Allowed

Indian Overseas Bank v. Meghal

DRT20 Apr 2026OA/232/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT Mumbai allowed the bank's application for recovery against defendants who became N.P.A. borrowers. The court, noting no defense was raised, directed defendants and joint owner to pay dues plus interest secured by mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

Payment of aggregate sum of ₹1,01,98,228/- with interest. Recovery Certificate issued. Applicants granted right to sell mortgaged property on redemption failure.

Indian Overseas Bank versus Meghal — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.232 OF 2022

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL No.2, MUMBAI

¶3

PRESIDING OFFICER: HARISH KUMAR KAUSHIK

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.232 OF 2022

¶5

Date of Institution: 23.01.2020 Date of Decision: 20.04.2026

¶6

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT : ₹1,01,98,228/-

¶7

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, A body Corporate Constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its Central Office at 763 Anna Salai Chennai - 600 002, Regional Office at 5^th Floor, E-Wing, Maker Tower Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005 and Branch office amongst others at CRJ Plaza, Ground floor, Lamington Road, Mumbai-400 007, though its Chief Manager Shri. Pralhad Prakash Pawaskar

¶8

… Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

SHRI. MEGHAL M. MEHTA, An adult, Indian Inhabitant residing at D/404 Amrat CHS Ltd., Jaywant Sawant Road, Dahisar (West), Mumbai- 400068.

¶11

SHRI. BIRAJ M. MEHTA, An adult, Indian Inhabitant residing at D/404 Amrat CHS Ltd., Jaywant Sawant Road, Dahisar (West), Mumbai- 400068.

¶12

…Defendants

¶13

Page 1 of 12

¶14

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.232 OF 2022

¶15

APPEARANCES

¶16

For the Applicant

¶17

: Ms Salma Ghaswala i/b M/s Ghaswala & Co. - Advocate

For Defendants

: None

J U D G M E N T

(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 aggregate sum of ₹1,01,98,228/- (Rupees One Crore One Lakh Ninety-Eight Thousand Two Hundred TwentyEight Only) wherein a sum of ₹1,00,45,583/(Rupees One Crore Forty-Five Thousand Five Hundred Eighty-Three Only) is due against defendant nos.1 and 2 alongwith pendent elite and future simple interest @ 8.50% as per MCLR rate and expenses incurred and a sum of ₹1,52,645/(Rupees One Lakhs Fifty-Two Thousand Six Hundred Forty-Five Only) is due against defendant no.1 alongwith pendent elite and future simple interest @ 9.85% as per base rate + 0.5% and expense incurred thereon from the date of presentation of the Original Application i.e. 23.01.2020 till payment/realization and to enforce the

¶22

Page 2 of 12

¶23

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.232 OF 2022

¶24

hypothecated and mortgaged securities.

¶25

The details of the claim amount are as under:-

¶26

Sr No	Nature of Facility	O/s. as on 31.12.2019	Accrued unapplied interest from 01.01.2020 to 20.02.2020	Total Amount
1	Housing Term Loan	₹99,56,547/-	₹89,036/-	₹1,00,45,583/-
2	Vehicle Term Loan	₹1,51,287/-	₹1,358/-	₹1,52,645/-
	Total Amount	-	-	₹1,01,98,228/-

¶27

(2) It is undisputed fact in the matter that the Defendant nos.1 and 2 were duly served with the summons vide order-sheet dated 20.12.2022. Despite service, the defendants did not enter their appearance and therefore, they were set ex-parte on 02.12.2025.

¶28

(3) Defendant nos.1 and 2 are the co-borrowers who approached the Applicant Bank and sought financial assistance by way of Housing Term Loan and Vehicle Term Loan (availed by defendant no.1) Facilities. Pursuant to the loan application made by defendants, the Applicant sanctioned the loan vide Sanction Letter dated 26.12.2013 in sum of ₹1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Only) under Subhagraha Housing Loan Scheme payable in 180 EMIs of ₹1,12,095/- (Rupees One Lakh Twelve Thousand Ninety-Five Only) per month

¶29

Page 3 of 12

¶30

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.232 OF 2022

¶31

commencing from 6 months from the disbursement of loan or at the time of possession of flat whichever is earliest with interest at the rate of Floating Rate @ 10.75% (Base Rate 1.00%0.50%) (50 bps concession is provided since margin is more than 25%). Thereafter the defendant no.1 approached the Applicant bank for sanction of Pushpaka loan for purchase of Honda Mobilio V MT Diesel car for an amount of ₹9,00,000/(Rupees Nine Lakhs Only) vide Sanction letter dated 05.05.2015 repayable with 72 EMIs of ₹17,016/(Rupees Seventeen Thousand Sixteen Only) commencing next month from the date of disbursement with interest @ 10.75% per annum.

¶32

The details of the Sanctioned amounts are as

¶33

under: -

¶34

S r Date o f Sa nct io n	Nat ure o f Fac ilit ie s	Am ount	R OI	Sec ur itie s
N o
1 26. 12. 20 13	Sub ha gra	₹1, 00, 00, 00 0/ -	F loat ing R at e	Fla t N o. B	- 3 0 1, B -
	ha		@ 10.7 5 %	Wing 3rd	F loor
	Ho us ing		(Ba s e R at e	adm eas ur ing	a bo ut
	Loan		1.0 0% - 0.5 0% )	92 0 sq. f t.	(car p et
	Schem e		(5 0 bp s	area ), in t he	b uilding
			co nc e ss io n is prov ide d	kno w n a s Mad hupuri	s it ua t ed
			sinc e mar gin	Apar tme nts	at
			is mor e t ha n	Go khale	Ro ad,
			25 % )	Da ha nukar	Wad i
				Kand iv ili Mum ba i- 40 0	W e st, 0 67 at
				Villa ge K Ta luka Bor i Re gis tra tio n	a nd ivili, va lli the Distr ict

¶35

Page 4 of 12

¶36

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.232 OF 2022

¶37

				of Mumba i a nd Sub Dis tr ic t of B andra, Mum ba i be aring Sur ve y No. 8 1B (p art ), C it y in the nam e Surv e y No. 10 17 of Mr B ira j Muke s hc ha ndra & Mr Me ghal Muke s hc ha ndra in Me hta Me ht a (s ale co ns idera t io n of ₹ 1,4 2,0 0,0 00/ - exc lud ing s tam p d ut y and re gis trat io n c har ge s ).
Total Am ount	-	₹1,00, 00, 000/ -	-	-
2 05. 05. 20 15	Ve hic le Loan	₹9, 00, 00 0/ -	10. 75 % p er annum	Hyp ot hec ati o n of Ho nd a Mob ilio V MT Die s e l car for a n amount of ₹9, 00, 00 0/ - (R up ee s Nine La k hs Only).
Total Am ount	-	₹9,00, 000/ -	-	-

¶38

(4) On the dates given below, defendants signed and executed the loan and security documents as set out in paragraph nos. 5.3 to 5.17 of the Original Application. Defendants hypothecated Honda Mobilio V MT Diesel car for an amount of ₹9,00,000/(Rupees Nine Lakhs Only) and mortgaged Flat No. B-301 , B-Wing 3rd Floor admeasuring about 920 sq. ft. (carpet area), in the building known as situated Madhupuri Apartments at Gokhale Road, Dahanukar Wadi Kandivili West, Mumbai-400067 at Village Kandivili, Taluka Borivalli the Registration District of Mumbai and Sub District of Bandra, Mumbai bearing Survey No. 81B (part), City in the

¶39

Page 5 of 12

¶40

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.232 OF 2022

¶41

name Survey No. 1017 of Mr Biraj Mukeshchandra & Mr Meghal Mukeshchandra in Mehta Mehta (sale consideration of ₹ 1,42,00,000/- excluding stamp duty and registration charges) to secure the loan.

