Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Shiv Priya and Anr.

DRT18 Sept 2025TA/769/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Union Bank of India for recovery of outstanding dues totaling Rs. 4.16 crores from defendants who defaulted on a housing loan. The court directed recovery from the sale of mortgaged property and movable/immovable assets.

What did the court decide?

Directing defendants to pay Rs. 4.16 crores with interest enforceable through sale of mortgaged property and other assets.

Union Bank of India versus Shiv Priya and Anr. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 769 of 2023

¶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. 769 of 2023

¶5

Union Bank of India 4/14-A, Asaf Ali Road Branch New Delhi-110002 Applicant Versus

¶6

Sh.Shiv Priya s/o Sh.K.M.Sharma R/o B-801, Amrapali Exotica Plot No.E-08, Sector-50, Noida, UP

¶7

Mrs. Sonali Suman w/o Sh.Shiv Priya R/o B-801, Amrapali Exotica Plot No.E-08, Sector-50, Noida, UP Defendants

¶8

Present: Sh. Brijesh Kumar Tamber, counsel for the applicant bank

¶9

Date of Institution: 27.05.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 18.09.2025

¶10

FINAL ORDER

¶11

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 27.05.2019 through Shri Kumar Gaurav, 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.4,16,99,542/- (Rupees Four Crore Sixteen Lacs Ninety Nine Thousand Five Hundred Forty Two only) as on 30.04.2019 along with pendentelite and

T.A. No. 769 of 2023

future interest @9.85% per annum with monthly rest and 2% penal interest from 01.05.2019 till its realization and costs.

¶16

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of defendant no.1 & 2 vide their application dated 11.10.2013, the applicant bank sanctioned Housing Loan facility of Rs.450.00 Lacs (Rupees Four Crores Fifty Thousand only) on 07.11.2013 for purchase of built up House No.E-1/4, Estate Home, Jaypee Greens, G Block, Surajpur, Kasana Road, Greater Noida, UP which was to be repayable in 240 EMI of Rs.5,03,400/- @12.25% interest with monthly rests under Union Home Scheme of the applicant bank.

¶17

That in order to avail the said home loan facility, the defendants submitted loan application with KYC documents and executed Housing Loan Agreement, Letter of Undertaking, Letter of Acknowledgement dated 07.11.2013, Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds 16.12.2013 and Affidavit to Deposit of Title Deeds dated 17.12.2013 in favour of applicant bank. The housing loan was converted into MCLR loan account and defendants executed Housing Loan Agreement, Interest Agreement, Security Confirmation, Letter of Continuity and Demand Promissory Note on 30.12.2017 in favour of applicant bank.

¶18

That in order to secure the housing loan facility, the defendants created the equitable mortgage of the property by depositing title deeds of House No.E-1/4, Estate Home, Jaypee Greens, G Block, Surajpur, Kasana Road, Greater Noida, UP by depositing Sale Deed duly registered as Document No.29303, Book No.1, Vol. No.14527 Pages 243 to 284 with Sub-Registrar, Gautam Budh Nagar, UP on 16.12.2013 along with previous chain of documents with applicant bank. The Greater Noida

¶19

¶20

T.A. No. 769 of 2023

¶21

Industrial Development Authority vide letter dated 06.06.2014 granted permission to mortgage.

¶22

The defendant acknowledged the debt by executing Debit Balance Confirmation on 03.04.2015 towards applicant bank.

¶23

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 and despite several requests, the defendants failed to pay the monthly installments in time to the applicant bank. The Applicant Bank classified the account as NPA on 28.02.2019 as per RBI guidelines and issued recall notice on 01.03.2019 but defendants failed to regularize the account; hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶24

Notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 dated 13.03.2019 was issued by the applicant bank to the defendants but no response.

¶25

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite proper service the defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings. Vide order dated 20.11.2024, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as they have not appeared before the Tribunal nor written statement, list of all bank accounts and affidavit of assets etc. have been filed.

¶26

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Kumar Gaurav, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as Power of Attorney Ex.AW-1/1(0SR), Loan sc(

¶27

¶28

T.A. No. 769 of 2023

¶29

Application Ex.AW-1/2, Letter of Sanction Ex.AW-1/3, Housing Loan Agreement Ex.AW-1/4, Letter of Undertaking Ex.AW-1/5, Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds Ex.AW-1/6, Affidavit Ex.AW-1/7, Letter of Acknowledgement Ex.AW-1/8, Copy of Conveyance Deed Ex.AW-1/9, Letter of Permission to Mortgage Ex.AW-1/10, Debit Balance Confirmation Ex.AW-1/11, Loan Agreement Ex.AW-1/12, Interest Agreement Ex.AW-1/13, Security Confirmation Ex.AW-1/14, Letter of Continuity Ex.AW1/151 Demand Promissory Note Ex.AW-1/16, Recall Notice Ex.AW-1/17, Notice u/s 13(2) Ex.AW-1/18, Certificate under Section 2A(b) of Banker's Books of Evidence Act & Certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.AW-1/19(Colly).

¶30

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.

¶31

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.

¶32

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

¶33

ORDER

¶34

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank, jointly or severally, within a period of 30 days a surn of Rs.4,16,99,542/- (Rupees Four Crore Sixteen Lacs

¶35

¶36

T.A. No. 769 of 2023

¶37

Ninety Nine Thousand Five Hundred Forty Two only) as on 30.04.2019 along with pendentelite and future interest @11.85% per annum with monthly rests from 01.05.2019 till the date of realization and costs, failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of the mortgaged House No.E-1/4, Estate Home, Jaypee Greens, G Block, Surajpur, Kasana Road, Greater Noida, UP. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶38

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

¶39

(III) Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 17.11.2025.

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 18.09.2025

¶43

Union Bank of India v. Shiv Priya and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Shiv Priya and Anr.

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

Mohammed Ashraf C a versus Indian Overseas Bank

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Akrosh Abdul Khan

Ms Siddhi Vinayak Steel and others versus Punjab National Bank

Central Bank of India versus M/S Khushboo Vastraalay

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Sunil Kumar

Punjab National Bank versus Smt. Poonam Devi