Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Praveen Khan

DRT15 Mar 2025TA/2896/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of housing loan dues. Directing joint and several liability repayment with interest, the Tribunal ordered recovery from the mortgaged property if payment is not made within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.18,03,908/- plus pendentelie and future interest @10.95% p.a. from the mortgaged property or other assets.

Union Bank of India versus Praveen Khan — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 2896 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. 2896 of 2022

¶5

Union Bank of India Shop No.1, DDA Market Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095 Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Smt. Praveen Khan w/o Sh.Aslam Khan R/o B-1/15, Nand Nagri Delhi-110093

¶8

Also at: Flat No.GF-2, Ground Floor LIG Built on Property No.124 Vikram Enclave, Pasonda, Loni, Ghaziabad 2. Sh.Aslam Khan w/o Sh.Peer Bakas R/o B-1/151 Nand Nagri Delhi-110093 Also at: Flat No.GF-2, Ground Floor LIG Built on Property No.124 Vikram Enclave, Pasonda, Loni, Ghaziabad 3. Sh.Gul Mohammad Mansuri s/o Sh.Ismail Khan R/o B-1/34, S-2, DLF Colony Sahibabad, Ghaziabad-UP Defendants Present: Sh. M.K.Jha, counsel for the applicant bank

¶9

Date of Institution: 19.12.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 15.03.2025

¶10

T.A. No. 2896 of 2022

¶11

FINAL ORDER

¶12

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 19.02.2019 through Shri Rahul Soam, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Sectior 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.18,03,908/- (Rupees Eighteen Lacs Three Thousand Nine Hundred Eight only) as on 31.12.2018 along with pendentelite and future interest @8.95% per annum with monthly rest and 2% penal interest from 01.01.2019 till its realization and costs. Further, the name of Sh.Mange Ram Premi was substituted as authorized representative in place of Sh.Rahul Soam, erstwhile AR for the applicant bank.

¶13

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of defendant no.1 & 2 vide their application dated 18.09.2015, the applicant bank sanctioned Housing Loan facility of Rs.18,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lacs only) on 01.10.2015 in order to purchase residential property which was to be repayable in 240 EMI of Rs.17,370/- @8.95% interest with monthly rests under Union Home Scheme of the applicant bank. The defendant no.3 stood as guarantor for the housing loan sanctioned by the applicant bank in favour of defendant no.1 and 2.

¶14

That in order to avail the said home loan facility, the defendants submitted loan application and executed Demand Promissory Note, Housing Loan Agreement, Agreement of Rate of Interest, Letter of Guarantee and CIBIL Undertakings etc. all dated 01.10.2015 in favor of applicant bank.

¶15

T.A. No. 2896 of 2022

¶16

That in order to secure the housing loan facility, the defendant no.1 & 2 deposited the title deeds of the property with the applicant bank and created mortgage of property by executing Form No.AD-13 of Flat No.GF-2, Ground Floor, LIG without roof rights, Plot No.124, Vikram Enclave, Village Pasonda, Pargana Loni, Tehsil & Distt. Ghaziabad, UP measuring 400 sq.meters on 03.11.2015 duly registered with the office of S.R.III Ghaziabad vide Doc. No.7561 Book No.I, Vol No.11408 on pages 247 to 316.

¶17

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 and despite several requests and reminders the defendants failed to pay the monthly installments in time to the applicant bank. The Applicant Bank issued various notices to the defendants to clear the outstanding but no response. The applicant classified the account as NPA on 31.08.2018 as per RBI guidelines but defendants failed to regularize the account; hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶18

Notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 dated 10.09.2018 was issued to the defendants calling upon them to pay the entire outstanding dues with the applicant bank.

¶19

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite proper service the defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings. Vide order dated 27.11.204, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as they have not

¶20

T.A. No. 2896 of 2022

¶21

appeared before the Tribunal nor written statement, list of all bank accounts and affidavit of assets etc. have been filed.

¶22

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Mange Ram Premi, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as Authorization Letter, Loan Application with relevant documents, Sanction Letter, Demand Promissory Note, Housing Loan Agreement, Agreement on Rate of Interest Letter of Guarantee, Letters of Undertaking, Declaration regarding Mortgage of Property, Affidavit, Deposit of Title Deed, Letter to Sub-Registrar III, Ghaziabad, Letters, Notice u/s 13(2), Recall Notice, Order of District Judge, Shahaara etc. Statement of Account under Section 2A(b) of Banker's Books of Evidence Act & Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act marked as Page No.1 to 149.

¶23

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 sane have been duly proved.

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

T.A. No. 2896 of 2022

¶28

ORDER

¶29

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.18,03,908/- (Rupees Eighteen Lacs Three Thousand Nine Hundred Eight only) as on 31.12.2018 along with pendentelite and future interest @10.95% per annum with monthly rests from 01.01.2019 till the date of realization and costs, failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of the mortgaged Flat No.GF-2, Ground Floor, LIG without roof rights, Plot No.124, Vikram Enclave, Village Pasonda, Pargana Loni, Tehsil & Distt. Ghaziabad, UP. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶30

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

¶31

(III) Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 14.05.2025.

¶32

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

¶33

sd- (GOVIND BALLABH'SHA MA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶34

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 15.03.2025

Union Bank of India v. Praveen Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Praveen Khan

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

Anvar a versus Federal Bank

Mohammed Sageer T K versus South Indian Bank

Ms Sr Educational and Charitable Trust versus Asset Reconstruction Company India Ltd.

Canara Bank versus M/S Radhey Radhey Timber

Punjab National Bank versus Mrs. Neelu Kapoor

Ms Bhushan Trading Co. versus the Citizens Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd.