Allowed

Indian Bank v. M/s Om Jewelers House Pvt. Ltd.

DRT29 Aug 2025TA/947/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's recovery application. The court rejected the respondent's claim of forgery regarding the property title, held the respondents liable, and directed joint and several payment of the dues including interest and costs. Assets can be sold to recover the amount. Pending appeal stays are disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to pay Rs. 16,62,651.05 with interest at 16.50% p.m. from filing till realization; property may be sold to recover dues.

Indian Bank versus M/s Om Jewelers House Pvt. Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Before SUSHIL^{KUMAR RASTOGI,Presiding Officer} Debts RecoverY^{Tribuna!-Il, Delhi}

¶2

TAl947l2023

¶3

INDIAN BANKVS^{M/S OM JEWETLS HOUSEPvT LTD &} oRs.

¶4

Reserved on =^3L-O7-2O25 Pronounced on^{: 29.O8.2025}

Indian Bank

- Applicant bank

Vs.

M/s Om Jewels^{Househlt Ltd.}

¶10

2 Ram Narayan

¶11

3 Smt. Suman^Devi

¶12

4 Shri Sandeep Aggarwal -^Defendants

¶13

Present: Ms. Rashmi Srivastava,^{Counselappears for} applicant bank. Defendant nos.l to 3^{are exparte, since,} 15.10.2015. Defendant no.4 is^{exParte,since,} 22.05.2025

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

This original application^{has been filed by the} applicant bank,^{on 10.10.2013through Shri Amit Kumar} Chawla, Chief Manager^{and Constitutionof the} applicant bank, under^{Section19 of the RDB Act, 1993} against the defendants^{for recovery of a sum of} Rs.16,62,651.05 lacs^{along with further interest} thereupon @16.50%^{p.m from the date of filling of this} O.A till the date of^{realization in full'}

¶16

The brief^{facts of the caseare that at the request} of defendant^{no.1 through its directors defendantno.2} & 3, the appiicant^{bank sanctioneda Term Loan/ Car} Loan Facility of^{Rs.!.3,44,000/- on 26.i2.2009 for} purchase of a new car Skdrg^{Laurafrom M/s Arshia} g\

¶17

¶18

TA NO/l3s/2015

¶19

Motors, under^{Allahabad BankCar Finance and all} Bank Mo-Bike Scheme^{against the hypothecationof car} and equitable^{moftgage of the propefi.To securethe} above said^{credit facilitythe defendant nos.2 & 3 also} executed^{personal guarantee agreement(ADV-42)} dated 26.12.2009^{in favour of the bank.The defendant} no.1 through its directors^{defendant nos.2 and 3 had} executed and delivered the^{documentsto the applicant} bank on 26.12.2009. It^{is submifted that for the} security,^prooer repayment^{and adherence to the} finance discipline, the^{defendant no.2 fufther secured} the said loan by way^{of equitable moftgageof the} property i.e., Flat No.10-C, Block NO.3,^Phase-III, Ashok Vihar, Delhi, by deposit^{of title deed, vide} conveyance deed dated^{01.12.2009 in favour of} defendant no.2 as^{documents NO.16904, in Addl. Book} No.1, Vol. No.35444,^{page40 to 42 registered with sub-} registrar{Il, Delhi on^{01.t2.2009,along with affidavit,} receipt, will and^{possession letter, alldated11.02.1998} executed by Shri Krishan^{Kuar Jolly in favour of} defendant no.2 and^{original allotment letterdared} 16.04.1982 issued by^{DDA in favourof Shri Krishan} Kumar Jolly.

¶20

It is further submitted^{that the defendants} enjoyed and utilized the^{Loan facility, but failed to} maintain the financial discipline^{and failed to repay the} due amounts. The applicant^{bank requested the} defendants to^{i'egularizethe loan account by visitsand} letters, but there was^{no response from the defendants,} hence the account^{was classifiedas NPA on 30.11.2010.} Therefore, the applicant^{bank served a demand notice} dated 20.07.2011 to^{the_defendants but faiied to} el

TA NO/135/2015

recover the same^{Thus,the present O.M[A} preferred by the applicant bank to^{recover its dues'}

¶25

On notice by^{this Tribunal, the defendantnos' 1} to 3 failed to^put appearance^{at all, despite publication.} Accordingly, the defendant^{nos.1 to 3 wereproceeded} against exparte on^{15.10.2015. The defendant no.4 put} appearance through^{counsel and filed written} statement and evidence.^{Thereafter,the defendant} no.4 failed to^put appearance^{in the matter, despite} issuance of default^{notice. Accordingly,the defendant} no.4 was^proceeded against^{exapfte on 22.05-2025.}

