Allowed

Asset Reconstruction Company India Ltd. v. Sanjay Gupta

DRT15 Mar 2025TA/3358/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

, a Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by a bank for recovery of approximately Rs. 23 Lakres plus interest and costs against a defaulting borrower. The tribunal noted the defendant's absence and unrebutted case of the bank.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the application and directed the defendant to pay Rs. 23,04,437.57 with interest and costs within 30 days or face recovery from the sale of mortgaged property. Ordered issuance of recovery cer

Asset Reconstruction Company India Ltd. versus Sanjay Gupta — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No.3358 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. 3358 of 2022

¶5

Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. (Bajaj Housing Finance Limited — Assignor) Unit No./Office No.1008 11th Floor, Westend Mall, Janak Puri District Centre New Delhi-110058

¶6

Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sanjay Gupta Plot No.277, Block-B G-3, Shalimar Garden Ghaziabad-201005 Defendant

¶9

Present: Sh.Arvind Jadon, Counsel for the applicant bunk

¶10

Date of Institution: 08.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 15.03.2025

¶11

FINAL ORDER

¶12

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 08.02.2022 before DRT-III and then transferred to DRT-I, Delhi through Shri Nikki Kumar, authorized representative of the applicant under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.23,04,437.57 (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Four Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Seven and paisa Fifty Seven only) as on 13.12.2021 along with pendentelite and future interest @12.80% per annum along with penal interest till the date of realization and costs.

¶13

T.A. No.3358 of 2022

¶14

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant, Bajaj Housing Finance Limited — Assignor Fl sanctioned Home Loan facilities of Rs.8,60,000/- (Rupees Eight Lacs Sixty Thousand only) for takeover of loan of Lice Housing Finance Ltd. and additional loan Rs.15,10,000/(Rupees Fifteen Lacs Ten Thousand only) on 13.10.2018 to be repaid in 120 equated monthly installments of Rs.11,318/- and Rs.19,047/- respectively with interest @12.80% (floating rate) per annum against mortgage of residential property owned by defendant.

¶15

That in order to avail the housing loan facility, the defendant submitted loan application with Assignor Fl in October 2018 and executed Power of Attorney, Declaration alongwith Schedule and Cersai Certificate on 13.10.2018 in favour of the applicant Fl.

¶16

That in order to secure the loan facility, the Defendant created equitable mortgage of the property i.e. bearing Plot No.277, Block- B, Flat no.G-3, Ground Floor without roof rights, Shalimar Garden Main, Village Pasonda, Pargana Loni, Tehsil & District Ghaziabad, admeasuring 37.16 sq. meters with Assignor Fl by deposit of original title deeds of property.

¶17

It has been submitted by the applicant Fl that after availing the loan facility, the defendant failed to comply with the terms and conditions despite several requests and reminders. The defendant failed to operate the account regularly with Assignor Fl and not abide the terms of sanction and did not pay the outstanding dues in time to the applicant bank. Ultimately, the Assignor Fl classified the account as NPA on 25.03.2021 and also issued recall notice dated 16.12.2021 to clear the dues along with interest but defendant neglected to repay,

¶18

T.A. No.3358 of 2022

¶19

hence the Applicant FI has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶20

It has been submitted by applicant FI that Assignor FI (Bajaj Housing Finance Limited), unconditionally and irrevocably assigned, transferred and released all financial assistance granted to defendant together with all its rights, title, interest with all collateral / mortgages created to Assignee vide Assignment Agreement dated 30.06.2021 in terms of Section 5 of SARFAESI Act 2002 in favour of applicant 9.

¶21

Notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 dated 13.12.2021 was issued by the applicant Fl to the defendant calling upon to regularize the account and pay the entire outstanding dues of Rs.23,04,473.57 as on 13.12.2021 with future interest and costs etc.

¶22

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 08.08.2024, the defendant has been proceeded ex-parte as he has not appeared before the Tribunal and even no written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets has been filed on behrlf of the defendant.

¶23

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Nikki Kumar, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as Copy of Registration Certificate issued by the Reserve Bank of India EX.AW1/1, Power of Attorney EX.AW1/2, Assignment Agreement EX.AW1/3, Sanction Letter

¶24

St r-

¶25

T.A. No.3358 of 2022

¶26

EX.AW1/4(Colly), Loan Agreements EX.AW1/5(Colly), Power of Attorney EX.AW1/6, Declaration alongwith Schedule Appended EX.AW1/7, Cersai Certificate EX.AW1/8, Title Deeds of Mortgaged Property EX.AW1/9(Colly), Notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act 2022 EX.AW1/10(Colly), Loan Recall Notice with Postal Receipts EX.AW1/11(Colly), Certified Statement of Accounts along with Certificate under Information Technology Act 2000 EX.AW1/12(Colly).

¶27

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.

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

ORDER

¶31

I, allow this OA and direct the defendant to pay to the applicant bank within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.23,04,437.57/(Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Four Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Seven and Paisa Fifty Seven only) along with costs, pendentelite and future interest @12.80% per annum with monthly rest from the date of filing this application till the date of realization, failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of mortgaged property bearing Plot No.277, Block- B, Flat no.G-3, Ground Floor without roof rights, Shalimar Garden Main, Village Pasonda, Pargana Loni, Tehsil

¶32

T.A. No.3358 of 2022

¶33

& District Ghaziabad, area admeasuring 400 sq. ft. super covered area (37.16 sq. meters). In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendant.

¶34

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

¶35

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 14.05.2025.

¶36

(IV) Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certif3ate be sent to all concerned free of cost.

¶37

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

¶38

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 15.03.2025

Asset Reconstruction Company India Ltd. v. Sanjay Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asset Reconstruction Company India Ltd. v. Sanjay Gupta

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

Anvar a versus Federal Bank

Mohammed Sageer T K versus South Indian Bank

Ms Sr Educational and Charitable Trust versus Asset Reconstruction Company India Ltd.

Canara Bank versus M/S Radhey Radhey Timber

Punjab National Bank versus Mrs. Neelu Kapoor

Ms Bhushan Trading Co. versus the Citizens Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd.