defendants.

¶32

In order to prove its case, the applicant FI/ARC has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Tej Singh, authorized representative of the applicant FI/ARC who has proved the documents as Certificate of Incorporation Ex.AW/1, Board Resolution Ex.AW/2, Assignment Agreement Ex.AW/3, Sanction Letters dated 25.01.2016 Ex.AW/4(colly), Loan Agreements dated 30.01.2016 Ex.AW/5(colly), Power of Attorneys Ex.AW/6(colly), Declarations Ex.AW/7(colly), Demand Promissory Notes Ex.AW/8(colly), MODT & Letter evidencing Creation of Equitable Mortgage Ex.AW/9(colly), Original Title Deeds of Mortgaged Property Ex.AW/10(colly), Loan Recall Notice along with Postal Receipts Ex.AW/11(colly), Certified Statement of Accounts with Certificates under Information Technology Act Ex.AW/12(colly).

¶33

The applicant FI has fully corroborated the averments made in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the applicant FI is based on the documents and the same have been duly proved.

¶34

The case filed by the applicant FI gone unrebutted and there is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant FI and the applicant FI has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts.

¶35

In the light of the above discussions and documents on record, the Original Application deserves to be allowed.

¶36

T.A. No.1839 of 2022

¶37

ORDER

¶38

I, allow this OA and direct the defendant no.1 and 2 to pay to the applicant FI/ARC, jointly or severally, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.93,26,093.65 (Rupees Ninety Three Lacs Twenty Six Thousand Ninety Three and paisa Sixty Five only) as on 15.04.2022 along with pendentelite and future interest @10.35% per annum with monthly rests from 16.04.2022 till its realization with costs failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from sale of mortgaged flats:

¶39

i) Flat no.C-2/T-8, Ryne Primrose, Plot No.GH-06A, Sector CHI-V, Greater Noida, UP measuring 1595 sq.ft;

¶40

ii) Flat No.C-1/T-8, Ryne Primrose, Plot No.GH-06A, Sector CHI-V I Greater Noida, UP measuring 1595 sq.ft.

¶41

owned by defendant no.1 & 2. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable assets of the defendants.

¶42

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

¶43

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 05.05.2025.

¶44

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

¶45

SP -

¶46

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

¶47

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 06.03.2025

Suraksha Asset Reconstruction Ltd. v. Mrs. Sunita Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraksha Asset Reconstruction Ltd. v. Mrs. Sunita Kumar

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

Archana Kumari and Others versus Can Fin Homes Ltd.

State Bank of India versus M/S Radhe Radhe Enterprises

Msmodgil Filling Station versus Punjab National Bank

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) versus M/S Shreya Polymers Pvt. Ltd.

Union Bank of India (E-Andhra Bank) versus M/S R.S.Electrical

Pushpa Bakery versus Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank