Allowed

Central Bank of India v. M/S P. Pure and Admire

DRT12 Aug 2025TA/3343/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed an application for recovery of a bank overdraft debt. The court found the defendants defaulted on loan installments and failed to appear. It awarded the principal sum with interest at 12% p.a. instead of the floating rate, directing immediately to issue a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 43,03,695 with interest at 12% p.a. from date of filing; direction to issue recovery certificate.

Central Bank of India versus M/S P. Pure and Admire — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No.3343 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. 3343 of 2022

¶5

Central Bank of India Anand Parbat Branch, New Delhi- 110005 Applicant
Versus
1 M/S P. Pure & Admire A sole proprietorship firm C- 158,2ndFloor, Block- C, New Moti Nagar, New Delhi- 110015
2. Sh. Pushpender Singh Kukreja S/o Sh. Taran Singh C- 158,2ndFloor, Block- C, New Moti Nagar, New Delhi- 110015
3. Smt. Trilochan Kumar W/o Shr. Taran Singh C- 158, 2nd Floor, Block- C, New Moti Nagar, New Delhi- 110015 Defendants
Present: Mr. A.R. Verma, Counsel for the applicant bank
Date of Institution: 29.12.2016 Date of Pronouncement: 12.08.2025
FINAL ORDER
This original application has been filed by the applicant ank on 29.12.2016 before DRT-III, Delhi and then transferred

¶6

T.A. No.3343 of 2022

¶7

to DRT-I Delhi through Shri Jai Chand Bunkar, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.43,03,695/- (Rupees Forty Three Lacs Three Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Five Only) with pendente lite and future interest ©13.25% per annum from the date of filing this application till the date of its realization and costs.

¶8

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the defendants being proprietorship concern vide loan application dated 24.10.2013, the applicant bank vide its sanction letter dated 28.12.2013 sanctioned an Overdraft Limit of Rs.30 Lacs ©13.25% floating interest per annum with monthly rests against mortgage of property. Further, Defendant No. 3 stood as Guarantor and Mortgagor to the loan facility sanctioned in favor of Defendant No. 1 through Defendant No. 2 by the Applicant Bank.

¶9

In order to avail the loan facilities, the defendants submitted housing loan application dated 24.10.2013 and executed Sanction Letter dated 28.12.2013 accepting the terms and conditions of the loan. Further, the defendants executed Demand Promissory Note, Letter of Waiver, Letter of Interest, Letter of Continuity, Consent Clause, Overdraft Agreement, Supplementary Agreement, Form of Guarantee and Affidavit dated 30.12.2013 with the applicant bank.

¶10

That in order to secure the Credit loan facility, the defendant No. 3 created equitable mortgage of the property being Built Up Flat bearing No. 158, C- Block under Janta Slum Category situated at New Moti Nagar, New Delhi by

¶11

¶12

T.A. No.3343 of 2022

¶13

depositing title deeds of the property in favor of the applicant bank dated 01.02.2006.

¶14

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the loan facilities, the defendants 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 accounts as NPA on 28.09.2015 in terms of RBI guidelines but defendants failed to regularize the accounts in spite assurances made hence the applicant bank has approached this tribunal for recovery of its dues.

¶15

Notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 dated 09.02.2016 was issued to the defendants calling upon them to pay the entire outstanding dues but the defendants did not clear the dues.

¶16

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 13.12.2019, 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.

¶17

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shr. Jai Chand Bunkar, as

¶18

¶19

T.A. No.3343 of 2022

¶20

authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the Original/Copy documents of Power of Attorney, Loan Application, Sanction Letter, Demand Promissory Note, Letter of Waiver, Letter of Interest, Letter of Continuity, Consent Clause, Overdraft Agreement, Supplementary Agreement, Form of Guarantee, Registered Sale Deed, Affidavit , along with Notice of Demand under Section 13(2). Postal Receipts. Statement of Accounts, Memorandum of Interest and Certificate under Section 2A of the Banker's Book Evidence Act marked as Ex. AW-1/1 to Ex. AW-1/19.

¶21

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.

¶22

As per the provision of Section 19(20) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 which is analogous to Section 34 of CPC, on filing of the suit/claim, the contract between the parties comes to an end and the Court/Tribunal has a discretion to award the same depending upon the circumstances of each case. Same principle has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra & Others. Taking stock of all the circumstances and keeping in view that there is a drastic fall in rates of interest globally and domestically, I am of the opinion that interest of justice will be served if the interest at the rate of 12% p.a. is awarded.

¶23

¶24

T.A. No.3343 of 2022

¶25

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.

¶26

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

¶27

ORDER

¶28

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.43,03,695/- (Rupees Forty Three Lacs Three housand Six Hundred Ninety Five Only) alongwith pendente lite and future interest ©12% per annum from the date of filing his application till the date of its realization and costs, failing hich the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale •f mortgaged property being Built Up Flat bearing No. 158, C- Block under Janta Slum Category situated at New Moti Nagar, New Delhi. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered rom the sale of movable and immovable properties of the .efendants.

¶29