Allowed

Bank of India v. Santosh Chaudhary and Ors.

DRT17 Oct 2025TA/1987/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Bank of India for recovery of Rs. 51,06,129.97 along with interest against individual borrowers and a builder who defaulted on a housing loan EMIs. Proceeded ex-parte against absent defendants.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to pay Rs. 51,06,129.97 with interest within 30 days; recovery certificate issued for enforcement against mortgaged flat and other properties.

Bank of India versus Santosh Chaudhary and Ors. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No.1987 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. 1987 of 2022

¶5

Bank of India Karol Bagh branch 12A/32, WEA, Saraswati Marg, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 Applicant Versus 1. Mr. Santosh Chaudhary s/o Siyaram Chaudhary H.No.35, Flat no.504 Shalimar Garden Extn-1 Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, U.P.-201005 Also at: Mr. Santosh Chaudhary s/o Siyaram Chaudhary 109, New Lahore, Shastri Nagar Delhi-110031 2. Mrs. Raja Bala w/o Santosh Chaudhary H.No.35, Flat no.504 Shalimar Garden Extn-1 Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, U.P.-201005 3. M/s Rudra Buildwell Projects Pvt. Ltd. D-53, Okhla Phase I New Delhi-110020 Also at: A-66, Sector-63 Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 Also at: Palace Height, Plot no.GH-02B Sector-1, Noida Extn. Greater Noida, UP. 201303 Defendants Present: Mr. S.V. Tyagi, Counsel for the applicant bank Date of Reserve: 03.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 17.10.2025

T.A. No.1987 of 2022

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant nk on 17.09.2019 before DRT-III„ Delhi and then transferred t* DRT-I Delhi through Shri Murari Mahto, authorized

¶10

presentative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of ecovery of Debts and bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the d fendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.51,06,129.97 (Rupees ifty One Lacs Six Thousand One Hundred Twenty Nine and •aisa Ninety Seven only) along with pendentelite and future i terest @8.65% per annum with monthly rests plus @2% •^{enal interest from the date of filing this application till the date} •f its realization and costs.

¶11

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the •^{efendant no.1 & 2, the applicant bank sanctioned Housing} loan of Rs.48,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Eight Lacs only) on I 9.11.2016 @9.35% per annum with monthly rests, which was t• be repayable in 289 Equated Monthly Installments of s.41,841/- each for purchase of under construction Flat being nit no.1306, Tower-B3, Palace Height, Plot no.GH-02B, erector-01, Noida Extension, Greater Noida, UP-201303 to be •^{eveloped and constructed by defendant no.3 as per Bankers'} uyer Agreement dated 05.10.2016.

¶12

That in order to avail the housing loan facility, the efendant no.1 & 2 submitted Loan Application dated 0.09.2016 together with payment receipts to defendant no.3 s well as demand letters and executed D.P.Note, Loan Bearer etter, Installment Letter, Stamped Agreement for Home Loan,

¶13

ermission to Create Mortgage, Stamped Multipurpose ocuments, Stamped MCLR agreement, Special Power of ttorney and Affidavit cum Undertaking with the applicant bank

Sd-

T.A. No.1987 of 2022

on 21.11.2016 as well as the defendant no.1 and 2 executed Tripartite Agreement with applicant and defendant no.3 on 05.11.2016.

¶18

That in order to secure the loan facility, the defendant no.1 and 2 created equitable mortgage of the Flat / Unit No.1306, Tower B3, Palace Height, Plot no.GH-02B, Sector-11 Noida Extension, Greater Noida, U.P with the applicant ban on 21.09.2016 by depositing documents of the title of the flat.

¶19

As per Tripartite Agreement dated 05.11.2016 executed by defendants with applicant bank, it was agreed that in case of termination or cancellation of the agreement for any reason whatsoever, the defendant no.3 / builder shall pay and remit the entire outstanding dues against the defendant to the applicant bank. The defendant no.3 agreed to register proper conveyance deed/sale deed in favour of borrower or such other persons nominated by applicant bank and shall deliver the same directly to applicant bank.

¶20

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the loan facility, the defendants no.1 & 2 failed to maintain financial discipline and comply with the terms and conditions of loan despite several requests / reminders and defaulted in payment of monthly installments in time to the applicant bank. The defendant no.3 confirmed marking of lien on the mortgaged flat vide Email dated 07.03.2018. Due to default in payment of EMIs, the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 31.07.2018 and issued legal demand notice on 06.09.2019 to clear the dues but defendants neglected to rleturn the amount as per agreement. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of its dues.

5d -

T.A. No.1987 of 2022

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 22.09.2022 & 08.04.2025, right to file written statement was closed and defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as they have not appeared before the Tribunal nor evidence and affidavit of assets have been filed.

¶25

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of Affidavit of Sh.Murari Mahto & Sh.Mehar Singh, authorized representatives of applicant bank who has proved the documents as Sanction Letter, Demand Promissory Note, Loan Bearer Letter, Installment Letter, Stamped Agreement, Stamped Multipurpose Documents, MCLR Agreement, Apartment Buyer's Agreement, Tripartite Agreement Special Power of Attorney, Affidavit cum Undertaking, Permission to Create Mortgage, Demand Letter, Reminder Letters, Email/letter dated 07.03.2018, Letter dated 26.10.2018, Notice, Demand letter dated 16.03.2019, Demand Notice dated 06.09.2019, Statement of Account alongwith Certificate under Banker's Book Evidence Act, Statement of Uncharged and Penal Interest, Certified Statement of Account marked as Ex.AW-1/1 to Ex.AW-1/14(colly) and Ex.AW-2/15 to Ex.AW-2/23.

¶26

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.

¶27

10.^{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.

¶28

¶29

T.A. No.1987 of 2022

¶30

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

¶31

ORDER

¶32

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the pplicant bank within a period of 30 days, a sum of s.51,06,129.97 (Rupees Fifty One Lacs Six Thousand One undred Twenty Nine and Paisa Ninety Seven only) along with endentelite and future interest @10.65% per annum with onthly rests from 17.09.2019 till its realization with costs, f iling which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of mortgaged Flat/Unit No.1306, Tower B3, 'Palace eight', Plot no.GH-02B, Sector-11 Noida Extension, Greater oida-201303. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered f om the sale of movable and immovable properties of the efendants.

¶33

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

¶34

II) Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer, RT I, Delhi on 16.12.2025.

¶35

V) Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be ent to all concerned free of cost. 5c./

¶36

5c./

¶37

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

¶38

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) ated: 17.10.2025

¶39

Bank of India v. Santosh Chaudhary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Santosh Chaudhary and Ors.

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

State Bank of India versus Anil Kumar Yadav

State Bank of India versus Ritu

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus Manjegowda G a and Others

Ms Balaji Steels and Pipes and Others versus PNB Housing Finance Limited

Bank of Baroda versus Mrs. Jyoti Chauhan

Central Bank of India versus M/S Kiwi Consultancy Pvt. Ltd.