Allowed

Central Bank of India v. Smt Archana Devi and Others

DRT24 Oct 2025TA/405/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant bank filed an original application for recovery of dues arising from a default in a secured housing loan facility. The tribunal examined the evidence, noted the respondents' absence, and allowed the application. It directed the respondents to pay the principal sum with interest and cost, and issued a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

The respondents directed to pay Rs. 36,88,854 along with interest and costs within 30 days; Recovery Certificate to be issued for enforcement.

Central Bank of India versus Smt Archana Devi and Others — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Before SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI, Presiding Officer Debts Recovela Tribuna!-II, Delhi

¶2

TA No.405 OF 2022

¶3

CENTRAL BANK OF INIDA VS SMT.^{ARCHNADEVI & ORS}

¶4

Reserued on : 18.09.2025

¶5

Pronounced on : 24.10.2025

¶6

Central Bank of India Vs.

¶7

-Applicant bank

¶8

SmL Archana Devi

¶9

Sh. Praveen Kumar

¶10

Defendants

¶11

Present:

¶12

Shri. Yogesh Pachauri, Counsel appears^for applicant bank. Defendants are expafte since 03.03.2025.

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

This original application has been filed by^the applicant bank, on 29.06.20t7^{through Mr' V.K'} Chauhan, Chief Manager of the^{applicant bank, under} Section 19 of the Recovery of^{Debts and Bankruptcy} Act, 1993 against the defendants for^{recovery of a sum} of Rs.36,88,854/- together^{with cost,chargesand} pendentellite and future interest @11.25% from date of filing of this O.A. till the^{realization in full.}

¶15

The brief facts of^{the caseare that at the request} of the defendant nos.1 and^{2, the applicant bank} sanctiond a Housing^{Loan Facility of Rs.2B lacs, vide} sanction letter dated^{31.05.2013 for the purchaseof} the First Floor Flat No.79,^{Pocket-10,Sector-20,Rohini,} Delhi. The defendant^nos.1 and 2^{executed all} necessary loaning document on 07.06.2013. The v⁰

¶16

¶17

TA NO. 405 of2022

¶18

applicant bank released the^{aforesaid loan amount} in the account of the defendants and^{prepared the} demand draft for the said amount^{in favour of the} vendor Shri. Ajay Aggarwal.^{Accordingly,the sale deed} of the aforesaid Flat was^{executedin favour of the} defendant no.1 on 24.06.20t3.^{The defendant no. 1} created the equitable mortgage^{of the aforesaid Flat in} favour of the applicant bank by deposited^{the original} sale deed dated 24.06.2013.^{The creation of equitable} mortgage was duly entered in the^{recital register} maintained by the applicant^bank on^{02.08.2013. The} applicant bank after complying all^{the statutory} requirements of SERAFAESI Act,^{filed an application} under Section 14 of the Act^{beforethe Ld. CMM for} taking over the^possession ofthe^{aforesaid propefi of} the defendants. However, it^{came to the noticeof the} applicant bank that an order^{dated 19'08.2015of} attachment against the^{aforesaidpropertyhas already} been^passed in another^{case no.403/1titled} "Ramgarhia Co-operative Bank^{Ltd vs Praveen Kumar".} Accordingly, the application^{No.466.2015filed by the} applicant bank was^{dismissed vide the order dated} 02.11.2015.

¶19

It is further^{submitted that the defendants} enjoyed and utilized^{the Loan facility, but failed to} maintain the financial^{discipline and failed to repay the} due amounts.^{The applicantbank requested the} defendants to^{regularize the loan accountby visits and} letters, but there was no^{response from the} defendants, hence the^{account was classifiedas NPA} on 27.04.20L5.^{Therefore, the applicant bank served a} demand notice^{dated 27.04:3gU,othe defendantsbut}

TA NO. 405 of 2022

failed to recover the same. Thus, the present O.A.|[.A. is^preferred by the applicant bank to recover its dues.

¶24

On notice by this Tribunal, defendant nos.1 and 2 put appearance through counsel but failed to file written statement. Thereafter, the defendant nos. 1 and 2 failed to put appearance in the matter, despite issuance of default notice. Accordingly, the defendant nos.1 and 2 were proceeded against exparte on 03.03.202s.

¶25

The applicant bank has filed evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Hansraj Haritas, Senior Manager of the applicant bank as Annexure A-1 to Annexure A-19 which have gone unchallenged and un-rebutted. Hence, the case of the applicant bank stands fully established against the defendants with respect to nonpayment of outstanding amount.

¶26

After perusing the records, this Tribunal is of the view that the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. The evidence and documents filed by the applicant bank not rebutted by the defendants by not placing any evidence and there is no question of disbelieving the evidence and documents filed by the applicant bank based upon the written/pri nted documents.

TA NO. 405 of 2022

In the light of the above discussions, the present

¶31

T.A. deserues to be allowed.

¶32

ORDER

¶33

I hereby allow this T.A. of the Applicant Bank and direct the defendant nos. 1 and 2 to pay^jointly and severally to the applicant bank within 30 days from today, a sum of Rs.36,88,854/- along with cost, expenses and interest @ 10.25% from the date of filing of this O.A. which has become T.A till the date of realization.

¶34

In case of failure to deposit the above amount within the stipulated period, the same shall be recovered from the sale of mortgaged^property bearing Flat No.79, Pocket-lO, First Floor, Sector-2O, Rohini, New Delhi-110008. In case of shoft fall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of^personal movable and immovable assets of the defendant nos. 1 and 2.

¶35