Allowed

Axis Bank v. Vikas Singhal

DRT21 Feb 2026TA/2580/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the original application filed by Axis Bank Limited for recovery of Rs. 21,26,766/- along with pendentelites and future interest. The tribunal reduced the rate of interest to 12% per annum and directed recovery from the sale of the mortgaged property if necessary.

What did the court decide?

Dekients to pay Rs. 21,26,766/− with 12% interest and costs; recovery from sale of Unit No. C-1004, Parkwood Westend.

Axis Bank versus Vikas Singhal — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

T.A. No.2580 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. 2580 of 2022

¶5

Axis Bank Limited

¶6

Axis House

¶7

Tower T-2, 2nd Floor, 1-14,

¶8

Sector-128, Noida Expressway, Jaypee Greens Wishtown, Noida, U.P Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

Mr. Vikas Singhal F-291, First Floor, Shalimar Residency, Sector-57, Sushant Lok-02 Gurgaon, Haryana

¶11

Also at:

¶12

Mr. Vikas Singhal C-071 B, 7th Floor

¶13

Supermart-1, DLF Phase IV Gurgaon, Haryana-122002

¶14

Nalini Singhal H.No.324 B, Miyam Wali Colony Gurgaon, Haryana-122001

¶15

3.^{M/s Parkwood Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.} Through its Directors 1001, Hemkunt Chambers, 89 Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 Defendants

¶16

Present: Ms Saloni Dwary, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶17

Date of Reserve: 16.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 21.02.2026

¶18

FINAL ORDER

¶19

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 06.01.2021 before DRT-III, Delhi & then transferred to DRT-I Delhi under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to

¶20

T.A. No.2580 of 2022

¶21

Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.21,26,766/- (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Twenty Six Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Six only) as on 08.09.2020 together with pendentelite and future interest @24% per annum with monthly rests and costs from the date of filing of this O.A. till the date of realization along with costs.

¶22

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant no.1 & 2 vide loan application with other KYC documents, the applicant bank sanctioned housing loan of Rs.29.00 Lacs (Rupees Twenty Nine Lacs only) on 05.05.2012 and disbursed loan amount for a sum of Rs.24,64,242/- @11% floating rate of interest per annum which was to be repayable in 264 Equated Monthly Installments of Rs.27,197/- for purchasing under construction Unit no.C-1004 Parkwood Westend, Sector 92, Gurgaon-120001 in the residential project `Parkwood Westend' against mortgage to be developed and constructed by defendant no.3.

¶23

That in order to avail the housing loan facility, the defendants submitted loan application form, KYC documents and executed Loan Agreement, Letter to Permission to Mortgage dated 01.06.2012, Sanction Letter and Tripartite Agreement with the applicant bank on 06.06.2012

¶24

That in order to secure the loan facility, the defendant no.1 & 2 on the basis of Permission to mortgage dated 01.06.2012 issued by defendant no.3, mortgaged the built up property bearing Unit No.0-1004, Parkwood Westend, Sector 92, Gurgaon to be constructed in its residential project 'Parkwood Westend' towards the applicant bank.

T.A. No.2580 of 2022

As per Tripartite Agreement dated 06.06.2012, the defendant no.1 & 2 authorize the applicant bank to pay loan amount directly to defendant no.3 and applicant bank shall have lien over the said apartment. In the event of cancellation of provisional allotment letter issued by the defendant no.3 due to any reason, the defendant no.3 shall refund the amount to the applicant bank after retaining the amounts due to them from the defendant no.1.

¶29

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the housing loan facility, the defendant no.1 and 2 neglected to comply with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and cheques issued for EMI were dishonored and defendants failed to regularize the account with applicant bank. The applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 09.11.2019 as per RBI guidelines and issued recall notice dated 22.09.2020 but defendants still neglected. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶30

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite proper service, the defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings and none appeared on behalf of defendants. As per order dated 05.08.2024, the defendant no.1 and 2 have been proceeded ex-parte as none appeared before the tribunal and no written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have been filed by the defendants. None appeared on behalf of defendant no.3 and there is no matter is pending before any superior court.

¶31

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Abhinav Kumar Pandey, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the Original documents as Power of Attorney, Loan

¶32

¶33

T.A. No.2580 of 2022

¶34

Application Form & KYC documents, Purchaser's Agreement Receipts, Sanction Letter, Loan Agreement, Permission to Mortgage, Tripartite Agreement, Loan Pay off details, Certified Statement of Accounts alongwith Certificate under Section 2A of the Banker's Book Evidence Act and Certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, Notice dated 22.09.2020 alongwith Postal Receipts and Valuation report marked as Ex.AW-1/1 to Ex.AW-1/12.

¶35

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.

¶36

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.

¶37

As per the provision of Section 19(20) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 which is analogous to Section 34 of CPC, on filing of the suit/claim, the contract between the parties comes to an end and the Court/Tribunal has a discretion to award the same depending upon the circumstances of each case. Same principle has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra & Others. Taking stock of all the circumstances and keeping in view that there is a drastic fall in rates of interest globally and domestically, I am of the opinion that interest of justice will be served if the interest at the rate of 12% p.a. is awarded.

¶38

¶39

T.A. No.2580 of 2022

¶40

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

¶41

ORDER

¶42

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants, jointly or severally, to pay to the applicant bank within 30 days, a sum of Rs.21,26,766/- (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Twenty Six Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Six only) along with pendentelite and future interest @12% per annum with monthly rests and costs from the date of filing of this O.A. till the date of realization, failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from sale of property bearing Unit No.C-1004, Parkwood Westend, Sector-92, Gurgaon, Haryana-120001. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of moveable and immovable property of the defendants.

¶43

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

¶44

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 22.04.2026.

¶45

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

¶46

(GOVIND BALLA = HARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶47

(Dictated & pronounced in open court) Dated: 21.02.2026

¶48

Axis Bank v. Vikas Singhal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Axis Bank v. Vikas Singhal

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

Sakeena versus Cherpalcheri Cooperative Urban Bank

Jainy Jenson versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Abdul Sathar Pookkattil versus South Indian Bank

Punjab National Bank versus M/S S.F. Enterprises

Canara Bank versus Reeta Jain

Punjab National Bank versus M/S J.J. India