Allowed

State Bank of India (E-State Bank of Hyderabad) v. Nitant Kumar

DRT26 Mar 2025TA/547/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application by State Bank of India for recovery of a vehicle loan of Rs.10.99 lakh against defaulting borrowers. The respondents, who did not appear, were proceeded with ex-parte. The court directed payment with interest and recovery via sale of the hypothecated car.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to pay Rs.10,99,664 with interest and costs within 30 days; recovery to be effected from sale of hypothecated vehicle and other assets.

State Bank of India (E-State Bank of Hyderabad)… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No.547 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. 547 of 2022

¶5

State Bank of India (e-State Bank of Hyderabad) Stressed Asset Recovery Cell RACPC (Central) Branch, Naraina, New Delhi-110028

¶6

Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mr. Nitant Kumar s/o Sumant Singh Proprietor of M/s Nitant Building Material Supplier

¶9

Sh. Sumant Singh s/o Hansraj Singh

¶10

Both Defendants at: House no.I-94, Delta-II, P.S. Kasna, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, UP-201301 Defendants

¶11

Present: Sh.J.P.Gupta, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶12

Date of Institution: 29.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 26.03.2025

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 29.03.2019 before DRT-III, Delhi & then transferred to DRT-I through Sh. A.K Srivastava, 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.10,99,664/- (Rupees Ten Lacs Ninety Nine

¶15

T.A. No.547 of 2022

¶16

Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Four only) as on 26.03.2019 along with pendentelite and future interest @10.20% per annim with monthly rest along with @2% penal interest from date of filing of this application till the date of realization and costs. Further, the name of Sh.Anil Kumar Garg was substituted as authorized representative in place of Sh.A.K.Srivastava, erstwhile AR for the applicant bank.

¶17

The brief facts of the case are that at the reruest of defendants being co-borrowers vide loan application dated 22.11.2013 with relevant documents and advance payment receipt of Rs.2,76,383/- dated 23.11.2013, the applicant bank sanctioned Vehicle Loan facility of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs only) @10.60% interest per annum with monthly rests to be repaid in 84 equated monthly installments of Rs.17,100/commencing from December 2013 subject to change it rate of interest in order to purchase Mahindra Scorpio Car. The defendants agreed to pay penal interest @2% in case of default in instalments to the applicant. The applicant bank disbursed the amount to M/s Koncept Automobiles Pvt.Ltd. through RTGS on 27.11.2013.

¶18

That in order to avail the Car Loan facility, the defendants executed Sanction/Arrangement Letter, Loan cum Hypothecation Agreement, Letter of Authority and Declaration all dated 27.11.2013 in favour of the applicant bank.

¶19

That in order to secure the loan facility, the defendants submitted Retail Invoice, Receipt of Rs.10.00 lacs dated 27.11.2013 issued by Koncept Automobiles Pvt.Ltd and Proposal cum Cover Note for Private Car Package Policy issued by Reliance General Insurance mentioning the Mahindra

¶20

T.A. No.547 of 2022

¶21

Scorpio VLX BS IV Car bearing Engine No.MXD4K24238 and Chasis No. D2K46733 but not provided copy of Registration Card of the vehicle and also not produced the car for inspection before the applicant bank.

¶22

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions despite several requests and defendants failed to pay the outstanding dues and monthly installments in time to the applicant bank. The applicant bank sent various notices and reminders requesting the defendants to regularize the account but defendants have failed to comply with the notices. The account was declared as NPA on 31.05.2016 and issued legal demand notice dated 19.02.2019 but neglected by the defendants. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶23

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite proper service through publication in newspapers, the defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 03.12.2024, the defendants 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 defendants.

¶24

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Sh.Anil Kumar Garg as AW-1, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as Gazette Notification dated 27.03.1987 Ex.AW-1/1(colly), Application Form Ex.AW-1/2, Advance Payment Receipt Ex.AW-1/3, Ledger Account with Supplier of Car Ex.AW-1/4, Performa Invoice Ex.AW-1/5,

¶25

T.A. No.547 of 2022

¶26

Sanction/Agreement Letter Ex.AW-1/6, Loan-cumHypothecation Agreement Ex.AW-1/7, Letter of Authority Ex.AW-1/8, Declaration by Defendant no.1 Ex.AW-1/9, Payment of Loan to Car Dealer Ex.AW-1/10, Retail invoice Ex.AW-1/11, Receipt of Rs.10,00,000/- Ex.AW-1/12, Insurance Proposal-cum-Cover Note AW-1/13, Various Letters and Notices Ex.AW-1/14 to Ex.AW-1/18, Legal Demand Notice Ex.AW-1/19, Postal Receipts Ex.AW-1/20(Colly), Unreserved Envelopes Ex.AW-1/21(Colly), Statement of Account Ex.AW1/22(Colly), Calculation Sheet of Accrued Interest Ex.AW-1/23, Calculation Sheet of Overdue Penal Interest Ex.AW-1/24.

¶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 proved.

¶28

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.

¶29

In the light of the above discussions and documents on record, the Original Application deserves to be allowed.

¶30

ORDER

¶31

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank within a period of 30 days, jointly or severally, a sum of Rs.10,99,664/- (Rupees Ten Lacs Ninety Nine Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Four only) as on 26.03.2019 along

¶32

T.A. No.547 of 2022

¶33

with pendentelite and future interest @10.20% per annum from date of filing of this application till the date of realization and costs failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from sale of hypothecated vehicle namely Mahindra Scorpio VLX BS IV car bearing Engine No.MXD4k24238 and Chasis No. D2L46733. In case of shortfall the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable assets of the defendants.

¶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 26.05.2025.

¶36

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

¶37

(GOVIND BALLABH SH ftRMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶38

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 26.03.2025

State Bank of India (E-State Bank of Hyderabad) v. Nitant Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India (E-State Bank of Hyderabad) v. Nitant Kumar

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

Canara Bank versus M/S Everest Handmade Paper

Hdfc Bank versus Devendra Pratap Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Ravinder Singh

Icici Bank Limited versus Jaswant Singh

Bank of India versus Rakesh Kumar

Seema Prakash Gawande versus Adhar Housing Finance Limited