Allowed

Central Bank of India v. Vishal Rana

DRT18 Sept 2025TA/879/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's original application for recovery of an unrepaid car loan. The defendant was absent. The court confirmed the debt, ordered payment with interest, and directed issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendant directed to pay Rs.27,97,762/- plus interest and costs; recovery to be effected from sale of hypothecated vehicle or other assets.

Central Bank of India versus Vishal Rana — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No.879 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. 879 of 2023

¶5

Central Bank of India 2/121, Anand Parbat Industrial Area New Delhi-110005

¶6

Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mr. Vishal Rana s/o Sh. Rajiv Rana B-482, Bunkar Colony PH-4, Ashok Vihar, Delhi-110052

¶9

Also at:

¶10

Mr. Vishal Rana s/o Sh. Rajiv Rana PP-48, Gali no.10 Anand Parbat Indl. Area New Delhi-110005 Defendant

¶11

Present: Shri Subodh Kumar, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶12

Date of Institution: 13.12.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 18.09.2025

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 13.12.2018 before DRT-III Delhi & then transferred to DRT-I Delhi through Shri Gajendra Singh Chauhan, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of the Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 read with Rule 8 of Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) against the

¶15

¶16

T.A. No.879 of 2023

¶17

defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.27,97,762/- (Rupees twenty seven Lacs Ninety Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Two only) as on 22.10.2018 along with pendentelite and future interest @10% per annum with monthly rest from the date of filing of this application till the date of realization and costs. Further, name of Sh.Naveen Kumar Singh, was substituted as authorized representative in place of Sh.Gajendra Singh Chauhan, erstwhile AR for the applicant bank.

¶18

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant, the applicant bank sanctioned Car Loan facility for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs only) under CENT Vehicle scheme on 06.11.2015 @10.10% interest per annum with monthly rests for purchase of Fortuner Car bearing Registration no.DL10CG4748 against hypothecation.

¶19

That in order to avail the said car loan facility, the defendant submitted Car Loan Facility form on 04.11.2015 executed Term Loan Agreement for Hypothecation of Vehicle, Letter of interest, Consent Clause on 06.11.2015 in favour of applicant bank.

¶20

That in order to secure the car loan facility, the defendant hypothecated the vehicle namely `Fortuner Car' bearing Registration no.DL10-CG-4748' in favour of applicant bank on 07.11.2015.

¶21

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendant failed to comply with the terms and conditions. Ultimately, the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 28.09.2016 as per RBI

¶22

¶23

T.A. No.879 of 2023

¶24

guidelines and issued Notice u/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act dated 07.10.2016 but the defendant failed to regularize the account. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of the dues.

¶25

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendant and despite proper service, the defendant has chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 30.04.2025, the defendant has 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 defendant.

¶26

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed various documents such as Power of Attorney, Original Loan Application, Sanction Letter, Term Loan Agreement for Hypothecation of Vehicle, Letter of Interest, Consent Clause, Registration Certificate, Demand Notice u/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, Statement of Account marked as page no.1 to 40.

¶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. sa-

T.A. N o.879 of 2023

ORDER

I, allow this OA and direct the defendant to pay to the applicant bank within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.27,97,762/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lacs Ninety Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Two only) along with pendentelite and future interest @10% per annum with monthly rests from date of filing of this application till the realization with costs failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from sale of hypothecated vehicle namely 'Fortuner Car' bearing Registration no.DL-10CG-4748'. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable assets of the defendant.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 18.09.2025

¶39

Central Bank of India v. Vishal Rana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Central Bank of India v. Vishal Rana

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