Partly allowed

Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank) v. Gaurav Deviprasad Mishra

DRT7 Apr 2026OA/130/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application under Section 19(1) of the RDBFI Act. The court adjudicated a loan default claim of approximately ₹25.7 lakh including interest, enforced the mortgaged flat as security, issued a recovery certificate, and directed payment against the joint and several liability of the borrower and guarantors.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay ₹25,70,885 with future simple interest @ 11.15% p.a.; mortgaged flat secured; Recovery Certificate issued to Applicant.

Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank) versus Gaurav… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.130 OF 2022

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL No.2, MUMBAI

¶3

PRESIDING OFFICER: HARISH KUMAR KAUSHIK

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.130 OF 2022

¶5

Date of Institution: 17.01.2019 Date of Decision: 07.04.2026

¶6

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT : ₹ 25,70,885/-

¶7

INDIAN BANK,

¶8

A Body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970 having their Branch amongst other places at Jogeshwari West Branch, 1^st Floor, Henna Shopping Arcade, S. V. Road, Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai – 400 102. Through Ms. Ruchi Mehta, Senior Manager.

¶9

… Applicant

¶10

Versus

¶11

MR. GAURAV DEVIPRASAD MISHRA, Individual Father’s name – Devprasad Mishra Flat No. 302, B-Wing, Bhagya Laxmi CHS Ltd., Tuling Road, Nalasopara (East), Thane – 401209. PAN – BALPM9944B. 2. MR. LATESH D RAO, 2/410, Saiganesh Krupa Society, Sainath Nagar, MIDC,

¶12

Page 1 of 8

¶13

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.130 OF 2022

¶14

Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 093.

¶15

MR. PRABHAT R, GUPTA, Room No.2, Telekar Niwas, Near Sangeeta Talkies, Datta Mandir Road, Malad (East), Mumbai – 400 097.

¶16

…Defendants

¶17

APPEARANCES

¶18

For the Applicant : Ms Tejasvi D. Dalvi - Advocate For Defendants : None – Advocate

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

(1) This is an application under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of the Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 renamed as Recovery of the Debt and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (for short, ‘the 1993 Act’) to recover ₹25,70,885/(Rupees Twenty-Five Lakhs Seventy Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty-Five Only) as on 17.01.2019 with interest @ 11.15% per annum from the date of presentation of the Original Application till payment/realization and to enforce the mortgaged security.

¶21

The details of the claim amount are as under: -

¶22

Sr	Nature of	O/s. amount	Accrued	Accrued	Total Amount
No	Facility		Interest	Penal
				Interest
1	Term Loan	₹21,81,591/-	₹3,86,468/-	₹2,286/-	₹25,70,885/-

¶23

Page 2 of 8

¶24

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.130 OF 2022

¶25

(2) Defendant nos.1 to 3 were duly served with the summons vide order-sheet dated 31.10.2024. Despite service, the defendants did not enter their appearance and therefore, they were set ex-parte on 09.02.2026.

¶26

(3) Defendant no.1 is the principal borrower who approached the Applicant Bank seeking financial assistance by way of Credit Facility i.e. Housing Loan and Defendant no.2 and 3 stood as guarantors. Pursuant to the loan application made by defendant no.1, the Applicant sanctioned the loan in sum of ₹21,50,000/- (Rupees TwentyOne Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) vide Sanction Letter dated 12.07.2010 payable in 240 Equated Monthly Installments (EMIs) of ₹21,000/- (Rupees Twenty-One Thousand Only) each commencing from August, 2010 onwards. The total repayment period is 240 months inclusive of Moratorium period of nil months (the period of moratorium is 1 month) with interest @ 2% above the Base Rate per annum with monthly rests for the value received (under floating rate of interest). The loan was availed for purchase of a Flat for residential purpose at a Total cost of ₹27,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Seven Lakhs Only) from Mrs. Shobha Khatri Mahajan and that the borrower had rightly acknowledged the loan vide Acknowledgement letter dated 16.07.2010.

¶27

Page 3 of 8

¶28

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.130 OF 2022

¶29

The details of the amount sanction is as follows: -

¶30

S	Date of	Nature of	Loan Amount	Interest	Security
r N	Sanction	Facility
o
1 .	12.07.2010	Term Loan	₹21,50,000/-	@ 2% above the Base Rate	Flat No.26, 6th Floor, A
				per annum with monthly	Wing, “Sadanand
				rests for the	Park” CHS
				value received (under floating	Ltd. Village- Borivali, Near
				rate of	Old M.H.B
				interest)	Colony, Near Gorai Depot, Gorai Road, Borivali (West), Mumbai – 400 091.
	Total	-	₹21,50,000/-	-	-

¶31

(4) On 16.07.2010 and 17.07.2010, defendants signed and executed the loan and security documents as set out in paragraph nos. (iv) (Page No.7) of the Original Application. Defendants mortgaged Flat No.26 , 6^th Floor, A-Wing, “Sadanand Par” Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Village- Borivali, Near Old M.H.B Colony, Near Gorai Depot, Gorai Road, Borivali (West), Mumbai – 400 091 to secure the loan.

