Allowed

State Bank of India v. Arun Nagpal

DRT16 Sept 2025TA/1957/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed aテ application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of Rs.39,47,274.72 along with interest and costs from borrowers who failed to repay a housing loan. The Tribunal proceeded ex-parte against defendants who absented themselves. It directed issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Directed defendants to pay Rs.39,47,274.72 with interest and costs within 30 days; directed issuance of recovery certificate for execution against mortgaged/other properties.

State Bank of India versus Arun Nagpal — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No.1957 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. 1957 of 2022

¶5

State Bank of India (e-State Bank of Patiala) Stressed Asset Recovery Branch-II 18/4, 4th floor, SBI House Arya Samaj road, Karol Bagh New Delhi-110005

¶6

Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mr. Arun Nagpal s/o Sh. Chimman Lal 255, 1st floor (Old no.203C) Turab Nagar, Mohalla Ismailkhan Ghaziabad, UP.

¶9

Mrs. Anju Nagpal w/o Sh. Arun Nagpal 255, 1St floor (Old no.203C) Turab Nagar, Mohalla Ismailkhan Ghaziabad, UP.

¶10

Mr. Jagat Singh s/o Sh. Shri Chand SI-06, Shastri Nagar Ghaziabad, UP. Defendants

¶11

Present: Mr. Rajiv Sagar, Counsel for the applicant bank Date of Institution: 16.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 16.09.2025

¶12

FINAL ORDER

¶13

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank before DRT-III Delhi on 16.04.2019 and then transferred to DRT-I, Delhi through Shri Naresh Kumar, authorized

¶14

T.A. No.1957 of 2022

¶15

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.39,47,274.72 (Rupees Thirty Nine Lacs Forty Seven Thousand Two Hundred Seventy Four and paisa Seventy Two only) as on 05.02.2019 along with pendentelite and future interest @10.75% per annum plus @2% penal interest with monthly rests from the date of filing of this application till the date of realization and costs.

¶16

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of defendant No.1 & 2 vide loan application form dated 08.06.2009, the applicant bank sanctioned Housing loan for Rs.37,38,000/- (Rupees Thirty-Seven Lacs Thirty Eight Thousand only) on 08.06.2009 @10.75% interest per annum to be repayable in 240 EMIs of Rs.37,960/- for purchase of Flat no.255 Old no.203, 1st floor, Mohalla Ismail Khan, Turab Nagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, admeasuring an area of 127.74 sq. mtr. Defendant no.3 stood as guarantor for the house loan facility sanctioned in favour of the defendant no.1 and 2.

¶17

That in order to avail the said loan facility, the defendant no.1 & 2 submitted housing loan application dated 08.06.2009 and executed Arrangement Letter — Housing Finance, Memorandum of Loan Agreement for Housing Loan and defendant no.3 executed Guarantee agreement on 08.06.2009 with the applicant bank.

¶18

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that in order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the defendant no.1 mortgaged property being Flat no.255 (Old no.203), 1st floor, Mohalla Ismail Khan, Turab Nagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh,

¶19

¶20

T.A. No.1957 of 2022

¶21

admeasuring an area of 127.74 sq. mtr. by depositing of title deeds of property on 12.06.2009.

¶22

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions despite several requests and reminders, the defendants failed to pay the outstanding dues and instalments to the applicant bank. Ultimately, the applicant bank declared the account as NPA on 31.03.2017 as per RBI guidelines and issued loan recall notice dated 08.04.2019 calling upon the defendants to pay the entire outstanding dues to the applicant bank but the defendants failed, hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶23

Notices under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 was issued on 02.06.2017 to the defendants by the applicant bank but they failed to clear the dues.

¶24

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 10.02.2020, the defendant no.3 has been proceeded ex-parte and vide order dated 12.02.2025 defendant no.1 & 2 have been proceeded ex-parte, as not appeared before the Tribunal and even no written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have been filed by the defendants.

¶25

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Naresh Kumar, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as Gazette of India, Publication from Gazette

¶26

¶27

T.A. No.1957 of 2022

¶28

Notification, Housing Loan Application Form, Arrangement Letter — Housing Finance, Memorandum of Loan Agreement for Housing Loan, Guarantee Agreement, Extract dated 12.06.2009 from the Register, Statement of Housing Loan Account, Demand notice u/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, Loan Recall Notice dated 08.04.2019 along with postal receipts Marked as Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/11.

¶29

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.

¶30

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.

¶31

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

¶32

ORDER

¶33

allow this OA and direct the defendants, jointly or severally, to the applicant bank, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.39,47,274.72 (Rupees Thirty Nine Lacs Forty Seven Thousand Two Hundred Seventy Four and Paisa Seventy Two only) as on 05.02.2019 together with pendentelite and future interest @10.75% per annum from the date of filing of this O.A. till the date of realization with costs; failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of the

¶34

¶35

T.A. No.1957 of 2022

¶36

mortgaged Flat no.255 (Old no.203), 1st floor, Mohalla Ismail Khan, Turab Nagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, admeasuring an area of 127.74 sq. mtr. In case of default, the same shall be recovered from the sale of moveable and immovable property of the defendants.

¶37

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

¶38

(III) Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 14.11.2025.

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 16.09.2025

State Bank of India v. Arun Nagpal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Arun Nagpal

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

Punjab National Bank versus Satnam Singh

Uco Bank versus Shiv Charan Singh

Canara Bank versus Jayalakshmi

Sri Sanjay Prasad Proprietor Of Ms Prasad Broom Stick And Anr. versus Indian Bank

Preethy Mole versus State Bank of India

Bank of Baroda versus Mr Mukesh Singh