Allowed

Idfc First Bank Limited v. Aman Electronics

DRT28 Jul 2025TA/403/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by IDFC First Bank Limited for recovery of dues from three defendants who failed to regularize loan accounts. The case was heard ex-parte. The Tribunal awarded the principal amount along with future interest at 12% p.a. and directed enforcement through recovery officer.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.52,15,307.42 plus pendente lite and future interest at 12% p.a. with monthly rests, enforceable via sale of assets.

Idfc First Bank Limited versus Aman Electronics — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 403 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.403 of 2022

¶5

IDFC First Bank Limited Upper Ground Floor No. 62/20, Opposite New Prem Dhaba^{& Big Bazzar,} New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 Applicant

¶6

Versus
1.Aman Electronics
B-7, Vikas Nagar, Main Budh Bazar Road, Hastsal Uttam Nagar, Delhi- 110059
Also at:
Flat No. 10-B Block,
Vikas Nagar, Vikas Vihar,
Dk Mohan Garden, Delhi- 110059
2.Dinesh Kumar
B-7, Vikas Nagar, Main Budh Bazar Road, Hastsal Uttam Nagar, Delhi- 110059
Also at:
Flat No. 10-B Block, Vikas Nagar, Vikas Vihar, Dk Mohan Garden, Delhi- 110059
3.Deepika Verma B-7, Vikas Nagar, Main Budh Bazar Road, Hastsal Uttam Nagar, Delhi- 110059
Also at:
Flat No. 10-B Block, Vikas Nagar, Vikas Vihar,
Dk Mohan Garden, Delhi- 110059	Defendants

¶7

T.A. No. 403 of 2022

¶8

Present: Shri Bakul Jain, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶9

Date of Institution: 20.09.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 28.07.2025

¶10

FINAL ORDER

¶11

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 20.09.2021 before DRT-III, Delhi and then transferred to DRT-I, Delhi through Shri Farid Ahmed, 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.52,15,307.42/- (Rupees Fifty Two Lacs Fifteen Thousand Three Hundred Seven and Paisa Forty Two only) along with pendente lite and future interest as per agreed loan agreement with monthly rests from date of filing of this application till the date of realization along with costs.

¶12

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the defendants vide loan application dated 25.10.2018, the applicant bank sanctioned Credit facility for a sum of Rs.52,32,328 (Rupees Fifty Two Lacs Thirty Two Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Eight Only) ©17.50% interest which was repayable in 43 equated monthly installments of Rs.1,79,511 (Rupees One Lac Seventy Nine Thousand Five Hundred Eleven Only) each, and Rs.12,24,000 (Rupees Twelve Lacs and Twenty Four Thousand Only) on 30.10.2019 ©18.50% interest which was repayable in 36 equated monthly installments of Rs.44,559 (Rupees Forty Four Thousand Five Fifty Nine Only) each and later sanctioned a supplementary

¶13

T.A. No. 403 of 2022

¶14

loan of Rs.8,74,564 (Rupees Eight Lacs Seventy Four Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Four Only) on 06.07.2020 @9.25% floating interest under GECL Scheme which was repayable in 48 equated monthly installments of Rs.6,742 (Rupees Six Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Two Only) each against Mortgage Loan Agreement.

¶15

That in order to avail the loan facilities, the defendants signed and executed various documents such as Disbursal Request Form, Account Statement, Demand Promissory Note, Supplementary Loan Agreement and Foreclosure Letter.

¶16

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facility, the defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions of sanction and not routed their transactions through the account and failed to regularize the account with the applicant bank. The applicant bank issued a legal notice dated 25.08.2021 to make the entire payment within 7 days but defendants failed to regularize the accounts, hence the applicant bank has approached this tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶17

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendant and 5. despite of proper service through publication in newspaper, the defendant has chosen to remain absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 05.12.2024, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared before the Tribunal and even written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have not been filed by the defendant.

¶18

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Farid Ahmed, as authorized

.5a

T.A. No. 403 of 2022

representative of the applicant bank who has proved the Original/Copy documents of Orders by NCLT, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Loan Documents, Notice, Statement of Accounts and Certificate u/s 2A of The Bankers Book Evidence as EX AW-1/A to EX AW-1/H.

¶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

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.

¶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.

T.A. No. 403 of 2022

ORDER

I, allow this OA and direct the defendant to pay to the applicant bank within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.52,15,307.42/- (Rupees Fifty Two Lacs Fifteen thousand Three Hundred Seven and Paisa Forty Two only) along with pendente lite and future interest ©12% per annum respectively with monthly rests from date of filing of this application till the date of realization along with costs; failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of assets and properties of the defendants. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶31

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

¶32

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 06.10.2025

¶33

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

¶34

5d—

¶35

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

¶36

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 28.07.2025

Idfc First Bank Limited v. Aman Electronics

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idfc First Bank Limited v. Aman Electronics

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sai Enterprises

Idbi Bank versus Anand Kumar

Axis Bank versus Ajeet Kumar

Sri Anant Kumar Agarwal versus Icici Bank Limited

Gopal Dass versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Harjinder Singh