Allowed

Punjab National Bank v. Sh. Rohit Bajaj

DRT8 Jul 2025TA/2676/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this recovery application filed under the RDBB Act and SARFAESI Act, the bank sought recovery of approximately Rs. 35.11 lakhs and interest from defendants who defaulted on a housing loan. The defendants absent themselves despite notices. The Tribunal allowed the application, directed repayment within 30 days, and authorized sale of mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Sum of Rs.35,11,887 with interest directed to be paid within 30 days or recovered from sale of mortgaged property.

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Rohit Bajaj — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 2676 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.2676 of 2022

¶5

Punjab National Bank Plot No.12, Sagar Galaxy Block-B, Mayur Vihar Phase II, Delhi-110091 Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Sh. Rohit Bajaj s/o Sh. Hardayal Bajaj RZ-39A, Gali no.6 Tuglakabad Extension New Delhi-110019 Also at: DDA, Flat no.16-A, Pocket A-03, Ground Floor, LIG, Everest Apartment, Kalkaji Extension New Delhi-110019

¶8

Smt. Rani Bajaj w/o Sh. Rohit Bajaj RZ-39A, Gali no.6 Tuglakabad Extension New Delhi-110019

¶9

Also at: DDA, Flat no.16-A, Pocket A-03, Ground Floor, LIG, Everest Apartment Kalkaji Extension Defendants New Delhi-110019

¶10

Present: Ms. Rama Arora, Counsel for the applicant bank Date of Institution: 19.08.2019 Date of. Pronouncement: 08.07.2025

¶11

¶12

T.A. No. 2676 of 2022

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank before DRT-II, Delhi and then transferred to DRT-I Delhi on 19.08.2019 through Sh.Chittaranjan Choudhary, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.35,11,887/(Rupees Thirty Five Lacs Eleven Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Seven only) along with pendentelite and future interest @8.70% per annum with monthly rests from 11.08.2019 till the date of realization and costs.

¶15

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the defendants being co-borrowers vide their loan application dated 19.11.2012, the applicant bank sanctioned Housing Loan facility for a sum of Rs.36,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lacs only) on 29.11.2012 @10.50% interest per annum with monthly rests to be repayable in 240 Equated Monthly Installments of Rs.36,000/- each in order to purchase DDA Flat no.16-A, Pocket A-03, Ground Floor, LIG, Kalkaji Extension, New Delhi-110019.

¶16

In order to avail the housing loan facility, the defendants submitted loan application and executed Agreement of Housing Loan and Letter of Intent in favor of the applicant bank on 29.11.2012.

¶17

That in order to secure the housing loan facility, the defendants created mortgage of Flat No.16-A, Pocket A-03, Ground Floor, LIG, Kalkaji Extension, New Delhi-110019 by depositing Sale Deed dated 03.12.2012 with the applicant bank

¶18

T.A. No. 2676 of 2022

¶19

on 03.12.2012 which also secured the loan advanced to M/s Rohit Garments, proprietorship concern of defendant no.1 and duly entered with the applicant bank.

¶20

The defendant no.1 confirmed the debt towards applicant bank and executed Balance and Security Confirmation Letters dated 09.04.2014 for Rs.35,35,866/- and again on 31.03.2017 for Rs.32,09,928/-.

¶21

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 deposit regular EMIs in the account to regularize the account with the applicant bank. Ultimately, the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 30.06.2018 as per RBI guidelines but the defendants neglected the same and hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶22

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 14.03.2024, the defendants have 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.

¶23

Notice under section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 dated 22.11.2018 was issued to the

¶24

¶25

T.A. No. 2676 of 2022

¶26

defendants by the applicant bank and took symbolic possession of the mortgaged flat vide possession notice dated 06.03.2019.

¶27

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Chittaranjan Choudhary as AW-1, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as General Power of Attorney Ex.AW1/1, Loan Applications Ex.AW1/2(Colly), Sanction Letter Ex.AW1/3, Agreement for Housing Loan Ex.AW1/4, True Copy of Sale Deed Ex.AW1/5, Letter of Intent and Memorandum Ex.AW1/6(Colly), Mortgage Register Entry Evidencing Extension of Mortgage to other Loans (CC and overdraft) Ex.AW1/7, Balance and Security Confirmation Letter dated 09.04.2014 and 31.03.2017 Ex.AW1/8 & AW1/9, Notice u/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act Ex.AW1/10, Possession Notice Ex.AW1/11, Certified Copy of Ledger Account Ex.AW1/12.

¶28

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.

¶29

11.^{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.

¶30

12.^{In the light of the above discussions, the Original} Application deserves to be allowed.

¶31

¶32

T.A. No. 2676 of 2022

¶33

ORDER

¶34

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank, jointly or severally, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.35,11,887/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs Eleven Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Seven only) together with pendentelite and future interest @8.70% per annum with monthly rests from 11.08.2019 till the date of realization and costs; failing which the amount shall be recovered from sale of mortgaged Flat No.16-A, Pocket A-03, Ground Floor, LIG, Kalkaji Extension, New Delhi-110019. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶35

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

¶36

(III)^{Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery} Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 05.09.2025.

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 08.07.2025

¶40

Punjab National Bank v. Sh. Rohit Bajaj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. Sh. Rohit Bajaj

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

Canara Bank versus M/S Shiva Enterprises

Ms Acrle Sports versus Bank of Baroda

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Bijender Singh

Lutru Mahadev Gaushala Charitable Society versus Punjab National Bank

Icici Bank Limited versus Shri. Jagmohan

Punjab National Bank versus Sital Singh