Allowed

Karnataka Bank Limited v. Shri Vicky singh

DRT16 Sept 2025TA/810/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of dues totaling Rs. 30.84 lakhs. The Tribunal directed the defaulting borrowers to pay the principal amount with interest at 12% p.a. and costs within 30 days, enforceable against the mortgaged property or other assets.

What did the court decide?

Direction to defendants to pay Rs. 30,84,996 plus 12% interest and costs within 30 days, enforceable against mortgaged property or other assets. Recovery certificate issued.

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Shri Vicky singh — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 810 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. 810 of 2023

¶5

Karnataka Bank Limited A-4/43, Paschim Vihar New Delhi-110063 Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Sh. Vicky Singh s/o Sh. Nanak Singh C-245, Gali no.8 Majlis Park, Delhi-110033

¶8

Smt. Paramjeet Kaur w/o Sh. Vicky Singh C-245, Gali no.8, Majlis Park Delhi-110033

¶9

Sh. Satbir Singh s/o Sh. Sohan Singh C-245, Gali no.8, Majlis Park Delhi-110033

¶10

Mr. Sachin Kumar s/o Sh. Surinder Kumar Q-38, First floor Rajouri Garden, New Delhi

¶11

The Sub-Registrar VI A Pitampura, Near Power House Ring Road, Pitampura Delhi-110034 Defendants

¶12

Present: Mr. R. Raja Ballal, Counsel for applicant bank Mr. S.S. Katyal, Counsel for the defendant no.4

¶13

Date of Institution: 28.10.2014 Date of Pronouncement: 16.09.2025

¶14

T.A. No. 810 of 2023

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 28.10.2014 before DRT-III Delhi & then transferred to DRT-I Delhi through its authorized representative under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 read with Rule 8 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal Rules 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.30,84,996/(Rupees Thirty Lacs Eighty Four Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Six only) with pendentelite and future interest @15.50% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing this application till the date of realization and costs.

¶17

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant no.1 & 2 vide loan application dated 18.07.2012, the applicant bank sanctioned Term Loan Facility of Rs.25,00,000/(Rupees Twenty Five Lacs only) on 24.09.2012 under its KBL mortgage scheme @15.75% interest per annum with monthly rest, which was to be repayable in 84 Equated Monthly Installments of Rs.49,299/- against mortgage of property. The defendant no.3 stood as guarantor for the loan facility sanctioned in favor of defendant no.1 & 2 by the applicant bank. In case of default in payment of installment, defendant no.1 and 2 undertook to pay penal interest @3% p.a. over documented rate of interest.

¶18

That in order to avail the said Credit facility, defendant no.1 & 2 submitted loan application and executed various loan documents such as Term Loan Facility Agreement with the applicant bank on 26.09.2012.

¶19

T.A. No. 810 of 2023

¶20

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that in order to secure the loan facility, the defendant no.2 executed Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 07.09.2009 of property with other Link Documents bearing no. C-245, 3rd floor, Block-C, Gali no.8, Majlis Park, Delhi-110033, built on plot measuring 111 sq. yards in favour of the applicant bank on 26.09.2012.

¶21

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions and despite of several requests and reminders, the defendants failed to pay the outstanding dues and monthly installments in time to the applicant bank. Ultimately, the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 25.07.2013 and issued legal notice on 31.08.2013 calling upon the defendants to pay the entire outstanding dues to the applicant bank but the defendants did not clear the dues of the applicant bank and hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶22

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 orders dated 05.05.2016, the defendant no.1 to 3 have been proceeded ex-parte and vide order dated 22.11.2018 defendant no.5 has been proceeded ex-parte as they have not appeared before the Tribunal.

¶23

The defendant no.4 was impleaded vide Hon'ble DRAT order dated 18.10.2016 in Misc. Appeal No.176/2016 claiming that he purchased the mortgaged property on 06.01.2012 from defendant no.2 for sale consideration of Rs.19.00 lacs as per

¶24

T.A. No. 810 of 2023

¶25

Agreement to Sell. The defendant no.2 also mortgaged the property with Uco Bank on 07.09.2013, State Bank of India and Union Bank of India who have initiated recovery proceedings before this tribunal.

¶26

The defendant no.5 has been impleaded as he has not registered the Sale Deed in respect of property in question.

¶27

The applicant bank filed First Information Report (FIR) complaint with SHO Police Station, Paschim Vihar, Delhi as DD No.48B dated 07.05.2014 for depositing fabricated title deed.

¶28

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Geogy T Jacob, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as Power of Attorney, Loan Application dated 18.09.2012, Sanction Order dated 24.09.2012, Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed dated 26.09.2012, Sale Deed dated 07.09.2009, Registered AD Notices, Recall Notice dated 06.11.2013, Legal Notice dated 31.08.2013, Complaint with the SHO Delhi Police dated 07.05.2014, Statement of account marked as Ex.AW-1/1 to Ex.AW-1/12.

¶29

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.

¶30

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.

¶31

T.A. No. 810 of 2023

¶32

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.

¶33

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

¶34

ORDER

¶35

I, allow this OA and direct the defendant no.1 to 3 to pay to the applicant bank, jointly or severally, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.30,84,996/- (Rupees Thirty Lacs Eighty Four Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Six only) together with future interest @12% per annum from the date of filing this application till the date of realization with costs, failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of the mortgaged property bearing no. C-245, 3rd floor, Block-C, Gali no.8, Majlis Park, Delhi-110033, built on plot measuring 111 sq. yards. (This property also mortgaged with UCO Bank and UBI who already auctioned this property). In case of shortfall / default, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendant no.1 to 3.

¶36

T.A. No. 810 of 2023

¶37

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

¶38

(III)^{Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer,} DRT I, Delhi on 14.11.2025.

¶39

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

¶40

c1 D-e01 — (GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶41

(Pronounced in open court) Dated: 16.09.2025

Karnataka Bank Limited v. Shri Vicky singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Bank Limited v. Shri Vicky singh

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

Punjab National Bank versus Satnam Singh

Uco Bank versus Shiv Charan Singh

Canara Bank versus Jayalakshmi

Sri Sanjay Prasad Proprietor Of Ms Prasad Broom Stick And Anr. versus Indian Bank

Preethy Mole versus State Bank of India

Bank of Baroda versus Mr Mukesh Singh