Allowed

Punjab and Sind Bank v. Anil Kumar and Anr.

DRT24 Aug 2026TA/474/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by a bank for recovery of dues against two defendants. Proceeding ex-parte due to their absence, the Tribunal issued a recovery certificate after establishing the default through proved documentary evidence.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs.29,77,992 within 30 days along with interest; recovery certificate to be issued; amount recoverable from sale of mortgaged flat and other assets.

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Anil Kumar and Anr. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

T.A. No.474 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. 474 of 2023

¶5

Punjab and Sind Bank Jyoti Colony, Shandara Guru Harkishan Public'School Delhi-110094 Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Sh. Anil Kumar s/o Sh.Harbeer Singh R/o C-1/76, Flat No.G-2, DLF Dilshad Extension, Ghaziabad, UP-200105

¶8

Sh.Krishan Kumar sio Sh.Ajay Pal Singh R/o C-34/G-1, DLF Dilshad Extension, Ghaziabad, UP-200105 Defendants

¶9

Present: Ms Chitra Malhotra, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶10

Date of Institution: 06.08.2026

¶11

Date of Pronouncement: 24.08.2026

¶12

FINAL ORDER

¶13

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 17.10.2020 under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.29,77,992/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lacs Seventy Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Two only) as on 30.09.2020 along with pendentelite and future interest ©10.50% per annum with monthly rest together with @2% penal interest from date of filing of this application till the date of realization and costs. Further, the name of Shri Amit Kumar

¶14

¶15

T.A. No.474 of 2023

¶16

was substituted as authorized representative in place of erstwhile ARs for the applicant bank.

¶17

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant no.1 vide loan application dated 12.02.2013, the applicant bank sanctioned housing loan facility of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen lacs only) on 12.02.2013 @10.50% p.a. floating compounding at monthly rest to be repayable in 180 Equated Monthly Installments of Rs.16,600/in order to purchase Flat bearing no.G-2, Ground Floor, C-1/76, Dilshad Extension-II, Bhopura, Ghaziabad, UP. The defendant no.2 stood as guarantor for housing loan facility sanctioned by applicant bank in favour of defendant no.1.

¶18

That in order to avail the housing loan facility, the defendant no.1 submitted loan application dated 12.02.2013 and executed Form No.14, Form No.103/291/412, Form no.106, Form no.199, Form no.200, Undertakings, Loan Agreement, Form No.256(RR) and Form No.84-A on 12.02.2013 in favour of applicant bank. In addition, the defendant executed Revival Letter dated 18.05.2017 with the applicant bank.

¶19

That in order to secure the loan facility, the defendant no.1 created equitable mortgage of Flat bearing no.G-2, Ground Floor, C-1/76, Dilshad Extension-II, Bhopura, Ghaziabad, UP by depositing Sale Deed dated 17.07.2006 executed by Sh.Arun lain in favour of Smt.Rekha Gupta, Sale Deed dated 01.09.2008 executed by Smt.Rekha Gupta in favour of Krishan Kumar Ramuka and Sale Deed dated 12.02.2013 executed by Krishna Kumar Ramuka on 12.03.2013 towards the applicant bank.

Sci(---zez

T.A. No.474 of 2023

It has been submitted by the applicant .bank that after availing the housing loan facility, the defendant no.1 failed to comply with loan agreement and agreements entered despite several requests and defaulted in payment of monthly installments in time to the applicant bank. The applicant bank sent various notices and reminders to the defendants requesting for regularization of the account but defendants neglected. The account was declared as NPA on 30.03.2014 but defendants made no efforts for regularization of the account. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶24

Notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 dated 28.05.2014 was issued upon defendants to liquidate the outstanding. The, applicant bank issued possession notice u/s 13(4) on 19.09.2015 duly published in newspapers but defendants made no efforts for regularization of the account.

¶25

Notice of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite proper service through publication in newspapers, the defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 09.12.2025, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared before the Tribunal and even no written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have been filed by the defendants.

¶26

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Kunal Saurabh, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents such as Power of Attorney Ex.AW1/1, Loan

¶27

¶28

T.A. No.474 of 2023

¶29

Application Ex.AW1/2, Guarantors details Ex.AW1/3, Sanction Letter Ex.AW1/4, Form No.14 Ex.AW1/5, Form No.103/291/412 Ex.AW1/6, Form no.106 Ex.AW1/7, Form no.199 Ex.AW1/8, Form No.200 Ex.AW1/9, Undertakings Ex.AW1/10 & 11, Loan Agreement Ex.AW1/12, Form No.256(RR) Ex.AW1/13, Form No.84-A Ex.AW1/14, Revival Letter Ex.AW1/15, Sale Deed dated 17.07.2006 Ex.AW1/16, Sale Deed dated 01.09.2008 Ex.AW1/17, Sale Deed dated 12.02.2013 Ex.AW1/18, Notice u/s 13(2) Ex.AW1/19, Possession Notice Ex.AW1/20 & 21, Certified copy of Statement of Account along with Certificate under Section 2A of Bankers' Book of Evidence Act Ex.AW-1/22 & Ex.AW1/23.

¶30

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.

¶31

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.

¶32

In the light of the above discussions and documents on record, the Original Application deserves to be allowed.

¶33

ORDER

¶34

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.29,77,992/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lacs Seventy Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Two only) as on

¶35

¶36

T.A. No.474 of 2023

¶37

30.09.2020 along with pendentelite and future interest ©12.50% per annum with monthly rests from 01.10.2020 and costs failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from sale of mortgaged Flat bearing no.G-2, Ground Floor, C- 1/76, Di[shad Extension-II, Bhopura, Ghaziabad, UP. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable assets 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 27.10.2026.

¶40

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

¶41

,S d � x,44. (GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶42

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 24.08.2026

¶43

Punjab and Sind Bank v. Anil Kumar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab and Sind Bank v. Anil Kumar and Anr.

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

Bank of India versus Pavithra E

Mohammad Azeem Shad and another versus Fullerton India housing finance company limited

Mohd Naseemuddin versus Icici Bank Limited

Hdfc Bank versus Karan Vohra

Uco Bank versus Shri Sher Singh

Hdfc Bank versus Gopal Enterprises