Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sachin Kumar Kaushal

DRT18 Sept 2025TA/3055/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application for recovery of outstanding dues of Rs.38.58 lakhs along with interest from respondents who failed to repay a housing loan. The court proceeded ex-parte against absent defendants and directed recovery from mortgaged property in case of default.

What did the court decide?

Direction to defendants to pay Rs.38,58,537/- with interest within 30 days; recovery from mortgaged property upon default.

State Bank of India versus Sachin Kumar Kaushal — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No.3055 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. 3055 of 2022

¶5

State Bank of India

¶6

Stressed Assets Recovery Branch 23, First Floor, Najafgarh Road New Delhi — 110015 Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mr. Sachin Kumar Kaushal s/o Mr. Om Prakash C-517, NRI City, Greater Noida Uttar Pradesh-201308

¶9

Also at:

¶10

Mr. Sachin Kumar Kaushal s/o Mr. Om Prakash H.No.144, Village & Post Milkipur

¶11

P.S. Inayat Nagar, Faizabad Uttar Pradesh-224164

¶12

Also at:

¶13

Mr. Sachin Kumar Kaushal s/o Mr. Om Prakash Yatharth Wellness Hospital & Trauma Centre H-32, Sector Omega-I, Greater Noida Uttar Pradesh-201308

¶14

Also at:

¶15

Mr. Sachin Kumar Kaushal s/o Mr. Om Prakash New Balaji Hospital 734, Haldwani, Greater Noida Uttar Pradesh-201308

¶16

Also at:

¶17

Mr. Sachin Kumar Kaushal s/o Mr. Om Prakash IPE Global limited, IPE Global House B-84, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110024

¶18

M/s Shiv Shakti Real Home Pvt. Ltd. 501-503, Diamond Tower, Purani Chungi Ajmer Road, Jaipur-302019

¶19

¶20

T.A. No.3055 of 2022

¶21

Also at: Shop no.1 & 4, Local Shopping Complex Pushp Vihar, Madangir New Delhi-110062

¶22

Defendants

¶23

Present: Shri Pradeep Dhaka, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶24

Date of Institution:17.05.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 18.09.2025

¶25

FINAL ORDER

¶26

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 17.05.2021 before DRT-II Delhi and then transferred to DRT-I Delhi through Shri Bishan Pal authorized representative of the applicant bank, under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 read with Rule 8 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal Rules 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.38,58,537/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Lacs Fifty Eight Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Seven only) along with pendentelite and future interest @7.55% per annum with monthly rests and 2% penal interest from date of filing of this application till the date of realization and costs. Further, the name of Sh. Rajesh Kumar was substituted as authorized representative in place of Shri Bishan Pal, erstwhile AR for the applicant bank.

¶27

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant No.1, the applicant bank sanctioned Housing Loan of Rs.44,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Four Lacs Only) on 09.12.2017 @8.35% interest per annum with monthly rests, which was to be repayable in Equated Monthly Instalments of Rs.37,768/- in order to purchase under constructed flat being constructed by

¶28

¶29

T.A. No.3055 of 2022

¶30

defendant no.2 being Developers / Builders/ Promoters of the project situated at Ajmer Road Jaipur. The Defendant no.1 agreed to pay penal interest @2% per annum in case of default or delay in repayment of instalment.

¶31

That in order to avail the housing loan facility, the defendant no.1 submitted Housing Loan Application and executed Loan Arrangement Letter, Loan Agreement, Agreement to Mortgage, Tripartite Agreement in favour of the applicant bank on 09.12.2017.

¶32

As per Tripartite Agreement executed by defendants with applicant bank dated 09.12.2017, the applicant bank shall have first lien over the residential flat being financed and in the event of default, defendant no.2 shall be under obligation to cancel the booking on the request of applicant bank, shall not transfer the flat to any other person without prior consent of applicant bank and pay all the amount received on behalf of defendant no.1 to the applicant bank. Further, defendant no.1 agreed to indemnity against any loss or damages incurred in the event of failure to honor its obligations in connection with sanctioned of loan for the flat.

¶33

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that in order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the defendant no. 2 marked lien on the flat as per Agreement to Mortgage dated 30.11.2017 and applicant bank mortgaged the Property being Unit no. RJ/WING-D/Floor 2^nd /^{202, Shivraj Residency, Plot} no.GH-03, Omaxe City, Ajmer Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan on the basis of permission given by Defendant No. 2.

T.A. No.3055 of 2022

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 despite several requests and failed to pay the outstanding dues in time to the applicant bank. Ultimately, the applicant bank declared the account as NPA as per RBI guidelines and issued Legal notice dated 07.04.2021 calling upon the defendants to pay the entire outstanding dues to the applicant bank / cancel the booking but the defendants did not clear the dues of the applicant bank and hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶38

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite of proper service, the defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 08.10.2024, 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.

¶39

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri R.K.Jamwal, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has exhibited the documents Gazette Notification, Loan Application, Sanction Letter, Arrangement Letter, Agreement for Home Loan, Agreement to Mortgage, No objection to Mortgage, Buyer Developers Agreement, Tripartite Agreement, Demand Notices, Postal Receipts, Statement of Account as Ex.PW-1/1 to Ex.PW-1/14 (Colly).

¶40

T.A. No.3055 of 2022

¶41

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 proved.

¶42

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.

¶43

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

¶44

ORDER

¶45

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants, jointly or severally, to the applicant bank, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.38,58,537/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Lacs Fifty Eight Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Seven only) together with pendentelite and future interest @7.55% per annum from the date of filing of this O.A. till the date of realization with costs failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of mortgaged property being Unit no RJ/WING-D/ Floor2nd/202, Shivraj Residency, Plot no.GH-03, Omaxe city, Ajmer Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan. In case of default, the same shall be recovered from the sale of moveable and immovable property of the defendants.

¶46

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

T.A. No.3055 of 2022

(III) Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 17.11.2025.

¶51

(IV) Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be sent to all concerned free of cost. � sd- .0 Q, 1)-o-1-3--(GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶52

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 18.09.2025

State Bank of India v. Sachin Kumar Kaushal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sachin Kumar Kaushal

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

Mohammed Ashraf C a versus Indian Overseas Bank

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Akrosh Abdul Khan

Ms Siddhi Vinayak Steel and others versus Punjab National Bank

Central Bank of India versus M/S Khushboo Vastraalay

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Sunil Kumar

Punjab National Bank versus Smt. Poonam Devi