¶42

The details of the documents executed by the Defendants under sanction letter dated 26.12.2013 are as under: -

¶43

(a) Sanction Letter for HOUSING TERM LOAN dated 26.12.2013;

¶44

(b) (HL-2) Housing Term Loan Agreement dated 07.01.2014;

¶45

¶46

(d) Memorandum of Equitable Mortgage dated 07.01.2014;

¶47

(e) (F-378) Letter of Repayment EMI dated 07.01.2014;

¶48

(f) (F-379) Confirmation letter of E.M. dated 08.01.2014;

¶49

(g) Agreement for Sale dated 30.10.2013 between M/s Wadhwa Estate & Developers (I) Pvt. Ltd. And Mr Biraj Mukeshchandra Mehta & Mr Meghal Mukeshchandra Mehta registered under No.BRL-5/9025/2013;

¶50

(h) NOC from Builder dated 06.01.2014.

¶51

Page 6 of 12

¶52

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.232 OF 2022

¶53

The details of the documents executed by the Defendant no.1 under sanction letter dated 05.05.2015 are as under: -

¶54

(a) Sanction letter for VEHICLE TERM LOAN dated 05.05.2015;

¶55

(b) 14A Demand Promissory Note dated 05.05.2015;

¶56

¶57

(d) Hypothecation of Agreement dated 05.05.2015;

¶58

(e) Balance Confirmation of Housing Loan dated 04.12.2018 availed by both the defendants;

¶59

(f) Balance Confirmation of Car Loan dated 04.12.2018 availed by defendant no.1.

¶60

(5) The Applicant state that the said vehicle had been sold by the bank under public auction by giving due notice to the defendant and realised an amount of ₹3,67,102/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Sixty-Seven Thousand One Hundred Two Only) and the same was appropriated to the loan account.

¶61

(6) 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 Assets (N.P.A.) on 28.02.2019 as per RBI Guidelines.

¶62

Page 7 of 12

¶63

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.232 OF 2022

¶64

Therefore, on 13.09.2019, the applicant, through its advocate, called upon defendants to liquidate the outstanding in the sum of ₹1,43,703.72/(Rupees One Lakh Forty-Three Thousand Seven Hundred Three and paisa Seventy-Two Only) as on 05.09.2019 along with future interest @11.95% from 06.09.2019 till payment and/or realization within 1 week from receipt of this notice. Despite notice, defendant nos. 1 and 2 failed and neglected to pay.

¶65

(7) As on 20.01.2020, there was owing, due and payable by defendants to the applicant the the aggregate sum of ₹1,01,98,228/- (Rupees One Crore One Lakh Ninety-Eight Thousand Two Hundred Twenty-Eight Only) wherein a sum of ₹1,00,45,583/(Rupees One Crore Forty-Five Thousand Five Hundred Eighty-Three Only) is due against defendant nos.1 and 2 alongwith pendent elite and future simple interest @ 8.50% as per MCLR rate and expenses incurred and a sum of ₹1,52,645/(Rupees One Lakhs Fifty-Two Thousand Six Hundred Forty-Five Only) is due against defendant no.1 alongwith pendent elite and future simple interest @ 9.85% as per base rate + 0.5% and expense incurred thereon. The applicant has maintained the loan ledger extract and the entries posted therein are made in the usual and ordinary course of the banking

¶66

Page 8 of 12

¶67

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.232 OF 2022

¶68

business.

¶69

(8) 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 23.01.2020.

¶70

(9) The applicant has filed affidavit (exhibit-6) in lieu of examination in chief of Mrs Vijayalaxmi Amit Bali, Senior Mnager and list of documents (exhibit-7) thereby adducing in evidence the documents at AW-1 to AW-23, which are admitted in evidence, read, recorded and exhibited.

