Allowed

Karur Vysya Bank v. Singh Communication

DRT24 Aug 2026OA/112/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellant bank filed an original application for recovery of dues of Rs.62 lacs from a defaulting soft loan borrower and guarantor. The debtors appeared ex-parte. The Tribunal allowed the application and directed joint and several recovery.

What did the court decide?

Directed defendants to pay Rs.62,26,619.93 with interest and costs within 30 days; directed issuance of recovery certificate.

Karur Vysya Bank versus Singh Communication — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

O.A. No.112 of 2024

¶2

Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi 4th floor, Jeevan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi -

¶3

Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sharma

¶4

O.A. No.112 of 2024

¶5

Karur Vysya Bank Sector-14, Gurgaon, Haryana

¶6

Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s Singh Communication Through its Proprietor Sh.Harpal Singh 2320, Empire Tower, Old Delhi Road

¶9

Gurgaon, Haryana-122001

¶10

Sh.Harpal Singh R/o H.No.684, Sector-31, Gurgaon Haryana-122001

¶11

Smt.Daljeet Kaur w/o Sh.Harpal Singh R/o H.No.684, Sector-31, Gurgaon Haryana-122001

¶12

Also at:

¶13

R/o H.No.1384, Village Sukhrali Sector-17, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001

¶14

Defendants

¶15

Present: Sh.Navin Kumar, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶16

Date of Reserve: 07.08.2026

¶17

Date of Pronouncement: 24.08.2026

¶18

FINAL ORDER

¶19

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 02.01.2024 through Shri R.S.Krishna, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the

¶20

¶21

O.A. No.112 of 2024

¶22

defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.62,26,619.93 (Rupees Sixty Two Lacs Twenty Six Thousand Six Hundred Nineteen and paisa Ninety Three only) as on 30.09.2023 along with future and pendentelite interest @11.90% per annum with monthly rests from 01.10.2023 along with @3% penal interest till the date of realization and costs.

¶23

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of defendant no.1 through defendant no.2 as its sole proprietor engaged in the business of retailing of mobile/laptop/tablets and accessories, the applicant bank sanctioned cash credit facility for Rs.37.00 lacs (Rupees Thirty Seven lacs only) on 20.01.2014 for business expansion against hypothecation of stocks and equitable mortgage of property owned by defendant no.2. The applicant bank renewed the credit facility from time to time lastly on 10.12.2019 for Rs.37.00 lacs (Rupees Thirty Seven lacs only) @14.50% rate of interest per annum in favour of defendant no.1. In case of default in repayment of interest, the defendants agreed to pay penal interest @3% over the agreed rate of interest. The defendant no.3 stood as guarantor for the credit facility sanctioned by applicant bank in favour of defendant no.1.

¶24

That in order to avail the credit facility, the defendant No.2 as proprietor of defendant no.1 executed Varthagamithra - OD/Term Loan Agreement on 20.01.2014 and defendant no.2 executed Agreement of Guarantee on 29.10.2018.

¶25

In order to secure the credit facility, the defendant no.2 as proprietor of defendant no.1 hypothecated the current assets including stock of mobile / laptop and accessories of the firm in favour of applicant bank on 20.01.2014.

¶26

¶27

O.A. No.112 of 2024

¶28

Further, in order to secure the credit facility, the defendant no.1 executed EM-1 Declaration cum Undertaking for equitable mortgage dated 20.01.2014, EM-2 Declaration for equitable mortgage dated 20.01.2014 and EM-5 Confirmation of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 21.01.2014 thereby created equitable mortgage of property bearing Entire built up at 38/16, Municipal No.635/12, New No.038/15, Nai Basti, Tehsil and Dist. Gurgaon, Haryana admeasuring 100 sq.yards with plinth area of 1400 sq.ft. approx. by depositing Gift Deed dated 03.08.2006 executed by Sh.Surjit Singh s/o Karan Singh in favour of defendant no.2 duly registered in the office of SubRegistrar, Gurgaon as document No.9730 in Bahi No.1, Jild.No.8485 towards the applicant bank.

¶29

The defendant no.2 and defendant no.3 acknowledged their liability from time to time on various dates from 01.05.2015 till 30.06.2021 as reflecting in statement of account towards the applicant bank.

¶30

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the credit facility, the defendants failed to make the payment of interest and to comply with the terms and conditions despite request letters. Ultimately, the account was declared as NPA on 23.03.2021 by the applicant bank as per RBI guidelines and issued recall notice on 03.10.2023 but neglected by the defendants, hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶31

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite proper service, the defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 30.04.2025, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as they have failed to file written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets.

sd-

O.A. No.112 of 2024

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Sh.R.S.Krishna, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents such as Power of Attorney Ex.AW1/1, Sanction Letter Ex.A-2(Colly), Varthagamithra-OD/Term Loan Agreement Ex.A-3, EM-1 Declaration cum Undertaking for Equitable Mortgage Ex.A-4, EM-2 Declaration for equitable mortgage Ex.A-5, EM-5 Confirmation of Deposit of Title Deed Ex.A-6, Gift Deed Ex.A-7, Sanction Letters Ex.A-8 to Ex.A-11 & A-13, Agreement of Guarantee Ex.A-12, Acknowledgements of Debt Ex.A-14(Colly), Recall Notice Ex.A-15, Statement of Account along with Certificate under Section 65-B(2) of Indian Evidence Act Ex.A-16, and under Section 2A(b) of Bankers' Book Evidence Act Ex.A-17 (Colly).

¶36

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.

¶37

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.

¶38

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

¶39

ORDER

¶40

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.62,26,619.93 (Rupees Sixty Two Lacs Twenty Six

O.A. No.112 of 2024

Thousand Six Hundred Nineteen and paisa Ninety Three only) as on 30.09.2023 along with pendentelite arid future interest @11.90% per annum with monthly rests from 01.10.2023 till the date of its realization and costs, failing which, the amount may be realized from sale of current assets of defendant no.1 and mortgaged property bearing Entire built up at 38/16, Municipal No.635/12, New No.038/15, Nai Basti, Tehsil and Dist. Gurgaon, Haryana admeasuring 100 sq.yards owned by defendant no.2. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶45

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

¶46

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 27.10.2026.

¶47

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

¶48

(GOVIND BAL �ARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶49

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 24.08.2026

¶50

Karur Vysya Bank v. Singh Communication

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karur Vysya Bank v. Singh Communication

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bank of India versus Pavithra E

Mohammad Azeem Shad and another versus Fullerton India housing finance company limited

Mohd Naseemuddin versus Icici Bank Limited

Hdfc Bank versus Karan Vohra

Uco Bank versus Shri Sher Singh

Hdfc Bank versus Gopal Enterprises