Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Mr. Kapil Kumar

DRT7 Feb 2026TA/3402/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an original recovery application allowed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the defendants' objections regarding blank documents and varied the interest rate from contractual to 13.25% p.a. permitting recovery from sale of mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs.73,21,414/- with interest @13.25% p.a. and costs; recovery via sale of mortgaged property granted.

Bank of Baroda versus Mr. Kapil Kumar — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

T.A. No. 3402 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.3402 of 2022

¶5

Bank of Baroda (e-Dena Bank) 2nd Floor, Bank of Baroda Building 16, Sansad Marg, Behind LIC Building Police Colony, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr. Kapil Kumar s/o Sh. Krishan Kumar A-8/15, Ground Floor, Sector-17, Rohini, Delhi-110085

¶8

Mrs. Ratna w/o Sh. Kapil Kumar A-8/15, Ground Floor, Sector-17, Rohini, Delhi-110085

¶9

Sh. Vishva Deep s/o Sh. Mahendra Kukreja A-8, Ground Floor, Sector-19, Rohini, Delhi-110085 Defendants

¶10

Present: Ms. Chitra Malhotra, Counsel for applicant bank

¶11

Date of Reserve: 09.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 07.02.2026

¶12

FINAL ORDER

¶13

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 09.05.2013 before DRT-III Delhi and then transferred to DRT-I Delhi under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of Rs.73,21,414/- (Rupees Seventy Three Lacs Twenty One Thousand Four Hundred Fourteen only) as on 30.04.2013 along with pendentelite and future interest @13.25% per annum with monthly rests from

¶14

T.A. No. 3402 of 2022

¶15

01.05.2013 till the date of realization along with costs. Further, the name of Sh. Ajeet Singh Yadav was substituted as authorized representative in place of erstwhile ARs for the applicant bank.

¶16

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant no.1 & 2 as borrowers, the applicant bank sanctioned Housing Loan for Rs.46,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Six Lacs only) on 23.09.2008 @11.75% interest per annum, which was to be repayable in 240 Equated Monthly Installment of Rs.49,900/- each for purchase of ready built house i.e. Ground and First Floor, A-8/15, Sector-17, Rohini, Delhi under Dena Niwas scheme. The defendant no.3 stood as guarantor for the housing loan availed by defendant no.1 and 2. The defendants agreed to pay penal interest @2% per annum in case of default or delay in repayment.

¶17

That in order to avail the housing loan facility, the defendant no.1 and 2 submitted housing loan application and defendants executed Term Loan Agreement, General Letter of Lien and Set-off from Borrowers and Guarantor, Undertaking for Housing Loan, Declaration of Creation of Equitable Mortgage and Letter of Guarantee with the applicant bank on 01.10.2008 and 07.01.2009.

¶18

That in order to secure the housing loan facility, the defendant no.1 created equitable mortgage of the property being Entire Ground and First Floor of built up property no. A- 8/15, Sector-17, Rohini, Delhi admsg. 60 sq.meters with the applicant bank on 07.01.2009 by depositing Sale Deed dated 03.11.2008 duly registered with Sub-Registrar VI, Delhi.

¶19

T.A. No. 3402 of 2022

¶20

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions and despite of several requests and reminders, failed to pay the installment and dues in time to the applicant bank. Ultimately, the applicant banks classified the account as NPA on 30.11.2009 as per RBI guidelines, but the defendants neglected to regularize the account with the applicant bank and hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶21

Notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 dated 15.06.2010 was issued on the defendants which was replied on 26.08.2010 by the defendants as false and frivolous. The applicant bank replied in terms of Section 13(3A) on 01.09.2010 and taken symbolic possession under Section 13(4) on 05.10.2010, duly published in newspapers on 10.10.2010. The applicant bank obtained orders for physical possession and Court Receiver issued notice dated 18.06.2011 for taking physical possession of the property on 08.07.2011. The applicant filed SA before this Tribunal which was disposed of on 15.11.2011 directing sale of first floor of mortgaged property and in case of deficiency in recovery, can sell ground floor of the property. Another SA No.52/2012 titled "Sunita Sharma & Anr Vs Kapil Kumar & Ors was filed before this Tribunal which was pending adjudication.

¶22

It has been submitted that Defendant no.1 & 2 filed their written statements. Apparently, defendants have raised the objection that the applicant bank has got the signature of the defendants on blank documents while granting the loan facilities to the defendants. This Tribunal has gone through the documents which are duly filled and executed by the

¶23

T.A. No. 3402 of 2022

¶24

defendants and this Tribunal is of the view that plea of blank documents is no plea in the eyes of law as has been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of "Indian Bank Vs. Cheese Wafers (India) Pvt. Ltd. It was held if the defendants have not filed any complaint before higher authorities of the bank or filed any complaint before police authorities " Thus, the plea of blank documents is not maintainable after filing of the suit and the same is rejected.

¶25

As regards to objection of the defendants that the applicant bank has charged the exorbitant rate of interest, this Tribunal is of the view that 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 13.25% p.a. is awarded.

¶26

The witness of the applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments made in this O.A. The evidence lead by the applicant bank which consists of mainly written / typed documents has gone unchallenged and there is no question of disbelieving the same based upon the documents. This Tribunal has also observed that not an iota evidence has been led by the defendants against the claim of the applicant bank and has made only submission on fact as stated in the written statement evidence. That in the civil proceedings it cardinal principle, that whosoever alleges a fact he/she has to prove in

¶27

T.A. No. 3402 of 2022

¶28

the court of law by leading evidence mere assertion are not sufficient and nowhere defendants have denied about the availment of the loan.

¶29

In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Tribunal is of the view that the defendants have failed to convince this Tribunal and this Tribunal do not find any merit and reject the contentions of the defendants as baseless.

¶30

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite of proper service, the defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 23.12.2017, the defendant no.3 has been proceeded ex-parte as they have not appeared before the Tribunal.

¶31

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavits of Shri Vimalesh Kumar Srivastava, authorized representative of the applicant bank who have proved the documents as General Power of Attorney, Loan application, Sanction letter, Term loan agreement, Letter of Guarantee, General letter of lien and Set-off from borrowers and Guarantor, Undertaking for Housing loan, Declaration of creation of Equitable Mortgage, Sale deeds, Notices, Replies, Possession notice and publication, Ld. CMM order dated 04.05.2011, Ld. Receiver notice dated 18.06.2011, Order dated 15.11.2011, BPLR statement, Statement of accounts as Ex.AW-1/1 to Ex.AW-1/17 (Colly).

¶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 approved.

¶33

T.A. No. 3402 of 2022

¶34

The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and there is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts

¶35

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

¶36

ORDER

¶37

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank within a period of 30 days, jointly or severally, a sum of Rs.73,21,414/- (Rupees Seventy Three Lacs Twenty One Thousand Four Hundred Fourteen only) along with pendentelite and future interest @13.25% per annum with monthly rest from the date of filing of this application till the date of realization and costs; failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of mortgaged property i.e. Entire Ground and First Floor of Property No. A-8/15, Sector17, Rohini, Delhi. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶38

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

¶39

III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 09.04.2026.

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

(Pronounced in open court) Dated: 07.02.2026

Bank of Baroda v. Mr. Kapil Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Mr. Kapil Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus Sri.Shaik Tajrul Ameen

State Bank of India versus M/S R & P Marketing Rep by Its Proprietor Smt. Poonam Prajapati

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Saket Jalan

Hdfc Bank versus Leen Enterprises

State Bank of India versus M/s Darbar Restaurant

Punjab National Bank versus Murari