Allowed

Central Bank of India v. Shri Dalbir Singh

DRT26 Nov 2025TA/762/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Central Bank of India for the recovery of Rs.12,49,407/- with pendentelites and future interest at 12% p.a. The defendants were absent in proceedings. The Tribunal approved the claim based on documents and awarded interest adjusted for global economic conditions.

What did the court decide?

Directing the defendants to jointly or severally pay Rs.12,49,407/- with pendentelites and future interest @12% p.a. within 30 days, recoverable from the sale of the hypothecated vehicle.

Central Bank of India versus Shri Dalbir Singh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 762 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.762 of 2022

¶5

Central Bank of India
Asset Recovery branch Desh Bandhu Gupta Road
Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 Applicant
Versus
1. Sh. Dalbir Singh s/o Sh. Om Sehrawat R/o H.No. 282, Near Chopal Chowk Mahipalpur, New Delhi-110037
2.Sh. Vinod Kumar Soni s/o Sh. Suresh Kumar H.No.1167, Mahipalpur Gaon New Delhi-110037 Defendants
Present: Mr. Prashant, Counsel for the applicant bank Mr. Yashwardhan, Counsel for the defendants Date of Reserve: 29.10.2025
Date of Pronouncement: 26.11.2025

¶6

FINAL ORDER

¶7

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank before DRT-II, Delhi on 08.03.2018 and then transferred to DRT-I Delhi through Sh.A.K. Narang, 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.12,49,407/(Rupees Twelve Lacs Forty Nine Thousand Four Hundred Seven only) as on 13.02.2008 along with pendentelite and future

¶8

¶9

T.A. No. 762 of 2022

¶10

interest @12.45% per annum with monthly rests from 13.02.2018 till the date of realization along with costs.

¶11

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of defendant no.1 vide his loan application dated 01.06.2013, the applicant bank sanctioned Term Loan for Rs.15,00,000/(Rupees Fifteen Lacs only) on 06.06.2013 for purchase of NEO Elantra CRDI SX A/T-4 Wheeler car under the Cent Vehicle-4 wheeler scheme, which was to be repayable in 84 Equated Monthly Installments of Rs.25,487/- each @10.75% interest per annum against hypothecation. The defendant no.2 stood as guarantor for the loan facility sanctioned in favour of the defendant no.1 by the applicant bank.

¶12

In order to avail the vehicle loan facility, the defendant no.1 submitted Loan Application dated 01.06.2013 and executed Demand Promissory Note, Letter of Interest, Letter of Waiver, Term Loan Agreement for Hypothecation of Vehicle, Consent Letter by Borrower with the applicant bank on 06.06.2013. The defendant no.2 executed Form of Guarantee for Advances & Credit on 06.06.2013.

¶13

In order to secure the loan facility, the defendant no.1 purchased the vehicle from M/s Safdarjung Motors Pvt.Ltd. and submitted Temporary Registration dated 08.06.2013 having Registration No.HR-99PD-8743 (TEMP), Chasis No.015027, Engine No.280651 Neo Elantra Black Hyundai car mentioning the vehicle hypothecated with the applicant bank.

¶14

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the vehicle loan facility, the defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions of sanction and failed to regularize the account: with the applicant bank despite repeated

¶15

T.A. No. 762 of 2022

¶16

requests. Ultimately, the applicant bank issued a letter dated 05.08.2015, after which, the defendant no.1 issued a Cheque no.176933 dated 12.08.2015 which was dishonored on presentation with the remark `Funds insufficient' as per Return memo dated 12.08.2015. Thereafter, applicant bank issued Notice dated 17.08.2015 u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The defendants deposited same amount in cash but defaulted in payment again. Ultimately, the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 10.11.2015 as per RBI guidelines but failed to clear the dues.

¶17

Notice under section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 dated 06.05.2016 was issued but defendants did not clear the dues. The defendants not appeared before North West District Legal Services Authority to resolve the matter despite various notices u/s 20(2) of Legal Services Authority Act and also issued Loan Recall cum Possession notice dated 21.08.2017 but defendants failed to respond. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶18

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 23.04.2025, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as they have not appeared before the Tribunal and even written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have not been filed by the defendants. The defendant filed IA No.1160/25 for allowing the application for non appearance due to some technical error.

¶19

5d-

¶20

T.A. No. 762 of 2022

¶21

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed various documents such as Power of Attorney, Loan Application, Proforma Invoice, Booking receipt, Guarantor's Consent letter, Sanction letter, D.P Note, Letter of Waiver, Letter of Interest, Term loan Agreement, Consent letter by borrower, Letter of Guarantee, Temporary Registration Certificate, Letters, Notice u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Loan recall cum possession Notice, Statement of Account with Certificate marked as Annexures A-1 to A-21 from page no.1 to 68.

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

¶26

T.A. No. 762 of 2022

¶27

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

¶28

ORDER

¶29

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.12,49,407/- (Rupees Twelve Lacs Forty Nine Thousand Four Hundred Seven only) together with pendentelite and future interest @12% per annum with monthly rests from 13.02.2018 till the date of realization and costs; failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated vehicle namely NEO Elantra CRDI SX A/T-4 Wheeler. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶30

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

¶31

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 23.01.2026.

¶32

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

¶33

4 5d —

¶34

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

¶35

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 26.11.2025

Central Bank of India v. Shri Dalbir Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Central Bank of India v. Shri Dalbir Singh

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

Parthas Textiles versus Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited

Dcb Bank versus Arun Sharma

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Bansal Foods

Ajay Kashyap versus Piramal Capital

Ajith Gopidas versus the Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd.

Jose George versus State Bank of India