A Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the State Bank of India's original application filed under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993, to recover a car loan dues of Rs. 15.12 lakhs from a sole defendant who appeared ex-parte.
Deposit of Rs. 15,12,333.71 with interest @ 10.45% within 30 days; direction to sell hypothecated vehicle and issue Recovery Certificate.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
I I i I I I'
Before SUSHIT KUMAR RASTOGI,presiding (fficer Debts Recovely Tribunal-Il, Delhi
TA No.1738 OF 2022
STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs SHRI DIPANSHU DHINGRA
Reserved on =29.01-.2026
Pronounced on : 25.02.2026
State Bank of India
-Applicant bank
Vs,
Shri Dipanshu Dhingra - Sole defendant
Present: Ms. Jaya Tomar, Counsel appears for applicant bank.
Sole defendant is ex-parte since 13.11.2024.
FINAL ORDER
This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 04.05.2019 through Shri Chandra Prakash Gupta, MMGS-II/City Case Officer of the applicant bank, under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993 against the sole defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.15,12,333.71 together with cost, charges and pendentellite and future interest @ 0.75o/o over base rate with monthly interest from date of filing of this O.A. till the realization in full.
9J
TANO. 1738of2022 2
on 08.08.2013. In consideration of sanction and disbursal of the above loan, the sole defendant for repayment of the loan together with interest hypothecated the New Elantra CRD| 1.6 BSIV bearing no.UP-15BF-0111, chassis no.MALDH41ULDM015243, engine no.D4FBDU290768, body Saloon, fuel diesel, color white, manufacturing year 2013 with the applicant and the vehicle in question stands hypothecated with the applicant bank in accordance with terms and conditions of the loan cum hypothecation agreement and applicant bank has a primary charge over the vehicle in question. On 05.07.2016, the sole defendant executed and signed revival letter in favour of the applicant bank and admitted his liability towards applicant bank.
TANO. 1738of2022 3
Case Officer of the applicant bank as paper no.1 to paper no.54.
In the light of the above discussions, the present T.A. deserues to be allowed against sole defendant.
ORDER
I I l I ,i I I I I I i I
TANO. 1738of2022 4
Saloon, fuel diesel, color white, manufacturingyear 2013. In case of short fall, the same shall berecovered from the sale ofpersonal movable andimmovableassets of the sole defendant.
File be consigned to records.
Date : 25.02.2026
. <.\ (susHrL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi
Thisjudgement has been signed, datedand pronounced in open couft.
Date : 25.02.2026
,x (susHrL KU rtrAR RAsrOGr) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi
P
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant bank is entitled to recover the outstanding loan amount from the sole defendant vide this original application.
Whether the hypothecated vehicle can be sold to recover the dues in case of failure to deposit the amount.
Whether a Recovery Certificate should be issued under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State Bank of India
Shri Dipanshu Dhingra
SUSHIT KUMAR RASTOGI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
