Allowed

Karnataka Bank Limited v. Deepak Kumar

DRT11 Apr 2025TA/2204/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application by Karnataka Bank Ltd. against borrowers for recovery of dues. The court found the bank's case proven beyond doubt, awarded adjustment of interest to 12% p.a., and directed recovery from the amount or secured properties.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to pay Rs.3,99,74,995.36 as of 31.12.2021 plus future interest at 12% p.a. and costs within 30 days; recovery from specified mortgaged property or other assets of respondents.

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Deepak Kumar — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 2204 of 2022

¶2

Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi 4th floor, )eevan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi

¶3

Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sharma

¶4

T.A. No.2204 of 2022

¶5

Karnataka Bank Ltd. Plot no.13, Near Sai Mandir Savitha Vihar, Dehi-110092 Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr.Deepak Kumar s/o Mr. Narender Kumar Proprietor M/s Himgiri Sales (India) R/o 674-675, Gali No.16 Gurudwara Road, West Guru Angad Nagar Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092

¶8

Mrs. Kalpana w/o Mr. Deepak Kumar R/o 674-675, Gali No.16, Gurudwara Road West Guru Angad Nagar Defendants Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092

¶9

Present: Sh.Gautam Singhal, Counsel for the applicant bank Date of Institution: 01.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 11.04.2025

¶10

FINAL ORDER

¶11

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank before DRT-II, Delhi on 01.02.2022 and then transferred to DRT-I Delhi, through Sh.Sailendra Kumar Saurabh, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the

¶12

¶13

T.A. No. 2204 of 2022

¶14

defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,99,74,995.36 (Rupees Three Crores Ninety Nine Lacs Seventy Four Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Five and paisa Thirty Six only ) as on 31.12.2021 along with pendentelite and future interest @10.15% per annum plus 5% penal interest till the date of realization along with costs. Further, the name of Sh.Ankit Shukla was substituted as authorized representative in place of Sh.Sailendra Kumar Saurabh, erstwhile AR for the applicant bank.

¶15

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the Defendant no.1 being proprietor of Himani Sales (India) and defendants no.2 vide loan application dated 10.08.2015 along with necessary documents, the applicant bank sanctioned overdraft facility of Rs.2,70,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Seventy Lacs only) under Vyapaarmitra Scheme on 22.09.2015 @12.75% interest per annum against hypothecation of stock in trade, assignment of book debts and mortgage of property owned by defendant no.1 in order to close the loan account with HDFC Bank Ltd. On the request of defendant no.1, the loan facility was renewed on 18.04.2017 and 30.01.2019 @10.35% interest per annum by the applicant bank. The defendant no.2 stood as guarantor for the credit facility sanction in favour of defendant no.1.

¶16

In order to avail the loan facility, the defendants submitted request letters for release of limit and executed Account Opening Form for Proprietorship, Take Delivery Letter, Demand Promissory Note, Hypothecation Agreement for Stocks, General Power of Attorney for Book Debts, Consent Letters for Disclosure to data to CIBIL, Declaration Letters and

¶17

¶18

T.A. No. 2204 of 2022

¶19

Letter of Authority all dated 26.10.2015, 21.04.2017 and 30.01.2019 in favour of the applicant bank.

¶20

That in order to secure the loan facility, the defendant no.1 created equitable mortgage of Freehold Residential/ Mixed use property bearing No.674-675, measuring 123 sq. yards out of Khasra No.52/3, old no.52/9, West Guru Angad Nagar, Village-Khajuri Khas, Illaqa- Shandara, Delhi-110092 by depositing the original title deeds / documents with the applicant bank on 16.11.2015 which were extended on the renewal of the limit on 21.04.2017 and 30.01.2019 by executing Letter of Authority.

¶21

The defendants acknowledged the debt of Rs2,67,69,777.62 towards the applicant bank on 30.01.2019.

