Allowed

Uco Bank v. Fanindra Kumar Budhouliya

DRT29 Jul 2025TA/2457/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an original application for recovery of a housing loan, the Debt Recovery Tribunal proceeded ex parte against absent defendants. The court upheld the bank's documented claim allowing recovery of principal, interest, and future costs via a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of ₹37,50,455 plus pendent lite and future interest @11.70%; direction to issue recovery certificate for enforcement.

Uco Bank versus Fanindra Kumar Budhouliya — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 2457 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.2457 of 2022

¶5

CO Bank ubzi Mandi, 5100, arphool Singh Building, GT Road, ubzi Mandi, elhi- 110007 Applicant
ersus
1 Mr. Fanindra Kumar Budhouliya S o Late Shr. Bhagwati Sharan Budhouliya •14/121, Panchachuli Apartment, ector- 61, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, ttar Pradesh- 201301
• A lso at: -1006, 10thFloor, Rishabh Paradise, ear DPS School, I dirapuram, Ghaziabad, ttar Pradesh- 20130114 Mrs. Neelam Budhouliya /o Mr. Fanindra Kumar Budhouliya 14/121, Panchachuli Apartment, ector- 61, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, ttar Pradesh- 201301 M/S JNC Construction Pvt Ltd -1A/20, Sector- 63 oida, Uttar Pradesh- 201301 Iso at: 128, Preet Vihar, elhi- 110092 Defendants
P b esent: Mr. Devendra Saxena, Counsel for the applicant ink 1

¶6

T.A. No. 2457 of 2022

¶7

Date of Institution: 29.12.2020

¶8

Date of Pronouncement: 29.07.2025

¶9

FINAL ORDER

¶10

This original application has been filed by the applicant ank before DRT-III, Delhi and then transferred to DRT-I Delhi n 29.12.2020 through Sh. Raj Kumar, authorized r-presentative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of ecovery of Debts Due to Banks and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 .gainst the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.37,50,455/( upees Thirty Seven Lacs Fifty Thousand Four Hundred Fifty ive only) as on 06.11.2020 along with future interest 11.70% per annum with monthly rests from 07.11.2020 till t e date of realization and costs.

¶11

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the •efendarit No. 1 and 2 vide their loan application dated 16.01.2016, the applicant bank sanctioned Housing Loan f cility for a sum of Rs.39,96,000/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lacs inety Six Thousand only) ©9.70% interest per annum with onthly rests to be repayable in 250 Equated Monthly I stallments of Rs.37,283/- (Rupees Thirty Seven Thousand

¶12

o Hundred Eighty Three Only) each under UCO Shelter S heme in order to purchase Flat No. B-904, 9' Floor, Sector3 Vasundhara, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh- 201301. Further efendant no.3 being the builder executed a Tripartite A• reement dated 16.03.2016 in favor of the applicant bank.

¶13

T.A. No. 2457 of 2022

¶14

In order to avail the housing loan facility, the defendants submitted loan application and executed Agreement of Housing Doan, Demand Promissory Note, Letter of Undertaking and Indemnity Form, Affidavit-Cum-Undertaking dated 17.03.2016. further Defendant No. 3 issued Allotment Letter in favor of efendant No. 1 and 2 dated 05.12.2015 and permission to create equitable mortgage of the above mentioned property dated 16.03.2016.

¶15

. That in order to secure the housing loan facility, the efendants created equitable mortgage of Flat No. B-904, 9th 1 Floor, Sector-3 Vasundhara, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh- 201301 viith the applicant bank on 16.03.2016.

¶16

As per Tripartite Agreement dated 16.03.2016 executed by defendants with applicant bank, it was agreed that in the event of failure or any litigation affecting the said property, defendant no.3 shall refund to the applicant bank forthwith the entire amount received on behalf of defendant no.1 & 2 to the a plicant bank.

¶17

6 It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after a ailing the aforesaid loan facility, the defendants failed to c imply with the terms and conditions of sanction and failed to d posit regular EMIs in the account to regularize the account

¶18

ith the applicant bank. Ultimately, the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 30.06.2020 as per RBI g idelines also issued a legal notice dated 12.09.2020 but the d fendants neglected the same and hence the applicant bank h s approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶19

7 Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and d •spite proper service, the defendants have chosen to absent fr•m the proceedings. As per order dated 21.07.2022, the

¶20

¶21

T.A. No. 2457 of 2022

¶22

efendants have been proceeded ex-parte as they have not ppeared before the Tribunal and even written statement, vidence and affidavit of assets have not been filed by the efendant.

¶23

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its vidence by way of affidavit of Shri Raj Kumar as authorized presentative of the applicant bank who has proved the ocuments as General Power of Attorney, Loan Application, unction Letter, Loan Agreement, Demand Promissory Notes, tter of Undertaking and Indemnity, Affidavit-Cumndertaking, Allotment Letter, Tripartite Agreement, Notice, and Statement of Accounts as EXHIBIT AW-1/1 to EXHIBIT AW 1 15.

¶24

The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments ade in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the a•plicant bank is based on the documents and the same have b-en duly approved.

¶25

1I. The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and t ere is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant

¶26

nk and the applicant bank has proved its case beyond r asonable doubts.

¶27

1 In the light of the above discussions, the Original A•plication deserves to be allowed.

¶28

¶29

T.A. No. 2457 of 2022

¶30

ORDER

¶31

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the pplicant bank, jointly or severally, within a period of 30 days, sum of Rs.37,50,455/- (Rupees Thirty Seven Lacs Fifty housand Four Hundred Fifty Five only) as on 06.11.2020 long with pendent lite and future interest @11.70% per nnum with monthly rests from 7.11.2020 till the date of r alization and costs; failing which the amount shall be r covered from sale of mortgaged Flat No. B-904, 9th Floor, ector-3 Vasundhara, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh- 201301. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of ovable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶32

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

¶33

II) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery fficer, DRT I, Delhi on 08.10.2025.

¶34

V) Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be nt to all concerned free of cost.

¶35

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

¶36

ictated and pronounced in open court) ated: 29.07.2025

Uco Bank v. Fanindra Kumar Budhouliya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. Fanindra Kumar Budhouliya

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

Hdfc Bank versus Mohd.Aarif

Punjab National Bank versus Sanjeev Kumar

Idbi Bank versus Dilpreet Singh

Mr Smirithy Sourab Shyamal And Anr. versus Idfc First Bank Ltd.

Shahar Abdul Jabbar versus South Indian Bank

Bank of Baroda versus M/s Ganpati Ji Mini Rice Mill and others