Allowed

Dcb Bank v. Arun Sharma

DRT25 Nov 2025TA/2963/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by CB Bank against respondents for recovery of dues of Rs.1,93,49,071/- along with pendentelites and future interest at 12% per annum with monthly rests, directing issuance of recovery certificate after parties appeared before the Recovery Officer.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs.1,93,49,071/- with pendentelites and future interest @12% per annum; recovery from mortgaged property in case of shortfall.

Dcb Bank versus Arun Sharma — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No.2963 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. 2963 of 2022

¶5

CB Bank

¶6

/56, 'A' Set House, 3rd floor

¶7

esh Bandhu Gupta Road

¶8

arol bagh, New Delhi-110005

Applicant

ersus

Mr. Arun Sharma

lat no.1707, Valencia Tower

¶13

ahagun Mappal

¶14

ector-50, Noida

¶15

reater Noida, U.P.-201301

¶16

Iso at:

¶17

r. Arun Sharma

¶18

ouse no.234, 3rd floor araswati Vihar, Kohat Enclave itampura, New Delhi-110034

¶19

!so at:

¶20

r. Arun Sharma

¶21

P Mall 110, Pitampura

¶22

ear Gopal Mandir, Delhi-110034

¶23

Iso at:

¶24

r. Arun Sharma

¶25

-70, Sector-63, Top Floor oida, Uttar Pradesh-201301

¶26

Mrs. Chetna Sharma

¶27

lat no.1707, Valencis Tower

¶28

ahagun Mappal, Sector-50

¶29

oida, Greater Noida, UP-201301

¶30

Iso at:

¶31

rs. Chetna Sharma

¶32

ouse no.234, 3rd floor

¶33

araswati Vihar, Kohat Enclave

¶34

itampura, Delhi-110034

¶35

sd-

¶36

T.A. No.2963 of 2022

¶37

M/s Arun Sharma -70, Setor-63, Top Floor, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 Defendants Present: Ms. Akriti Sharma, Counsel for applicant bank Date of Reserve: 29.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 25.11.2025

¶38

FINAL ORDER

¶39

This original application has been filed by the applicant ank on 06.08.2018 through Mr. Shyamsunder Chandhok, uthorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 9 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions ct, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of s.1,93,49,071/- (Rupees One Crore Ninety Three Lacs Forty ine Thousand Seventy One only) as on 26.05.2018 out of hich Rs.1,44,82,894/- in Business Loan-BT account along ith pendentelite and future interest @13.09% rate of interest nd Rs.48,66,177/- in Business Loan STTL account along with endentelite and future interest @14.59% per annum with onthly rests from the date of filing this application till the date f its realization and costs.

¶40

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the efendant vide loan application dated 03.06.2015, the pplicant bank sanctioned Business Loan for Rs.97,00,000/upees Ninety Seven Lacs only) on 17.06.2015 @13.50% i terest per annum with monthly rests to be repayable in 168 MIs of Rs.1,30,116/- and Business Loan STTL for s.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lacs only) on 21.07.2015 15.00% floating rate of interest to be repayable in 84 EMIs f Rs.57,890/- each against mortgage of property.

¶41

T.A. No.2963 of 2022

¶42

In order to avail both the loan facilities, the defendants ubmitted loan applications and executed Sanction Letters,

¶43

Loan Agreements dated 18.06.2015 & 21.07.2015 in favour of pplicant bank.

¶44

That in order to secure the loan facilities, the defendant

¶45

0.2 created equitable mortgage of Flat No.1707, 17th Floor, lock Valencia, Mahagun Maple, Plot No.F-26, Sector-50, oida, UP and property by depositing Allot letter, Possession

¶46

etter, Sublease Deed, Transfer Deed cum Sale Deed, Ilotment Letter, NOC, Tripartite Agreement, Indemnity Bond, ermission to Mortgage by NOIDA authority, Offer of ossession etc. on 07.08.2015 in favour of the applicant bank. he defendants also executed letter of Confirmation for reation of Mortgage with applicant bank on 17.07.2015.

¶47

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after vailing the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendants failed to aintain financial discipline and comply with terms and onditions of loan despite several requests and reminders to ay the monthly installments in time to the applicant bank. Itimately, the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 1.04.2016 as per RBI guidelines and issued loan recall notice ated 26.05.2018 but defendants did not clear the dues. ence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for covery of their dues.

¶48

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and espite proper service the defendants have chosen to absent f om the proceedings. As per order dated 18.12.2024, the 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 efendants.

¶49

¶50

T.A. No.2963 of 2022

¶51

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed arious documents such as Loan Application Form, Sanction etters, Loan Agreement, Allotment Letter, NOC, Tripartite greement, Offer of Possession Letter, Transfer of emorandum, Mutation Letter, Sale Deed, Transfer-Deed, ermission to Mortgage, Indemnity Bond, Letter of onfirmation of Mortgage, Recall Notice marked as Annexure -1 to A-23 from page no.1 to 236.

¶52

The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments ade in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the pplicant bank is based on the documents and the same have een duly proved.

¶53

The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and here is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant ank and the applicant bank has proved its case beyond easonable doubts.

¶54

As per the provision of Section 19(20) of the Recovery of ebts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 which i. analogous to Section 34 of CPC, on filing of the suit/claim, he contract between the parties comes to an end and the ourt/Tribunal has a discretion to award the same depending pon the circumstances of each case. Same principle has been I id down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bank

¶55

f India Vs. Ravindra & Others. Taking stock of all the ircumstances and keeping in view that there is a drastic fall in rates of interest globally and domestically, I am of the opinion t at interest of justice will be served if the interest at the rate f 12% p.a. is awarded.

¶56

54_

¶57

T.A. No.2963 of 2022

¶58

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

¶59

ORDER

¶60

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.1,93,49,071/- (Rupees One Crore Ninety Three acs Forty Nine Thousand Seventy One only) as on 26.05.2018 long with pendentelite and future interest @12% per annum ith monthly rests from the date of filing this application till its ealization with costs, failing which the aforesaid amount shall e recovered from the sale mortgaged property being Flat o.1707, 17th floor, Block Valencia, Mahagun Maple, Plot no.F6, Sector-50, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. In case of shortfall, the ame shall be recovered from the sale of moveable and mmoveable properties of the defendants.

¶61

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

¶62

III) Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer, RT I, Delhi on 27.01.2026.

¶63

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

¶64

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

¶65

Dictated and pronounced in open court) ated: 25.11.2025

Dcb Bank v. Arun Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dcb Bank v. Arun Sharma

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

Basil Co. versus Kerala Gramin Bank

Uco Bank versus Sh. Bachchan Kumar Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Bhagwant Singh

Indu Kumari Pandey versus Union Bank of India

Bank of Baroda versus M/S K. K. Enterprises

State Bank of India versus Mr. Praveen