¶22

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facility, the defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions of sanction and failed to regularize the account with the applicant bank. Ultimately, the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 24.07.2019 as per RBI guidelines and issued legal notice dated 25.07.2019 but the defendants neglected the same and hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶23

Notice under section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 dated 19.09.2019 for Rs.2,79,59,173.12 as on 31.08.2019 with interest was issued to the defendants calling upon them to pay the entire outstanding dues with the applicant bank. The defendants raised objection under Section

¶24

¶25

T.A. No. 2204 of 2022

¶26

13(3A) vide notice dated 22.102019 which was duly replied by the applicant bank on 01.11.2019. The applicant bank took physical possession of the property through Court Receiver on 13.08.2021 as per orders of Ld. CMM (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi under Section 14 of the Sarfaesi Act 2002. The applicant bank put up the mortgaged property for auction by issuing E-auction sale notice on 23.08.2021 for Rs.281.09 lacs duly published in newspapers but auction failed on 15.09.2021 as no bid received.

¶27

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 10.03.2025, the defendant has been proceeded ex-parte as they have not appeared before the Tribunal and even written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have not been filed by the defendant.

¶28

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of Affidavit of Sh. Sailendra Kumar Saurabh, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as Power of Attorney, Pan Cards and Aadhar Cards, Sanction Letters, Request Letters, Account Opening Form, Take Delivery Letter, Demand Promissory Notes, Hypothecation Agreement, General Power of Attorney, Declaration and Consent Letters, Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds, Gift Deed, Credit Sanction Intimation, Various Letters, Key Facts Statement, Request Letters, Acknowledgement of Debt, Recall Notice, Notice u/s 13(2), Reply u/s 13(3A) Ex.AW-1/51, Symbolic Possession Notice, Newspaper Publication, Orders of Ld. CMM dated 18.02.2021 & 24.07.2021, Notice by Court Receiver, Panchnama and

¶29

¶30

T.A. No. 2204 of 2022

¶31

Inventory, E-auction Sale Notice Ex.AW-1/60, Newspaper Publication, Statement of Account, Certificate under Section 2A of Banker's Books of Evidence Act, Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act marked as Ex.AW1/1 to Ex.AW1/65.

¶32

10.^{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.

¶33

As per the provision of Section 19(20) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 which is analogous to Section 34 of CPC, on filing of the suit/claim, the contract between the parties comes to an end and the Court/Tribunal has a discretion to award the same depending upon the circumstances of each case. Same principle has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra & Others. Taking stock of all the circumstances and keeping in view that there is a drastic fall in rates of interest globally and domestically, I am of the opinion that interest of justice will be served if the interest at the rate of 12% p.a. is awarded.

¶34

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.

¶35

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

¶36

¶37

¶38

T.A. No. 2204 of 2022

¶39

ORDER

¶40

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pa/ to the applicant bank, jointly or severally, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.3,99,74,995.36 (Rupees Three Crores Ninety Nine Lacs Seventy Four Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Five and Paisa Thirty Six only) as on 31.12.2021 together with pendentelite and future interest @12% per annum from the date of filing this application till the date of realization and costs; failing which the aforesaid amount shall be rE:overed from the sale of hypothecated stocks, book debts and mortgaged property bearing No.674-675, measuring 123 sq. yards out of Khasra No.52/3, old no.52/9, West Guru Angad Nagar, Village-Khajuri khas, Illaqa- Shandara, Delhi-110092. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶41

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

¶42

(III)^{Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery} Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 10.06.2025.

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 11.04.2025

Karnataka Bank Limited v. Deepak Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Bank Limited v. Deepak Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Mahadevappa and Gurushantappa Gibbur versus State Bank of India

Sri Babajigouda Satagouda Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs versus Canara Bank

Ms Shree Shyam Fashions versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd.

Canara Bank versus M/S Addu Mod Kidz

State Bank of India versus Sh. Naveen Kumar Saini

State Bank of India versus Mr.Usman Khan