¶71

(10) Accordingly, in the Original Application was filed for the recovery of aggregate sum of ₹1,01,98,228/- (Rupees One Crore One Lakh Ninety-Eight Thousand Two Hundred TwentyEight Only) wherein a sum of ₹1,00,45,583/(Rupees One Crore Forty-Five Thousand Five Hundred Eighty-Three Only) is due against defendant nos.1 and 2 alongwith pendent elite and future simple interest @ 8.50% as per MCLR rate and expenses incurred and a sum of ₹1,52,645/(Rupees One Lakhs Fifty-Two Thousand Six Hundred Forty-Five Only) is due against defendant no.1 alongwith pendent elite and future simple interest @ 9.85% as per base rate + 0.5% and expense incurred thereon from the date of presentation of the Original Application i.e. 23.01.2020 till

¶72

Page 9 of 12

¶73

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.232 OF 2022

¶74

payment/realisation.

¶75

(11) The Tribunal has scrutinised and examined the allegations contained in the Original Application and analysed the evidence adduced by the applicant which has gone unchallenged, uncontroverted and unrebutted.

¶76

(12) 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.

¶77

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

¶78

(14) Hence, the following order:

¶79

ORDER

¶80

(A) The Original Application No.232 of 2022 is allowed with costs.

¶81

(B) Defendant nos.1 and 2 are ordered and directed to pay to the applicant, either jointly or severally, the aggregate sum of ₹1,01,98,228/- (Rupees One Crore One Lakh Ninety-Eight Thousand Two Hundred Twenty-Eight Only) wherein a sum of ₹1,00,45,583/(Rupees One Crore Forty-Five Thousand Five Hundred Eighty-Three Only) is due against defendant nos.1 and 2 alongwith pendent elite and future simple interest @ 8.50% as per

¶82

Page 10 of 12

¶83

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.232 OF 2022

¶84

MCLR rate and expenses incurred and a sum of ₹1,52,645/(Rupees One Lakhs Fifty-Two Thousand Six Hundred Forty-Five Only) is due against defendant no.1 alongwith pendent elite and future simple interest @ 9.85% as per base rate + 0.5% and expense incurred thereon from the date of presentation of the Original Application i.e. 23.01.2020 till payment/realization after adjusting the recoveries made by the Applicant under SARFAESI Act,2002 or any other amount paid by the borrowers after filing of this present O.A.No.232 of 2022.

¶85

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting mortgaged immovable property, that is, Flat No. B-301 , B-Wing, 3^rd Floor admeasuring about 920 sq. ft. (carpet area), in the building known as situated Madhupuri Apartments at Gokhale Road, Dahanukar Wadi Kandivili West, Mumbai-400067 at Village Kandivili, Taluka Borivalli the Registration District of Mumbai and Sub District of Bandra, Mumbai bearing Survey No. 81B (part), City in the name Survey No. 1017 of Mr Biraj Mukeshchandra & Mr Meghal Mukeshchandra in Mehta Mehta (sale consideration of ₹1,42,00,000/- excluding stamp duty and registration charges).

¶86

(D) Defendant nos.1 and 2 are entitled to redeem the mortgaged property as per law failing which the

¶87

Page 11 of 12

¶88

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.232 OF 2022

¶89

applicant has right to proceed to sell the mortgaged property and recover dues as per law.

¶90

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶91

(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.

¶92

Sd/-

¶93

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

¶94

Page 12 of 12

Indian Overseas Bank v. Meghal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Overseas Bank v. Meghal

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

Mr Rahul Hariraj Sharma and Ors. versus Bharat Cooperative Bank Mumbai Limited

Manavjeet Singh versus Aditya Birla Finance Limited

Mr Ravikant Singh versus Axis Bank

Canara Bank versus M/S S P Decoration through Prop. Suhas Shivram Desai

Kharat Tatyaso Abaji versus Hdfc Bank

Saraswat Cooperative Bank Limited versus Ms Purva constructions