ALLAHABAD BANK vs Smt.MUKESH on 7 September 2026

Before SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI, Presiding Officer Debts RecoverY Tribunal-Il, Delhi TA No.327 OF 2024

INDIAN BANK (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ALLAHABAD

BANIi) vs sMT. MUKESH & oRs

Reserued on

13O.07.2026

Pronounced on : 07.09.2O26

Indian Bank

(Allahabad Bank)

Vs.

1. Smt. Mukesh

2. Shri. Devendra Singh

3. Shri. Satish

4. Shri. BhoPalSharma

-Applicant bank

- Defendants

Present: Ms. Archana Kasana, Counsel appears for aPPlicant bank.

Deiendants are exparte, since' 29'04'2015'

FINALORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 22.05.2007 through Shri' N'S' Nimwal'

Manager of the applicant bank, under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.10,78,899/- 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 defendant nos.1 and 2, the applicant bank sanctioned a Loan Facility of Rs.15,00,000/-, vide sanction letter dated24.05'2003forfurnishing/repairs/improvement/

e\

TANO. 327 of2024

renovation of the property being Propefi bearing No.35, measuring 300 Sq' Yards, out of Khasra No'665'

situated within the Old Lal Dora (1908-09) of Village Nawada, Delhi. The defendants executed all necessary loaning documents on 24'05'2003 and 09'07'2003' To securetheabove-mentionedhousingloan,thedefendant nos.3and4alsoexecutedtheirpersonalguarantees'in favour of the applicant bank on 24'05'2003' To fufther secure the above loan sanctioned to the defendant nos'1

& 2 mortgage with respect of the property was created by the defendant nos'1 & 2 vide a deed of moftgage dated 09.06'2003 i'€', Property bearing No'35'

measuring 300 Sq. Yards, out of Khasra No'665' situated within the Old Lal Dora (1908-09) of Village Nawada'

3.

It is further submitted that the defendants 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 defendants to regularize the loan account by visits and letters' but there was no response from the defendants' Hence' the account was classified as NPA' The applicant bank served a legal notice dated 15'05'2007 to the defendants but failedtorecoverthesameThus,thepresentO'A'rI'A'is preferred by the applicant bank to recover its dues'

4. On notice by this Tribunal, defendants failed to put appearance at all, despite seruice' Accordingly' the Delhi.

defendants were

29.04.20Ls.

proceeded against exPafte on

s^

TANO.327 of2024

5. The applicant bank has filed evidence by way of affidavit of Shri. l.S. Kohli, Chief Manager of the applicant bank as Annexure -1 to Annexure -19, which have gone unchallenged and un-rebutted' Hence, the case of the applicant stands fully established against the defendants 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 filed by the applicant bank not rebutted by the defendants by not placing any evidence and there is no question of disbelieving the evidence and documents filed by the applicant bank documents.

based upon the written/Printed

In the light of the above discussions, the present T'A'

deserues to be allowed.