¶26

In their written^{statementthe defendant no.4has} denied the facts mentioned^{in the OA' It is submitted} that the defendant^{no.4 is a third pafi with respect to} the loan facility said to^{have been granted by the} applicant to defendant^{no.1as, admittedly, he is neither} borrower nor^guarantor or^{mortgagor to the said loan} facility. So far as the^property bearing^{Flat No.10C,} Block No.3 Phase III, Ashok^{Vihar, Delhi 110052} claimed to have been legally^{mortgagedwith the} applicant bank is^{concerned, the same is absolutely} false, incorrect and denied. It^{is submitted that the} defendant no.4 is the^{lawful owner in possession of the} said Flat having^{purchased it vide Registered Sale Deed} dated 26,03.2010 from Shri^{DaljeetSingh S/o Shri} Joginder Singh R/o 6/45,^{West Punjabi Bagh, Delhi and} Shri Ranjeet Singh S/o^{Shri Darshan SinghR/o A 309,} Majlis Park, Delhi 110033^{who had purchasedthe same} from Shri K. K. Jolly S/o ShriC.^{L. Jolly} Vo^{10-C, Block-} 3, Pocket-B, Ashok^{Vihar Phase-III, Delhi-110052the} original allottee of the^{proPerty vide Registered Sale} s4

¶27

¶28

TA NO/135/2015

¶29

Deed dated-18.11.2008'^{The said Flat was initially} allotted by DDA to Shri^{K. K. Jolly vide letter dated-} 16.04.1982 and vide^{Registered ConveyanceDeed} dated-15.10.2008 the^{same was converted into free} hold in his name. Thereafter,^{Shri K. K. Jolly vide} aforesaid Registered^{Sale Deed dated-18.11.2008 sold} the same to said^{Shri Daljeet Singh and RanjeetSingh} who sold the same to defendant^{no.4 vide aforesaid} Registered Sale Deed^{dated-26.03.2010and the} defendant no.4^{is in possession of all the aforesaidtitle} documents and Flat^{since then. The perusal of the title} documents relied upon^{by the applicantbank reveals} that it has accepted^{the mortgage of the Flat on the} basis of only one^{Registered title document i.e.} Conveyance Deed dated-0L.I2.2009^{said to have been} executed by DDA in^favor of^{Shri Ram Narain the} defendant no.2 of the^{Flat which is forgedand} fabricated document because,^{when the DDA had} already convefted^{the Flat into free hold vide registered} Conveyance Deed^{dated-15.10.2008,the question of} again execution of^{alleged registered conveyance deed} dated-01.12.2009 by^{DDA in favor of same Shri Ram} Narain the defendant^{no.2 doesnot ariseand beyond} any imagination as the^{fact of execution of registered} conveyance deed dated-15.10.2008^{has also been} confirmed by the^{DDA vide its letter dated - 07.12.2010.} All other title documents^{relied upon by the bank are} unregistered and based upon^{saidconveyance deed} dated-0l.12.2009, hence^{alleged moftgage is} absolutely illegal, unlawful and^{unenforceablein the} eyes of law and the applicant^{bank has accepted the} mortgage without verifying the^{documents, property} (Flat in question) and true facts in respect^{thereof.It is} submitted that the defendant^{no.Z,by forging the same} f-\

¶30

TA NO/13s/201s^s

¶31

set of documents,^{has createdanothermortgage} in favor of Corporation^{Bank, VasundharaEnclave} Branch, Delhi-l10096^{and has takenloan from it also'} It is further submitted^{that the defendant no.2, for his} involvement in the^{aforesaid fraud, had also been} arrested by the^{Police and put in Tihar lail' As disclosed} by the applicant^{bank itself in sub-para (o) of para no.5,} that it, on the basis of^{allegedmortgagein its favor, had} initiated action under^{SARFAESI Ad., 2002 and issued} notices U/Ss 13(2) &^{13(4) of the Act in respect of the} Flat against which^{the answering defendant had filed S.} A. No.55B/2011 wherein^{this Hon'bleTribunal has} already^passed the^{order to maintain status quo and the} said S.A. is still^{pending for adjudication'Further,} another S. A. No.89l20lt^{filed by the answering} defendant against^{CorporationBank is also pendingfor} adjudication before^{this Hon'ble Tribunal whereinalso} an status^quo order^{is operating'Under the aforesaid} facts and circumstances of^{the case, the mortgage} claimed by the applicant^{bank in respect of the property} i.e. Flat No.10 C, Block^{No.3Phase III, Ashok Vihar,} Delhi 110052 is absolutely^{illegal, unlawfuland} unenforceable in the^{eyes of law as the answering} defendant is lawful owner^{in possession of the same} since the date of^{purchase i.e. 26.03.2010.It is prayed} that this Hontle^{Tribunal may dismiss the presentO.A.}

¶32

The applicant^{bank and the defendant no.4 have} filed their respective evidence.

¶33

Heard the^Ld. Counsel^{of the applicant bankand} perused the record.

