Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Ram Sidhari

DRT27 Jan 2026TA/2107/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original affidavit application filed by Bank of Maharashtra for recovery of dues from two borrowers and a builder who failed to honor home loan terms, resulting in an NPA classification and subsequent summons for a decretal amount.

What did the court decide?

Direct pay Rs. 36,06,852/- with interest within 30 days; failing which, amount recoverable from sale of mortgaged flat and other properties.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Ram Sidhari — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

T.A. No.2107 of 2022

¶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. 2107 of 2022

¶5

Bank of Maharashtra 6/30-31, Ajmal Khan Road First Floor, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005

¶6

Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Ram Sidhari s/o Sh.Ram Harakh R/o H.No.245/36, Street No.5 Mandawali Fazalpur, Shakarpur Delhi-110092

¶9

Also at: H.No.A-59, Gali No.15, Mandawali, Unchepar, Delhi-110092

¶10

Smt. Durga Vati w/o Sh. Ram Sidhari R/o H.No.245/36, Street No.5 Mandawali Fazalpur, Shakurpur Delhi-110092

¶11

3.^{M/s Super City Developers Pvt. Ltd.} Through its Directors 6, Bharti Colony, 1st Floor Preet Vihar, Opp. Metro Pillar no.73 Defendants Vikas Marg, Delhil110092

¶12

Present: Shri Gaurang Sogra, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶13

Date of Reserve: 08.01.2026

¶14

Date of Pronouncement: 27.01.2026

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 07.12.2018 before DRT-II, Delhi and then transferred

¶17

¶18

T.A. No.2107 of 2022

¶19

to DRT-I Delhi under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of Rs.36,06,852/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lacs Six Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Two only) along with pendentelite and future interest with mbnthly rests from 11.10.2018 till the date of its realization and costs. Further, the name of Sh.Sanjay Kumar Gupta was substituted as authorized representative in place of Sh.Gaurav Tyagi, erstwhile AR for the applicant bank.

¶20

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the defendant no.1 & 2 as co-borrowers, the applicant bank sanctioned Home loan for a sum of Rs.36,80,000/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lacs Eighty Thousand only) on 06.05.2016 @9.70% interest per annum with monthly rests, which was to be repayable in 342 Equated monthly installments of Rs.31,650/in order to purchase under construction Flat/Unit no.J-1301, 13th^{Floor, Tower-J, 'Mayfair Residency' at GH-07B, Sec Tech} Zone IV, Noida Extension, Greater Noida, UP being developed & constructed by defendant no.3 (builder).

¶21

That in order to avail the housing loan facility, the defendant no.1 & 2 submitted housing loan application and executed Agreement for Housing Loan, Undertaking & Power of Attorney to Mortgage and D.P Note dated 09.05.2016 in favour of applicant bank. The defendants executed Tripartite Agreement dated 09.05.2016 with applicant bank.

¶22

In order to secure the housing loan, defendant no.1 & 2 agreed to create equitable mortgage of Flat/Unit no.J-1301, 13th^{Floor, Tower-J, 'Mayfair Residency' at GH-07B, Sec Tech} Zone IV, Noida Extension, Greater Noida, UP in favour of applicant bank.

¶23

¶24

T.A. No.2107 of 2022

¶25

As per Tripartite Agreement dated 09.05.2016, the defendant no.3 had undertaken that in case of failure of payment of dues by defendant no.1 and 2 as per schedule, shall be the entire and exclusive responsibility and liability to pay and clear the dues of the applicant bank. It has been submitted that in the absence of proper conveyance deed/sale deed, the applicant bank could not create equitable mortgage over the flat and agreed for paramount lien over money paid. That defendant no.3 agreed for no objection to mortgage the flat with applicant bank for said housing loan.

¶26

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the housing loan facility, the defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the loan and security documents and neglected to deposit interest and monthly installments regularly with the applicant bank despite several requests and reminders. Ultimately, the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 30.09.2017 and issued default notice dated 03.10.2017 and legal notice dated 26.03.2018 calling upon defendants to clear outstanding dues but the same was neglected by the defendants. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶27

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 11.04.2025, defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as they have not appeared before the Tribunal nor written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have been filed.

¶28

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Gaurav Tyagi, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the

¶29

¶30

T.A. No.2107 of 2022

¶31

documents such as Circular dated 30.12.2015, Allotment Letter, Application Form for Home Loan, Sanction Letter, Agreement for Housing Loan, Undertaking & Power of Attorney, Tripartite Agreement, Demand Promissory Note, Default Notice, Legal Notice, Memorandum of Account and Certified Statement of Account under Bankers' Books of Evidence Act marked as Ex.AW1/1 to Ex.AW1/12.

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

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

¶35

ORDER

¶36

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.36,06,852/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lacs Six Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Two only) along with pendentelite and future interest @9.70% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing this application till its realization with costs, failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of mortgaged Flat No. J-1301, 13th^{floor, Tower-J with super} area 1212 sq. ft., 'May Fair Residency', GH-07B, Sec-Tech Zone-IV, Noida Extension, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh. In

set-

T.A. No.2107 of 2022

case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶41

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

¶42

(III)^{Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer,} DRT I, Delhi on 01.04.2026.

¶43

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

¶44

__ cc/__

¶45

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

¶46

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 27.01.2026

¶47

Bank of Maharashtra v. Ram Sidhari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Ram Sidhari

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

Paramjit Singh versus Union Bank of India

Kiranjeet Kaur versus Uco Bank

Excellon Software Private Limited through Director Vinodkumar Laxminarayan Tambi versus Bank of Maharashtra

Mr Abhishek Anand versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

Punjab National Bank versus Anup

Bank of India versus Salasar Garments