Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sandeep Thapa

DRT6 Aug 2025TA/3069/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an ex-parte recovery application filed by State Bank of India against a borrower for default in housing loan EMIs. The court noted proper service of notices and reliance on bankers books evidence, directing payment of the principal sum with interest and costs, or recovery through sale of mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

Directed defendant to pay Rs. 55,92,540/ with pendent lite and future interest and costs within 30 days; failing which, recovery from sale of mortgaged property and other assets. Recovery certificate

State Bank of India versus Sandeep Thapa — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 3069 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.3069 of 2022

¶5

State Bank of India RASMECCC, Karkardooma, Agarwal Fun City Mall, First Floor, CBD, Shandara, Delhi- 110032 Applicant Versus 1. Sh. Sandeep Thapa Sio Capt. C.B. Thapa Flat No. 477, HIG DDA Flat, Sector- 19B, Sanskriti Apartment, Dwarka, New Delhi- 110075 Also at: C/O Marg Ltd.- Asst. Vice President- HR Future IT Park, OMR, Sholinganallur, Chennai, Tamil Nadu- 600119 Defendant

¶6

Present: Mr. Pradeep Dhaka, Counsel for the applicant bank Date of Institution: 06.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 06.08.2025

¶7

FINAL ORDER

¶8

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank before DRT-II, Delhi on 06.03.2019 and then transferred to DRT-I Delhi, through Sh. Ashok Kumar, authorized

¶9

¶10

T.A. No. 3069 of 2022

¶11

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.55,92,540/(Rupees Fifty Five Lacs Ninety Two Thousand Five Hundred Forty only) along with pendent lite and future interest ©11.30°/0 per annum with monthly rests plus ©2% penal interest from the date of filing of this application till the date of realization and costs.

¶12

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the defendant vide their loan application dated 25.11.2010, the applicant bank sanctioned Housing Loan facility vide sanction letter dated 23.12.2010 for a sum of Rs.63,50,000/- (Rupees Sixty Three Lacs and Fifty Thousand only) ©9.85% interest per annum plus @2% penal charge with monthly rests to be repayable in 240 Equated Monthly Installments of Rs.53,114/per month for 1st year (i.e. 12 months) @8% p.a. fixed interest, Rs.56,993/- per month for 2nd and 3rd year (i.e. 24 months) @9% p.a. fixed interest and Rs.60,139/- per month for the rest of the other period (i.e. 204 months) ©2.25% interest above the base rate, effective rate being @9.85% p.a. in order to purchase a property being Super Deluxe Pent House, Type- B, White Field, AWHO, Kanna Mangla, Banglore. Further, the loan was secured by the proposed equitable mortgage of the said property dated 23.12.2010 and also executed a Tripartite Agreement between the applicant bank and defendant dated 23.12.2010.

¶13

In order to avail the housing loan facility, the defendant submitted loan application dated 25.11.2010 and executed Loan Arrangement Letter, Loan Agreement, Agreement to

¶14

5-d

¶15

T.A. No. 3069 of 2022

¶16

Mortgage, Tripartite Agreement and Confirmation Letter of Deposit of Title Documents dated 23.12.2010.

¶17

That in order to secure the housing loan facility, the defendant created equitable mortgage by submitting the title documents including Allotment Letter, No Objection Letter, Tripartite Agreement and Original Payment Receipt of a property being Super Deluxe Pent House, Type- B, White Field, AWHO, Kanna Mangla, Banglore with the applicant bank on 23.12.2010.

¶18

As per Tripartite Agreement dated 23.12.2020 executed by defendant with the applicant bank, it was agreed that in the event of withdrawal from the scheme or faulting in payment of the balance amount or cancellation of the allotment by AWHO, it shall refund to the applicant bank forthwith the entire amount received by the defendant.

¶19

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that they sent an email dated 16.08.2018 calling upon the defendant to deposit the sale deed which was duly replied vide email letter dated 26.08.2018, stating that the defendant is out of country and will pay the outstanding dues as well as deposit of title deeds upon his return but failed to do the above mentioned. The defendant after availing the loan facility also 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 31.05.2018 as per RBI guidelines also issued a Loan Demand Notice dated 04.02.2019 but the defendant neglected the same and hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶20

T.A. No. 3069 of 2022

¶21

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 05.12.2024, 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.

¶22

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Ashok Kumar, as authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as Copy of Gazette Notification, Loan Application, Arrangement Letter, Loan Agreement, Agreement to Mortgage, Copy of Confirmation of Deposit of Title Deeds, No Objection Letter, Tripartite Agreement, Copy of Payment Receipt, Booking Letter, Legal Demand Notice, and Statement of Accounts duly certified under Bankers Books Evidence Act as EXHIBIT PW-1/1 to EXHIBIT PW 1/15.

¶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 same have been duly approved.

¶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. 3069 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.55,92,540/- (Rupees Fifty Five Lacs Ninety Two Thousand Five Hundred Forty only), as on 23.01.2019 along with pendent lite and future interest ©11.30% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing of this application till the date of realization and costs; failing which the amount shall be recovered from sale of mortgaged property being Super Deluxe Pent House, Type- B, White Field, AWHO, Kanna Mangla, Banglore. 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 to the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi.

¶31

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 13.10.2025.

¶32

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

¶33

Sa#

¶34

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

¶35

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 06.08.2025

State Bank of India v. Sandeep Thapa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sandeep Thapa

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

Union Bank of India versus M/S Regan Engg Solutions

Punjab National Bank versus Jokhan Singh and Others

Icici Bank Limited versus M/S Jyotsna Kisan Seva Kendra and Ors.

Canara Bank versus M/S M.S. Industries

Ms Shastri Agarbatties Private Limited versus Tata Capital Limited

Union Bank of India versus Sri Anjan Kr Halder Prop of M/s Tarokeswar Enterprise