BANK OF BARODA vs SH SATYA NARAIN on 6 August 2026

Before SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI, presiding ffiicer Debts Recovely Tribunal-Il, Delhi TA No.1227 OF 2023

BANK OF BARODA VS SH. SATYA NARAIN

Reseryed on

= 29.O6.2O26

Prcnounced on : 06.08.2O26

Bank of Baroda

Vs.

Sh. Satya Narain

-Applicant bank

- Sole defendant

Present: Shri. Vishal Majumdar, Counsel appears for applicant bank.

Sole defendant is exparte, since, t7.lL.ZOZ3.

FI]IAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 14.06.2018 through Mr. S.K. Gandhi Authorized Representative of the applicant bank, under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993 against the sole defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.13,40,419/- together with cost, charges and pendentellite and future interest @12.00o/o p.a. from date of flling 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 C:r Loan Facility of Rs.10,00,000/-, vide sanction letter dated 19.06.2015 for purchase u YgT- Hyundai Car. The sote Et\

defendant executed all necessary loaning documents on 19.06.2015. In accordance with the terms of LDOC 20 the defendant had hypothecated by way of first charge the vehicle in favour of the applicant as security.

3. It is further submitted that the defendant on 23.09.2015 deposited his first monthly instalment of Rs.17,000/- in cash for repayment of loan amoun! and after the payments made on 23.09.2015 in cash, the defendant stopped making payment of instalments for repayment of the loan amount and in breach of the agreements not deposited the Registration Certificate of vehicle for recording lien on the vehicle with the concern authority and nor the copy of insurance after insuring the vehicle and when the applicant tried to contact defendant over mobile phone, the same was found switched off. The officials of the applicant also visited the residential address of defendant available in the records of applicant, but the same was found locked, and on enquiry from the neighbours, it was informed that the defendant was there for a temporary period on rent and officials from State Bank of India had also visited and enquired about the defendant and alleged to had committed fraud with them.

The officials of the applicant also visited at the business address of the defendant available in the records of applicant but there also the Defendant was not traceable.

The bank official also went to the car dealer who on request informed that the vehicle was delivered to defendant and was registered as DL4CBA-5201 with the Transport Department. Thereafter, the applicant reported the matter to, it's Fraud Monitoring Agency, who after investigation submitted its report on 22.0t.20t6, s>

wherein stated that the defendant is not traceable and the t(YC and other documents submitted by defendant along with the loan application appears to be fabricated. The applicant submitted the said report with Reserve Bank of India (RBI) for its consideration and record. The applicant Bank states that on 5'02'2015, a Rs.10,48,190.00 on account of Term Loan (car loan)

along with future interest thereon at the rate of t2'00o/o (twelve percent) per annum with monthly rests is due and payable to the applicant by the defendant' Thus, the present O.A.ff.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 t7.0L.2023.

5. The applicant bank has filed evidence by way of affidavit of Mr. Amit Kumar Modi, Authorized Representative of the applicant bank as Annexure A-1 to Annexure A-13, 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 evidence and documents flled by the applicant bank not rebutted by the sole defendant by not placing any eviden-ce a9d there is no question of e.\

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.