Allowed

State Bank of India v. Mr. Nausad Ali

DRT17 Oct 2025TA/764/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the bank's application for recovery of home loan dues of ~55.77 Lakhs with interest against a borrower and a builder who absconded. The court deemed the bank's documentary evidence unrebutted and sufficient to prove the claim.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 55,77,784/- with interest at 7.40% p.a. and costs; issuance of recovery certificate; recovery from sale of mortgaged flat or other properties in case of default.

State Bank of India versus Mr. Nausad Ali — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No.764 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. 764 of 2022

¶5

State Bank of India

¶6

Stressed Assets Recovery Branch 23, First Floor, Najafgarh Road New Delhi — 110015

¶7

Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Mr. Nausad Ali s/o Mohammad Khalil Flat no.MF-2, Plot no.7/11

¶10

Sector-2, Rajendra Nagar Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201005

¶11

Also at:

¶12

Peptech Biosciences Limited 903/909, 9th floor

¶13

Netaji Subhash Place New Delhi-110044

¶14

Also at:

¶15

WZ-61, Khampur, West Patel Nagar New Delhi-110008

¶16

M/s Royal Home Town Planners Pvt. Ltd.

¶17

7, RBI Colony Market Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016

¶18

Also at:

¶19

M/s Royal Home Town Planners Pvt. Ltd. Ground Floor, Tapasya Corp Heights Tower B, Sector-126, Noida Uttar Pradesh Defendants

¶20

Present: Sh. Pradeep Dhaka, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶21

Date of Reserve: 06.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 17.10.2025

T.A. No.764 of 2022

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant ank before DRT-II Delhi on 03.06.2021 and then transferred t• DRT-I, Delhi through Shri Bishan Pal, authorized -presentative of the applicant bank under section 19 of ecovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the I efendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.55,77,874/- (Rupees 'fly Five Lacs Seventy Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy 'our only) along with pendentelite and future interest @7.40% er annum with monthly rests along with penal interest @2% er annum from the date of filing of this application till the date f realization and costs.

¶26

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of • efendant no.1, the applicant bank sanctioned Home Loan for sum of Rs.58,50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Eight Lacs Fifty housand only) on 03.07.2019 @8.55% interest per annum ith monthly rests subject to change as per bank's guidelines t• be repayable in Equated Monthly Instalments of Rs.45,530/ach in order to purchase under construction Flat bearing o.D-804, 8th floor, Tower D, Beetle Lap, Plot no.GH-G2, ector-25, Jaypee Greens Sports City, Noida, Uttar Pradesh to t e developed and constructed by defendant no.2.

¶27

That in order to avail the home loan facility, the defendant o.1 submitted housing loan application dated 03.07.2019 long with Builder Buyers Agreement and necessary I ocuments, financial credentials and executed Loan rrangement Letter, Loan Agreement and Agreement to ortgage with the applicant bank on 03.07.2019 along with ripartite Agreement between defendants and applicant bank n 03.07.2019.

¶28

¶29

T.A. No.764 of 2022

¶30

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that in order secure the housing loan facility, the defendant no.1 created quitable mortgage of Flat being No.D-804, 8th floor, Tower-D, roject Beetle Lap, Plot no.GH-G2, Sector 25, Jaypee greens ports City, Noida, Uttar Pradesh by way of deposit of title ocuments on the basis of No Objection to mortgage dated 2.05.2019 issued by defendant no.2.

¶31

The defendant no.2 entered into Tripartite Agreement sated 03.07.2019 with defendant no.1 and applicant bank and .greed to mark lien on the flat being purchased and issued no • bjection letter for mortgaging the flat with proportionate share i land and in the event of default in repayment by defendant o.1, liable to applicant bank towards loan availed. Further, •efendant no.2 agreed not to deliver the possession or cancel t e booking and in case project is shelved or non-completion f•r any reason, shall pay the entire amount received on behalf •f defendant no.1 to the applicant bank.

¶32

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after vailing the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply with t e terms and conditions despite several requests and r -minders, the defendants failed to pay the outstanding dues nd instalments to the applicant bank. Ultimately, the applicant sank declared the account as NPA on 26.04.2021 as per RBI • uidelines and issued legal demand notice on 21.05.2021 •alling upon the defendants to pay the entire outstanding dues t • the applicant bank but the defendants failed, hence the pplicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of t eir dues.

¶33

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and espite of proper service, the defendants have chosen to bsent from the proceedings. As per order dated 15.01.2024 ,

¶34

¶35

T.A. No.764 of 2022

¶36

t e defendant no.1 has been proceeded ex-parte and vide • rder dated 06.10.2025, the defendant No.2 has been •roceeded ex-parte as not appeared before the Tribunal.

¶37

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its vidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Bishan Pal, authorized -presentative of the applicant bank who has proved the ocuments as Gazette Notification, Loan Application, greement Letter, Agreement for Home Loan, General Power f Attorney, Agreement to mortgage, Permission to mortgage, greement to Lease cum Allotment, Apartment Buyer greement, Tripartite Agreement, Demand Notice and Postal eceipts, Statement of Account marked as Ex.PW-1/1 to x.PW-1/14 (Colly).

¶38

The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments ade in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the pplicant bank is based on the documents and the same have een duly proved.

¶39

1 0. The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and t ere is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant •ank and the applicant bank has proved its case beyond r asonable doubts.

¶40

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

¶41

ORDER

¶42

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants, jointly or everally, to the applicant bank, within a period of 30 days, a urn of Rs.55,77,784/- (Rupees Fifty Five Lacs Seventy Seven housand Seven Hundred Eighty Four only) together with

sd-

T.A. No.764 of 2022

endentelite and future interest @7.40% per annum with onthly rests from the date of filing of this application till the ate of realization with costs failing which the aforesaid amount hall be recovered from the sale of mortgaged Flat No.D-804, to floor, Tower-D, Beetle Lap, Plot no.GH-G2, Sector 25, aypee Greens Sports City, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. In case of efault, the same shall be recovered from the sale of moveable nd immovable property of the defendants.

¶47

( I) The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent t e Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi.

¶48

II) Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer, RT I, Delhi on 16.12.2025.

¶49

V) Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be ent to all concerned free of cost. 50/ (GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI ictated and pronounced in open court) ated: 17.10.2025

¶50

State Bank of India v. Mr. Nausad Ali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mr. Nausad Ali

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

State Bank of India versus Anil Kumar Yadav

State Bank of India versus Ritu

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus Manjegowda G a and Others

Ms Balaji Steels and Pipes and Others versus PNB Housing Finance Limited

Bank of Baroda versus Mrs. Jyoti Chauhan

Central Bank of India versus M/S Kiwi Consultancy Pvt. Ltd.