STATE BANK OF INDIA vs INDERJEET JEET on 21 September 2026

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 07.02.20t9 through Sh. Pawan Kumar Jha, Chief Manager of the applicant bank, under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993 against the sole defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.11,18,342.90 together with cost, charges and pendentellite and future interest @10.75olo p.a. from date of filing of this O.A. till the realization in full.

2. The brief facts of the case are that at the request of sole defendant, the applicant bank sanctioned a Term Loan Facility under Car Loan Scheme Facility of Rs.12.00 lacs, vide sanction letter dated 05'07.2017- The sole defendant executed all necessary loaning documents on l2.O7.2Ol7.In secure the car loan, the sole defendant created first charge in favour of the applicant bank by way of hypothecation of the secured asset together with *,\1

TANO. 1702of2023 2 all its components, accessories, attachments etc. and the details of the hypothecated Vehicle bearing No. UP- 16- BN- 8134 (Mahindra & Mahindra -Scorpio S10 1.99 MHAWK) having Chassis No. MA1TA2WLXHZFLO377, Engine No. W1H4E14616 and Color Cobalt White.

3. It is further submitted that the sole defendant enjoyed and utilized the Loan facilities, but failed to maintain the financial discipline and failed to repay the due amounts. The applicant bank requested the sole defendant to regularize the loan account by visits and letters, but there was no response from the sole defendant. Hence, the account was classified as NPA dated 05.10.2018. The applicant bank served a legal notice dated 19.01.2019 to the sole defendant but failed to recover the same Thus, the present O'A'fl"A' is preferred by the applicant bank to recover its dues'

4. On notice by this Tribunal, sole defendant failed to put appearance at all, despite publication' Accordingly' the sole defendant was proceeded against exparte dated 30.04.2025.

5. The applicant bank has filed evidence by way of affidavit of Ms. Deepa Bisht, Chief Manager of the applicant bank as Annexure A-1 to Annexure A-10' which have gone unchallenged and un-rebutted' Hence' the case of the applicant stands fully established against the sole defendant with respect outstanding amount. to nonpayment of

6. After perusing the records, this Tribunal is of the view that the applicant bank has proved its case beyond

- ctr'

TANO. 1702of2023 3 reasonable doubts. The evidence and documents filed by the applicant bank not rebutted by the sole defendant by not placing any evidence and there is no question of disbelieving the evidence and documents filed by the applicant bank based upon the written/printed documents. In the light of the above discussions, the present T.A. deserves to be allowed.

ORDER

1) I hereby allow this T.A. of the applicant bank and direct the sole defendant to pay to the applicant bank within 30 days from today, a sum of Rs.11,18,342.90 along with cost, expenses and interest @9.25olo from the date of flling of this O.A. which has become T.A till the date of realization.

2) In case of failure to deposit the above amount within the stipulated period, the same shall be recovered from the sale of . In case of short fall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of personal movable and immovable assets of the sole defendant.

3) Recovery Certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi.

4) The registry of this Tribunal is hereby directed to issue free copy of the order and send the same to both rA

TANO. l702of 2023 4

5) Parties are directed to appear before the Ld. Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi on 23.Lt.2026. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. File be consigned to records. ._--\ JST Date : 21.09.2026 (SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi This judgement has been signed, dated and pronounced in open court. Date : 21.09.2026 ,\\(€Ai (susHrl KUMAR RnSrOOl PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi