Allowed

Uco Bank v. Sh. Bachchan Kumar Singh

DRT24 Nov 2025TA/373/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a transfer maintenance order in an application for recovery of bank dues. The tribunal dismissed the developer's plea of non-disbursal and allowed the bank's original application, directing joint/several payment by defendants within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.21,80,574 with interest and costs payable by defendants jointly or severally within 30 days, alternatively recoverable through sale of property.

Uco Bank versus Sh. Bachchan Kumar Singh — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No.373 of 2023

¶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. 373 of 2023

¶5

UCO Bank

¶6

Asset Management Branch 5, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001

¶7

Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Bachchan Kumar Singh s/o Kamdeo Prasad Singh

¶10

R/o H.No.244/80 A, Gall No.5

¶11

Near Talab Chowk, School Block Fazalpur Mandawali, Delhi-110092

¶12

Also at:

¶13

Sh. Bachchan Kumar Singh M/s SCA Hygiene Products India Pvt.Ltd. 806/807, Vishwadeep Tower Janakpuri District Centre New Delhi

¶14

Smt. Rima Devi w/o Bachchan Kumar Singh R/o H.No.244/80 A, Gali No.5 Near Talab Chowk, School Block Fazalpur Mandawali, Delhi-110092

¶15

Super City Developers Pvt.Ltd. Through its directors 6, Bharti Colony 1st Floor, Preet Vihar, Opp. Metro Pillar No.73 Vikas Marg, New Delhi-110092 Defendants

¶16

Present: Sh.B.K.Singh, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶17

Date of Reserve: 13.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 24.11.2025

T.A. No.373 of 2023

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank filed before DRT-III, Delhi and then transferred to DRT-I Delhi on 11.01.2018 through Shri Swadesh Mishra, 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 Rs.21,80,574/(Rupees Twenty One Lacs Eighty Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Four only) as on 05.01.2018 along with pendentelite and future interest @9.60% per annum with monthly rests from 05.01.2018 till the date of realization and costs.

¶22

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of defendant no.1 & 2 vide loan application dated 04.11.2015, the applicant bank sanctioned housing Loan of Rs.24,30,000/(Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Thirty Thousand only) on 10.12.2015 to be repayable in 276 EMI of Rs.22,030/- @9.70% interest with monthly rest & penal interest @2% on overdue amount in order to purchase under construction Flat No.1504, Tower B, Mayfair Residency, 15th Floor, Plot No.GH-07B, Sector Techzone-IV, G.B.Nagar, Greater Noida, U.P. to be developed and constructed by defendant no.3 as per Agreement to Sell.

¶23

That in order to avail the loan facility, defendant no.1 and 2 executed Loan Agreement relating to Housing Loan (Form No.AHL-6), Demand Promissory Note (Form No.A-2), Letter of Waiver Form No.A-47, Affidavit cum Undertaking Form No.AHL-20, Form No.AHL-7, Tripartite Agreement, Letter of Undertaking & Indemnity Form No.AHL-14 and Apartment Buyers' Agreement dated 20.11.2015 in favour of applicant bank.

T.A. No.373 of 2023

As per Tripartite Agreement dated 23.11.2015 executed between defendants and applicant bank, the defendant no.3 had undertaken that in case of failure of payment of dues by defendant no.1 and 2 as per schedule, shall be the entire and exclusive responsibility and liability to pay and clear the dues of the applicant bank. That defendant no.3 undertook to provide original, executed, duly stamped and registered agreement and letter of authority from Sub-Registrar and / or Sale Deed in favour of defendant no.1 & 2 within a period of 30 days from date of final disbursement of loan by applicant bank and assure to create effective security and in the event of failure shall promptly refund all the monies disbursed with interest to applicant bank.

¶28

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facility, the defendants failed to maintain financial discipline and comply with the terms and conditions of loan agreement dated 10.12.2015 despite several requests and reminders to pay the outstanding dues and monthly installments in time to the applicant bank. Ultimately, the account was classified as NPA by the applicant bank on 30.09.2017 and issued legal notice dated 10.10.2017 called upon the defendants to pay the overdue installments and regularize the account immediately but no efforts were made by the defendants. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues

¶29

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 10.10.2019, the defendant no.1 & 2 have been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared before the Tribunal and even no written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have been filed by the

5d-

T.A. No.373 of 2023

defendants. The defendant no.3 submitted written statement stating that applicant bank not completely disbursed loan amount and under no obligation to repay the payments as per terms of Tripartite Agreement on such defaults by defendant no.1 and 2.

¶34

In its reply, the applicant bank has vehemently denied the allegations and submitted that defendant no.2 not fulfilled its legal obligations emanating from tripartite agreement and misleading the tribunal and also that entire loan amount was not disbursed. As per Tripartite Agreement, defendant no.3 to refund the amount deposited by defendant no.1 & 2 to the applicant with interest in case of non-completion of the project.

¶35

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri L.R.Nimesh, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents such as Power of Attorney, Loan Application, Sanction Letter, Loan Agreement relating to Housing Loan, Demand Promissory Note, Letter of Waiver, Form No.AHL-7, Affidavit cum Undertaking, Letter of Undertaking, Indemnity Bond, Tripartite Agreement, Letter of Disbursal, Legal Notice, Certified Statement of Account marked as Exhibit AW1/1 to AW1/14.

¶36

Heard and perused the pleadings. Apparently, defendants no.3 have raised the objection that the applicant bank has not disbursed entire loan and is not under obligation as per Tripartite Agreement. This Tribunal has gone through the documents which are executed by the defendants no.3 and this Tribunal is of the view that plea of non disbursal of loan is no plea in the eyes of law and this plea is not maintainable and is rejected.

¶37

¶38

T.A. No.373 of 2023

¶39

The witness of the applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments made in this O.A. The evidence lead by the applicant bank which consists of mainly written / typed documents has gone unchallenged and there is no question of disbelieving the same based upon the documents. This Tribunal has also observed that not an iota evidence/documents has been led by the defendants against the claim of the applicant bank and has made only submission on fact as stated in the written statement evidence. In the civil proceedings it cardinal principle, that whosoever alleges a fact he/she has to prove in the court of law by leading evidence mere assertion are not sufficient and nowhere defendants have denied about the availment of the loan.

¶40

In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Tribunal is of the view that the defendant no.3 have failed to convince this Tribunal and this Tribunal do not find any merit and reject the contentions of the defendant no.3 as baseless. I hereby allow this O.A. as the applicant bank has proved its claim beyond reasonable doubt

¶41

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.

¶42

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

¶43

ORDER

¶44

(I) 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.21,80,574/- (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Eighty

¶45

T.A. No.373 of 2023

¶46

Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Four only) as on 05.01.2018 along with pendentelite and future interest @9.60% per annum with monthly rest from 05.01.2018 till the date of realization with costs, failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of Flat No.1504, Tower B, Mayfair Residency, 15th Floor, Plot No.GH-07B, Sector Techzone-IV, G.B.Nagar, Greater Noida, U.P. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶47

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

¶48

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 22.01.2026.

¶49

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

¶50

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

¶51

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 24.11.2025

Uco Bank v. Sh. Bachchan Kumar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. Sh. Bachchan Kumar Singh

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

Manish Kumar versus Punjab National Bank

Hdfc Bank versus Dilbag Trading Co.

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S Aijaz Ahmad Kuchay, (Erstwhile M/S Aijaz Brick Kiln)

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Deepak Electric Company

Hdfc Bank versus Jagjeevan Singh Bhullar

Indian Bank versus M/S Prince Enterprises