STATE BANK OF INDIA vs KAVYA AGGARWAL on 6 October 2026

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been flled by the applicant ban( on 22.03.2019 through Sh. Sushil Kumar Chadha, 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.13,15,365/- together with cost, charges and pendentellite and future interest @12.00o/o 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 Car Loan Facility of Rs.10,00,000/- for the purchase of XUV W6 bearing Regn. No. DL 10 CT 0415 under SBI Auto Loan Scheme & which had disbursed to the name of M/s q\

TA NO. t390 of 2022

Durga Automobile (Lido Commercial Co behalf of the sole defendant on 08.02.2015. Ltd) on

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 01.11.2015 The applicant bank served a demand notice dated 08.12.2015 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 on

21. tr.2023.

5. The applicant bank has filed documents along with O.A as Annexure - A to Annexure - L, which have gone unchallenged and un-rebutted. Hence, the case of the applicant stands fully established against the sole defendant with respect to nonpayment of outstanding amount.

6. After perusing the records, this Tribunal is of the view that the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. The documents filed by the applicant bank not rebutted by the sole defendant by not placing

9) r

TANO. 1390of2022

any evidence and there is no question of disbelieving the 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.13,15,365/- along with cost, expenses and interest @10.75olo from the date of filing 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 hypothecated vehicle i.e., XUV 500 FWD W6 bearing Registration. No. DL 10 CT O4t5 and Engine No. HJE4A15369 & Chasiss No. MA1YT2HJUE6A15116. 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 the parties. 9^

TANO. 1390of2022 4

5) Pafties are directed to appear before the Ld. Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi on 07.L2.2026. pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. File be consigned to records. Date : 06.10.2026 (susHrl KUMAR iiA+ocr) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi This judgement has been signed, dated and pronounced in open court.

9. \ Date : 06.10.2026 <,\ (susHrl KUMAR *(#OCrl PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi (