Allowed

Karur Vysya Bank v. Sajid Abbas and Anr.

DRT28 Aug 2025TA/951/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. for recovery of a home loan default. Despite defendants' non-appearance, the Tribunal proceeded ex-parte, reduced interest to 12% per annum, and directed payment of the principal sum with interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Directed defendants to pay Rs.74,69,929.39 with interest at 12% per annum from filing within 30 days; recovery from sale of mortgaged apartment and other properties if unpaid.

Karur Vysya Bank versus Sajid Abbas and Anr. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No.951 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. 951 of 2022

¶5

Karur Vysya Bank Ltd.

¶6

Plot no.9 and 10, 23-24

¶7

Advocate Chambers, RDC Applicant

¶8

Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201002

¶9

Versus

¶10

Mr. Sajid Abbas S/o Guam Mujtaba B-3. 2^{nd floor, Parking Entry Nangal Dewat} Vasant Kunj, South West Delhi-110070

¶11

Also at: D703, Nibus Golden Palms Sector-168, Noida Greater Noida Expressway Chhaproli Khadar, Chhaprauli Bengal Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida Uttar Pradesh-20130⁵

¶12

M/s JSS Buildcon Private Limited 2. 1/10243, Gali no.1, Gorakh Park Shandara, Delhi-110032

¶13

Also at: GI-I-02/C, Sector-01 Greater Noida Defendants West Uttar Pradesh-201301

¶14

Present: Mr. Sarthak Bhatia, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶15

Date of Institution: 09.05.2022

¶16

Date of Pronouncement: 28.08.2025

¶17

T.A. No.951 of 2022

¶18

FINAL ORDER

¶19

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 09.05.2022 before DRT-III, Delhi and then transferred to DRT-I Delhi through Shri P.S. Bhaskaran, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.74,69,929.39/- (Rupees Seventy Four Lacs Sixty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Nine and Paisa Thirty Nine only) as on 28.10.2021 along with interest ©11.75% and penal interest ©3% per annum from the date of filing this application till the date of its realization and costs.

¶20

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the 2. defendant no.1, the applicant bank sanctioned Home loan facility for the sum of Rs.70,94,447/^{- (Rupees Seventy Lacs} Ninety Four Thousand Four Hundred Forty Seven only) for purchasing the allotted Apartment no.T-3/C-710, 10^{th Block-7,} in Tower T-3 in the project known as NCR Monarch situated at Plot no.GH-02C, Sector-1, Greater Noida West, Gautam Budh Nagar Uttar Pradesh, under 'Digital Home Loan-777' on 12.06.2019 ©9.65% interest per annum which was repayable in 300 Equated Monthly Installments of Rs.62,725/- each against mortgage of a property. Defendants also agreed to pay penal interest ©3% per annum in case of default or delay.

¶21

That in order to avail the housing loan facility, the defendant submitted Loan Application and executed Builder buyer Agreement, Sanction Letter, Housing Loan Agreement, Tripartite agreement, Permission to mortgage in favour of the applicant bank.

¶22

¶23

T.A. No.951 of 2022

¶24

That in order to secure the loan facilities, the defendants 4. created mortgage of the Apartment no.T-3/C-710, 10^{th Block-} 7, in Tower T-3 in the project known as NCR Monarch situated at Plot no.GH-02C, Sector-1, Greater Noida West, Gautam Budh Nagar Uttar Pradesh with the applicant bank on the basis of Permission to Mortgage letter dated 12.06.2019 issued by Defendant no.2 to the applicant bank.

¶25

The defendants entered into Tripartite Agreement with 5. applicant bank and defendant no.2 undertook to refund all the amount disbursed to defendant no.1 by the applicant bank.

¶26

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after 6. availing the aforesaid loan facility, the defendants failed to maintain financial discipline and comply with the terms and conditions of loan despite several requests and reminders and defaulted in payment of monthly installments in time to the applicant bank. Ultimately, the applicant bank classified housing loan account as NPA on 03.10.2021 but defendants neglected to return the amount as per agreement. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶27

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and 7. despite proper service the defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 02.05.2025 and 11.08.2025, defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as they have not appeared before the Tribunal nor written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have been filed.

¶28

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri P.S. Bhaskaran, authorized

¶29

T.A. No.951 of 2022

¶30

representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as Power of Attorney, Builder Buyer Agreement, Sanction letter, Housing Loan Agreement, Tripartite Agreement, Permission of mortgage, Statement of Account certifies under Banker's Evidence Act as Ex.AW-1/1 to Ex.AW1/7.

¶31

The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments 9. 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.

¶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

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.

¶34

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

T.A. No.951 of 2022

ORDER

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank, jointly or severally, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.74,69,929.39/- (Rupees Seventy Four Lacs Sixty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Nine and Paisa Thirty Nine only) along with interest ©12% per annum from the date of filing this application till its realization with costs, failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of Apartment no.T-3/C^{-710, 10th Block-7, in Tower T-3 in the} project known as NCR Monarch situated at Plot no.GH-02C, Sector-1, Greater Noida West, Gautam Budh Nagar Uttar Pradesh. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶39

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

¶40

(III)^{Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer,} DRT I, Delhi on 31.10.2025.

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 28.08.2025

Karur Vysya Bank v. Sajid Abbas and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karur Vysya Bank v. Sajid Abbas and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Cm versus Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Punjab National Bank versus Smt. Maninderjeet Kaur

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Dharmender

Andhra Bank versus Ms Ally India Products

Idfc First Bank Limited versus Sanjeev Kumar Gupta

Canara Bank versus Jitender Yadav