¶34

The defendant^{no.1 to 3 has not flled any written} statement and they were^{proceeded exparte and only} defendant no.4^{has filed the written statement and also} (,\

¶35

¶36

TA NO/135/2015

¶37

filed the evidence^{in support of the written} statement. Subsequently,^{the defendant no.4 failed to} appear and^{was proceededexparte.From perusalofthe} record it is clear that^{the main contention of the} defendant no.4^{is that he is neitherthe borrower nor} guarantor of the loan and he^{is a third party. It is} submitted that the^{defendantno.2 Shri Ram Narayan} has no authority to^{mortgagethe subjectpropefi with} the bank as he is^{not the owner of the flat no.10-C,} Block no.-3, Phase-III,^{Ashok Vihar, Delhi. It is} submitted that the^{defendant no.4 is the lawful owner} of the said flat and^{has purchasedthe same from Shri} Daljit Singh and Ranjeet^{Singhvide registered saledeed} dated 26.03.2010. Shri^{DaljitSingh and Shri Ranjeet} Singh has^{purchasedthe same from Shri K.K.Jollywho} was the original allottee^{of the propertyvide registered} sale deed dated 18.11.2008.It^{is submitted that the} conveyance deed executed^{in fuvour of ShriRam} Narayan dated 01.12.2009^{by the DDA is forgedand} fabricated document^{as the DDA has already converted} the flat into freehold^{videregistered conveyancedeed} dated 15.10.2008,^{therefore, the allotment in favour of} Shri Ram Narayan^{does not arise. In this regard I have} perused the record. From^perusal of the^{record it is clear} that the applicant bank^{has filed the copy of the} conveyance deed dated^{01.12.2009which has been} exhibited as AW-U9.^{Thisis the conveyance deed which} has been executed by^{DDA in favour of ShriRam} Narayan on 01.12.2009.^{In this conveyancedeed it has} been mentioned^{that Shri K.K.Jollyhas executedpower} of attorney in^favour of^{Shri Ram Narayan authorizing} him to sell the^{property. Therefore,it is clear that as} per conveyance deed dated 01.12.2009^{Shri Ram} Narayan, defendant no.2^{is the owner of the subject}

¶38

¶39

TA NO/135/2015 7 property and has mortgaged with^{same with} the applicant bank. The^{submissionof the defendant} no.4 ls that the conveyance^{deed executed on} 01.12.2009 is a forged^{documentas the DDA has} already executed a^{conveyance deed in favourof Shri} K.K.Jolly. This Tribunal has^{no jurisdiction to declare} that the conveyance^{deed executed on 01.12.2009is} forged document. Only^{Civil Court has jurisdictionto do} so and no declaration^{has been obtained by the} defendant no.4 from^{the competent Civil Court that} conveyance deed dated^{0L.L2-2009 is a forged} document. Therefore,^{this Tribunalis of the view that} the defendant no.2^{has executed a validmortgagein} favour of the applicant^{bank for securityof the loan} sanctioned by the applicant.^{Therefore, the contention} of defendant no.4^{cannotbe accepted.}

¶40

From^perusal of the entire^{evidence, it is clear} that the defendants^{have failed to prove their case as} claimed in the wriften^{statement. On the other hand,} the applicant bank has^{provedhis case against the} defendants and^{therefore,the defendantsare liable to} pay jointly and severally the amount claimed by^the applicant bank and ,6" 94fl-A^{of the applicant bank is} liable to be allowed.

¶41

In the light of the above discussions,^{the present TA} deseryes to be allowed.

¶42

ORDER

¶43

I hereby allow this^{T.A. of the Applicant Bank and} direct the defendant nos. 1^{to 3 to pay jointly and} severally to the applicant bank^{within 30 days from} today, a sum of Rs.16,62,65L05^{along with cost,}

-sa

TA NO/135/2015

expenses and interest @16.500/o^{from the date of} filing of this O.A^{whichhas become TA till the date of} realization.

¶48

In case of failure^{to depositthe above amount} within the stipulated^{period, the same shall be} recovered from the sale of the^{mortgaged property} bearing Flat No.10-C,^{Block No.3, Phase-III,Ashok} Vihar, Delhi. In case of short^{fall, the sameshall be} recovered from the sale of^{the of personal movable and} immovable assets of the defendant^{nos.1to 3.}

¶49

Recovery Ceftificate be^{issuedforthwith and be} sent to Recovery Officer,^{Debts RecoveryTribunal-Il,} Delhi.

¶50

The registry of this^{Tribunal is hereby directed to} issue free copy of the order and^{send the sameto both} the pafties.

¶51

Parties are direct to appear^{before the Ld.} Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhion^{29.10.2025.Pending} IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

¶52

File be consigned to records.

¶53

€)

¶54

Date: 29.08.2025

¶55

t, (susHrl KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

¶56

This^judgement has been signed, dated^and pronounced in open coutt.

¶57

Date :29.08.2025

¶58

\S"\i -.. d (susHrl KUMIR nnsrdcil PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

Indian Bank v. M/s Om Jewelers House Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Bank v. M/s Om Jewelers House Pvt. Ltd.

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