¶32

The Defendants executed following documents pursuant the Sanction letter dated 12.07.2010: - (a) Demand Promissory Note dated 16.07.2010

¶33

Page 4 of 8

¶34

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.130 OF 2022

¶35

for ₹21,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-One Lakhs Only);

¶36

(b) Recital dated 16.07.2010;

¶37

¶38

(d) Letter of Mortgagor confirming deposit of Title Deeds for Borrower dated 17.07.2010;

¶39

(e) Registered Power of Attorney dated 16.07.2010 in favour of the Applicant;

¶40

(f) Letter of Guarantee for Executed by the Defendant No.2 and 3 dated 16.07.2010 for an amount of ₹21,50,000/- (Rupees TwentyOne Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only).

¶41

(5) After availing the loan, defendants did not adhere to the financial discipline and committed default in payment of instalments and repayment of the loan and accordingly the accounts of the borrowers were declared as Non-Performing Asset (N.P.A.) on 16.07.2017 as per RBI Guidelines. Therefore, on 23.11.2018, the applicant, through its advocate, called upon defendants to liquidate the outstanding in the sum of ₹25,19,770.29/(Rupees Twenty-Five Lakhs Nineteen Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy and paisa Twenty-Nine Only) as on 02.11.2018 with interest immediately on receipt of the said notice dated 23.11.2018. Despite issuance of the said notice, defendant

¶42

Page 5 of 8

¶43

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.130 OF 2022

¶44

nos. 1, 2 and 3 failed and neglected to pay.

¶45

(6) As of 17.01.2019, there was owing, due and payable by defendants to the applicant the aggregate sum of ₹25,70,885/- (Rupees TwentyFive Lakhs Seventy Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty-Five Only) together with interest @ 11.15% p.a. The applicant has maintained the loan ledger extract and the entries posted therein are made in the usual and ordinary course of the banking business.

¶46

(7) Since, defendants failed and neglected to make the payment, the applicant was left with no other alternate but to file the Original Application which was presented on 17.01.2019.

¶47

(8) The applicant has filed affidavit (exhibit-7) in lieu of examination in chief of Ms Ruchi Mehta, Senior Manager and list of documents (exhibit-8) thereby adducing in evidence the documents at AW-1 to AW-19, which are admitted in evidence, read, recorded and exhibited.

¶48

(9) Accordingly, in the Original Application was filed for the recovery of ₹25,70,885/- (Rupees TwentyFive Lakhs Seventy Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty-Five Only) as on 17.01.2019 with interest @ 11.15% per annum from the date of presentation of the Original Application, that is, 17.01.2019 till payment/realisation.

¶49

(10) The Tribunal have scrutinised and examined the

¶50

Page 6 of 8

¶51

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.130 OF 2022

¶52

allegations contained in the Original Application and analysed the evidence adduced by the applicant which has gone unchallenged, uncontroverted and unrebutted.

¶53

(11) Upon careful scrutiny and the examination of the Original Application, analysing the evidence and giving due weightage to the documentary evidence adduced by the applicant, the Tribunal views that there is no reason to disbelieve the claim made by the applicant bank.

¶54

(12) In view of the observations made hereinabove, Original Application filed by the applicant deserves to be granted.

¶55

(13) Hence, the following order:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

(A) The Original Application No. 130 of 2022 is partly allowed with respect to clause 6 (a) (i) & (ii) and clause 6 (c) with costs.

¶58

(B) Defendant nos. 1 to 3 are ordered and directed to pay to the applicant, either jointly or severally, the aggregate sum of ₹25,70,885/(Rupees Twenty-Five Lakhs Seventy Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty-Five Only) with future simple interest @ 11.15 % per annum from the Original Application’s presentation date, that is, 17.01.2019 till payment/realization after adjusting the recoveries made by the Applicant under SARFAESI Act, 2002 or any other amount

¶59

Page 7 of 8

¶60

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.130 OF 2022

¶61

paid by the borrowers after filing of this present O.A. No. 130 of 2022.

¶62

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting movable mortgaged property, that is, Flat No.26, 6^th Floor, A Wing, “Sadanand Par” Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Village- Borivali, Near Old M.H.B Colony, Near Gorai Depot, Gorai Road, Borivali (West), Mumbai – 400 091.

¶63

(D) Defendant nos.1 to 3 are entitled to redeem the mortgage property as per law failing which the applicant has right to proceed to sell the mortgaged property and recover dues as per law.

¶64

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶65

(F) The learned Registrar is directed to send a copy of the judgment and recovery certificate to (i) the applicant, (ii) defendant and (iii) the Recovery Officer by post and email.

¶66

Sd/-

¶67

(Harish Kumar Kaushik) Presiding Officer, DRT-2, Mumbai

¶68

Page 8 of 8

Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank) v. Gaurav Deviprasad Mishra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank) v. Gaurav Deviprasad Mishra

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

Bank of Baroda versus Ms Crash Boom bang

Bank of Baroda versus Arshad Khalik Abid

Asrec (India) Limited versus Sandeep Indrajeet Suri

Bank of India versus Noble Travels and Transport Private Limited

Mr Sirajuddin Hafizulla Khan versus Bharat Cooperative Bank Mumbai Limited

Union Bank of India versus Jigna Devang