Allowed

State Bank of India v. Shri. Amit Sharma

DRT5 Jul 2025TA/3288/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of a housing loan dispute. As defendants were absent and the case was proved beyond reasonable doubt, the Tribunal ordered payment of the principal amount with interest and authorized sale of mortgaged property for any shortfall.

What did the court decide?

Directed defendants to pay Rs.60,66,479/- as on 15.11.2018 with pending and future interest at 10.35% p.a. and costs; directed recovery of shortfall from sale of mortgaged property.

State Bank of India versus Shri. Amit Sharma — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No.3288 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. 3288 of 2022

¶5

State Bank of India

¶6

SARB Branch

¶7

23, Najafgarh Road New Delhi — 110015

¶8

Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

Shri Amit Sharma s/o Mr.Gopal Kumar Sharma Flat No.8056, Block H

¶11

16th Avenue Gaur City-2

¶12

Sector-16C, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P.

¶13

Also at:

¶14

H-25, Geeta Apartment Geeta Colony, Front Community Centre Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031

¶15

Also at:

¶16

Trueview H R Consulting Pvt.Ltd H-189, Lohia Road, Sector-63

¶17

Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, UP

¶18

M/s Vocational Education Foundation

¶19

Through its Chairman/ Secretary Plot no.4, Knowledge Park-I Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar

¶20

Uttar Pradesh Defendants

¶21

Present: Shri Pradeep Dhaka, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶22

Date of Institution: 28.11.2018

¶23

Date of Pronouncement: 05.07.2025

5d -

T.A. No.3288 of 2022

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 28.11.2018 before DRT-II, Delhi and then transferred to DRT-I Delhi through Shri Ashok Kumar, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.60,66,479/- (Rupees Sixty Lacs Sixty Six Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Nine only) as on 15.11.2018 along with pendentelite and future interest @8.35% per annum with monthly rests plus @2% penal interest from the date of filing this application till the date of its realization and costs. Further, the name of Sh.Jagpal Singh was substituted as authorized representative in place of Sh.Ashok Kumar, erstwhile AR for the applicant bank.

¶29

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the defendant no.1 vide loan application dated 25.01.2018, the applicant bank sanctioned Housing Loan of Rs.60,94,000/(Rupees Sixty Lacs Ninety Four Thousand only) on 01.02.2018 to be repayable in Equated Monthly Installments of Rs.50,879/@8.35% interest per annum in order to purchase under construction flat bearing No.4121, 12th Floor, Tower-4, White House Apartments, Plot no.8, Sector-Pi, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh on the basis of Letter of Allotment dated 10.01.2018 issued by defendant no.2.

¶30

That in order to avail the housing loan facility, the defendant no.1 submitted Loan Application dated 25.01.2018 and executed Loan Arrangement Letter, Housing Loan Agreement, Agreement to Mortgage, Permission to Mortgage

5c/

T.A. No.3288 of 2022

all dated 01.02.2018 in favour of applicant bank. In addition, the defendant no.1 and 2 executed Tripartite Agreement dated 01.02.2018 with the applicant bank.

¶35

That in order to secure the loan facilities, the defendant no.1 created equitable mortgage of the property bearing No.4121, 12th Floor, Tower-4, White House Apartments, Plot No.8, Sector-Pi, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh on the basis of No Objection Letter dated 01.02.2018 issued by the defendant no.2 with the applicant bank.

¶36

As per Tripartite Agreement dated 01.02.2018 executed by defendants with applicant bank, it was agreed that in the event of failure on the part of Defendant no.1, defendant no.2 shall pay the entire money so received by it to the applicant bank. The defendant no.2/builder had undertaken that on receipt of entire consideration amount, they shall execute proper sale deed/lease deed in name of the defendant no.1 and shall deliver the sale deed/lease deed directly to the applicant bank. As per agreement, the applicant bank shall have first lien over the flat being constructed and issued no objection for creating equitable mortgage.

¶37

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendant no.1 failed to maintain financial discipline and comply with the terms and conditions of loan despite several requests and reminders and defaulted in payment of monthly installments in time to the applicant bank. Ultimately, the applicant bank classified housing loan account as NPA on 27.10.2018 and issued legal demand notice on 19.11.2018 to clear the dues or cancel the booking of flat and refund the amount but defendants neglected to return the amounts as per agreements, hence the

¶38

¶39

T.A. No.3288 of 2022

¶40

applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶41

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 16.07.2024, defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as they have not appeared before the Tribunal nor written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have been filed.

¶42

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed documents such as as Gazette Notification dated 27.03.1987, Original Loan Application, Original Arrangement Letter, Original Loan Agreement, Copy Agreement to Mortgage, Copy Permission to Mortgage, Copy of Tri-partite Agreement, Copy of Allotment Letter, Original office Copy of Legal Notices and Original Postal Receipts, Certified copy of Statement of Account marked as Page No.1 to 58.

¶43

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.

¶44

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.

¶45

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

T.A. No.3288 of 2022

ORDER

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.60,66,479/- (Rupees Sixty Lacs Sixty Six Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Nine only) as on 15.11.2018 along with pendentelite and future interest @10.35% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing this application till its realization with costs, failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of mortgaged property bearing Flat bearing No.4121, 12th Floor, Tower-4, White House Apartments, Plot No.8, Sector-Pi, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶50

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

¶51

(III)^{Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer,} DRT I, Delhi on 04.09.2025.

¶52

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

¶53

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

¶54

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 05.07.2025

¶55

State Bank of India v. Shri. Amit Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Shri. Amit Sharma

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

Technostar Construction Pvt. Ltd. versus India Resurgence Arc Pvt. Ltd.

Prashant Pundalikrao Borkar versus Shri Anand Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd.

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S Kashmir Eye Aero Adventures Private Limited

Punjab National Bank versus Amrik Singh

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Resham Singh

Hdfc Bank versus Shri. Sonu Kumar