Allowed

Punjab and Sind Bank v. Sh. Samkit Parakh

DRT26 Feb 2026TA/1124/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application for recovery of a housing loan of Rs.28.52 lakhs with interest against co-borrowers and a guarantor. The Tribunal directed the recovery of the amount from the subject property and distribution of the recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

The defendants were directed to pay Rs.28,52,195.97 with interest, and the flat was ordered to be sold for recovery of the dues.

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Sh. Samkit Parakh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

T.A. No.1124 of 2023

¶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. 1124 of 2023

¶5

P njab & Sind Bank

¶6

K ison Tower, 1st Floor,

¶7

A pha Commercial Belt-I,

¶8

G eater Noida, UP-201308

¶9

Applicant

¶10

rsus

¶11

1 Sh.Samkit Parakh s/o Kamal Prakash R o House No.4348/B-2, 2nd Floor

¶12

4 C, Madan Mohan Street, Darya Ganj N w Delhi-110002

¶13

2 Sh.Vidit Parakh s/o Kamal Prakash

¶14

R o House No.4348/B-2, 2nd Floor

¶15

4 C, Madan Mohan Street, Darya Ganj N w Delhi-110002

¶16

3 Sh.Praveen Kumar Singh s/o Satya Prakash Singh o Flat No.S-1604, Ajnara Zenex

¶17

C ossing Republic Ghaziabad, UP-201016

¶18

4 M/s Future World Green Homes Pvt.Ltd. gd Office: B-202, Vivek Vihar S andara, Delhi-110092

¶19

/s Future World Green Homes Pvt.Ltd. -39, Sector-06, Noida, e .B.Nagar, UP

¶20

Iso at: /s Future World Green Homes Pvt.Ltd. I -247/1, Sector-63, Noida, .B.Nagar, UP Defendants

¶21

resent: Shri Arun Shukla, Counsel for the applicant bank Date of Reserve: 17.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 26.02.2026

T.A. No.1124 of 2023

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant b nk on 03.03.2022 before DRT-III, Delhi and then transferred to DRT-I Delhi under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and B nkruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a s m of Rs.28,52,195.97 (Rupees Twenty Eight Lacs Fifty Two T ousand One Hundred Ninety Five & paisa Ninety Seven only) a on 31.01.2022 along with pendentelite and future interest Cl^{7.65% per annum with monthly rest from 01.02.2022 till the} date of realization and costs.

¶26

2 The brief facts of the case are that at the request of d fendant no.1 & 2 as co-borrower vide their loan application dated 12.01.2016 with relevant documents, the applicant bank s nctioned Housing Loan of Rs.27.50 lacs (Rupees Twenty S-ven Lacs Fifty Thousand Only) on 16.02.2016 to be payable in 300 EMIs of Rs.25,336/- @9.75% interest per a num in order to purchase of under construction residential Fat no.1606, 16th Floor, Tower I, Plot No.GH-16E, Sector-1, ereater Noida West, UP admsg 980 sq.ft. being developed & constructed by defendant no.4 on the basis of allotment letter d ted 12.06.2015. The defendant no.3 stood as guarantor for t e housing loan availed by defendant no.1 & 2.

¶27

That in order to avail the housing loan facility, the defendant no.1 & 2 submitted loan application and executed anction Letter, Demand Promissory Note, Loan Agreement and defendant no.3 executed Agreement of Guarantee on 16.02.2016. The defendant no.1,2 and 4 executed Tripartite greement dated 16.02.2016 with the applicant bank.

¶28

¶29

T.A. No.1124 of 2023

¶30

4 As per Tripartite Agreement dated 16.02.2016, d fendant no.4 was liable to construct and develop and h ndover the physical possession of allotted unit with title d eds for creation of mortgage, but failed to delivered the p•ssession of flat nor delivered conveyance deed or sale deed o flat in terms of Flat buyer agreement. As per agreement, the d fendant no.4 marked lien on the flat and no objection to ortgaging the flat with the applicant bank.

¶31

5 It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after a ailing the housing loan facility, the defendants failed to cimply with the terms and conditions of sanction despite legal r call notice dated 08.11.2021 to pay entire outstanding by i yoking guarantee of guarantors. Ultimately, the applicant b nk declared the account as NPA on 29.11.2021 as per RBI g idelines but no response, hence the applicant bank has a•proached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶32

Notices under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and econstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security I terest Act 2002 was issued on 01.12.2021 to the defendants b the applicant bank to liquidate the dues but defendants n glected to make payment.

¶33

Then defendants acknowledged the liability towards applicant bank by depositing amount in loan and by executing evival letter dated 15.02.2019.

¶34

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and •espite of proper service the defendants have chosen to absent f om the proceedings. As per order dated 16.11.2023, the •efendants have been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared

¶35

T.A. No.1124 of 2023

¶36

b fore the Tribunal and even no written statement, evidence a d affidavit of assets has been filed by the defendants.

¶37

9 In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its e idence by way of affidavit of Mrs.Upma Dureja, authorized r presentative of the applicant bank who has proved the d•cuments such as Power of Attorney Ex.AW-1/1, Loan pplication with KYCs Ex.AW-1/2(Colly), Sanction Letter E .AW-1/3, Demand Promissory Note Ex.AW-1/4, Loan agreement Ex.AW-1/5, Agreement of Guarantee Ex.AW-1/6, llotment Letter dated 12.06.2015 Ex.AW-1/7, Flat Buyer agreement Ex.AW-1/8„ Tripartite Agreement Ex.AW-1/9, revival Letter Ex.AW-1/10, Notice u/s 13(2) Ex.AW-1/11, recall Notice with Postal Receipts Ex.AW-1/12, Statement of account Ex.AW-1/13, Certificate u/s 65B(2) of Indian Evidence pct Ex.AW-1/14 and Certificate under Section 2A of Bankers' rooks of Evidence Act Ex.AW-1/15.

¶38

The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments ade in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the applicant bank is based on the documents and the same have •een duly proved.

¶39

1 1. The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and t ere is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant •ank and the applicant bank has proved its case beyond r -asonable doubts.

¶40

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

T.A. No.1124 of 2023

ORDER

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the a plicant bank within a period of 30 days, jointly or severally, a sum of P.s.28,52,195.97 (Rupees Twenty Eight Lacs Fifty Two T ousand One Hundred Ninety Five & paisa Ninety Seven only) a on 31.01.2022 along with pendentelite and future interest 7.65% per annum from 01.02.2022 till the date of realization, filing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the s le of Flat no.1606, 16th^{Floor, Tower I, Plot No.GH-16E,} S ctor-1, Greater Noida West, UP admSg. 980 sq.ft. In case o shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of oveable and immovable property of the defendants.

¶45

I)^{The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent} t the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi.

¶46

II)^{Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer,} RT I, Delhi on 27.04.2026.

¶47

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

¶48

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

¶49

• ictated and pronounced in open court) I ated: 26.02.2026

¶50

Punjab and Sind Bank v. Sh. Samkit Parakh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab and Sind Bank v. Sh. Samkit Parakh

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

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Gurdev Singh

Canara Bank versus Ramesh Kumar

Hdfc Bank versus Pukhraj Singh

Bank of Baroda versus Surekha

Mr Abdul Mannan And Anr. versus Axis Bank

State Bank of India versus Vipin