Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Vandana Sukhija and Others

DRT20 Jun 2026TA/97/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application for recovery of a non-performing asset loan of approx. Rs. 26.84 Lacs with interest and costs against three respondents who failed to appear in proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs. 26,84,961.77 with pendentelite interest and costs within 30 days, recoverable from mortgaged property or defendants' assets.

Union Bank of India versus Vandana Sukhija and Others — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

T.A. No.97 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. 97 of 2022

¶5

Union Bank of India

¶6

Ground Floor, Ambedkar Bhawan Rohini Sector -16 branch Delhi-110089 Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mrs. Vandana Sukhija G-3/49-50, Second Floor Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi-110085

¶9

Also at:

¶10

Mrs. Vandana Sukhija DDA Janta Flat No.8, Block C Pocket No.1, First Floor Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi-110085

¶11

Sh.Manoj Kumar G-3/49-50, Second Floor Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi-110085

¶12

Also at:

¶13

Sh.Manoj Kumar DDA Janta Flat No.8, Block C Pocket No.1, First Floor Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi-110085

¶14

Sh.Vijay Kumar Chaurasia s/o Subhai Ram Chaurasia R/o 322, Near Primary School Begumpur Village, Delhi-110081 Defendants

¶15

Present: Mr. Ravindra Gupta, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶16

Date of Reserve: 02.06.2026

¶17

Date of Pronouncement: 20.06.2026

5d -

T.A. No.97 of 2022

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 12.09.2022 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.26,84,961.77 (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs Eighty Four Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty One only) as on 31.08.2022 along with pendentelite interest @10.00% per annum with monthly rests from 31.08.2022 plus @2% penal interest till the date of its realization and costs.

¶22

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the defendant no.1 and 2 as co-borrower vide their loan application along with KYC documents etc. for housing loan under Union Home scheme, the applicant bank sanctioned housing loan of Rs.24,90,000/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lacs Twenty Thousand only) on 29.01.2015 @10.00% rate of interest to be repayable in 240 EMIs of Rs.24,029/- from February 2015 in order to purchase Freehold built on Janta Flat No.8, First Floor without Roof Rights, Block C, Pocket-1, Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi. The defendant no.3 stood as guarantor the housing loan facility sanctioned in favour of defendant no.1 & 2 by applicant bank.

¶23

That in order to avail the housing loan facility, the defendant no.1 and 2 submitted loan application and all the defendants executed Demand Promissory Note (SD-21G Revised), Housing Loan Agreement (SD-11), Letter of Guarantee (SD-01), Declaration and letters of Undertaking with the applicant bank on 30.01.2015.

¶24

That in order to secure the housing loan facility, the defendant no.1 & 2 signed and executed Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds (Form AD-13) along with Sale Deed

¶25

T.A. No.97 of 2022

¶26

dated 30.01.2015 of DDA Janta Flat No.8, Block C, Pocket No.1, First Floor without roof rights, Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi with the applicant bank on 16.02.2015.

¶27

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to maintain financial discipline and comply with the terms and conditions of loan despite several requests for adjustment of overdues to the defendants. Ultimately, the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 31.08.2016 and issued notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act dated 10.09.2016 and issued possession notice on 20.02.2017. The defendants clear the overdue amount and account was upgraded.

¶28

Again, due to overdue instalments, the account was again classified as NPA on 28.09.2021 by the applicant as per RBI guidelines. The defendants assure to deposit EMIs vide letter dated 13.12.2021 from January 2022. The applicant bank issued notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitizatibn and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 dated 15.12.2021 to the defendants and on 19.02.2022, notice for physical possession was issued. The applicant bank taken symbolic possession of mortgaged property on 25.02.2022 and published on 03.03.2022 in two leading newspapers. Further, the applicant bank took the physical possession of mortgaged property as per order from Ld. CMM Delhi dated 05.05.2022 through Court Receiver on 18.06.2022.

¶29

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 06.02.2026, 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. 60(-

¶30

T.A. No.97 of 2022

¶31

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Ms. Mansi Gola, authorized representative of the applicant bank who have proved the documents such as Authority Letter, Loan Application for Housing Loan along with KYC & Profile of defendants, Sanction Letter, Demand Promissory Note (SD-21G), Housing Loan Agreement (SD-11), Letter of Guarantee (SD-01), Letters of Undertaking, Declaration, Affidavit, Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds Form AD-13), Letters for Adjustment of Overdue, Demand Notice dated 10.09.2016/16.09.2016, Notice for Possession, Letter dated 22.02.2017 of defendants, Letter for Adjustment of Overdues, Overdue Notices, Letter dated 29.05.2021, Letter dated 13.12.2021, Notice u/s 13(2) dated 15.12.2021, Possession Notices, Letter dated 25.02.2022, Newspaper Publication, Order of Ld CMM, Court Receiver Notice, Statement of Account including Certificate of Accrued but Undebited Interest marked as Ex.AW-1/1 to. Ex.AW-1/28.

¶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

10.^{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

11.^{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 within a period of 30 days, jointly or severally, a sum of Rs.26,84,961.77 (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs Eighty Four SCI

¶37

T.A. No.97 of 2022

¶38

Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty One only) as on 31.08.2022 along with pendentelite interest @10.00% 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 property being DDA Janta Flat No.8, Block C, Pocket No.1, First Floor without roof rights, Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶39

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

¶40

(III) Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 19.08.2026.

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 20.06.2026

Union Bank of India v. Vandana Sukhija and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Vandana Sukhija and Others

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

Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank) versus Ms Dolphin Electronics

Hitesh So Jaswant Gaupale versus Sitaara Housing Finance Limited Earlier Known as Sewa Grih Rin Limited

Mr Shivaraj Badigar and Another versus Jana Small Finance Bank Ltd.

Bank of Baroda versus Garvit

Bank of Baroda versus Shine Packaging

Hdfc Bank versus Ajay Pratap and Anr.