PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK vs Mr. Rajendra Bhushan Sharma on 15 May 2025

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 09.02.2016 through Sh.Naresh Kumar, Principal Officer of the applicant bank, under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.25,79,834.60 together with cost, charges and pendentellite and future interest @9.60% p.a. from date of filing of this O.A. till the realization in full.

2. The brieffacts ofthe case are that at the request of defendant nos.l & 2, the applicant bank sanctioned a Term Loan/ Credit Facility of Rs.20,00,000/- vide sanction lefter dated 03.03.2012 for repair and renovation of their house. The above said House Loan/Credit Facility was sanctioned against hypothecation of assets to secure the term loan after keeping the margin as per bank guidelines. The security for the said housing loan was inter alia EM of cr TA NO. 155912023 2 IP property no. 8-36, Advocate Colony, Vidhi Vihar, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, UP-201301' The defendants executed all necessary loaning documents on 03.03.2012 and L2'02'20t5'

3. It is further submitted that the defendants enjoyed and utilized the Loan facility, 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 on 02.07.2014. Therefore, the applicant bank served a demand notice dated 03.07.20L4 to the defendants demanding the amount due as on that date, but failed to recover the same. Thus, the present 9'4fl-A is preferred by the applicant bank to recover its dues'

4. On notice by this Tribunal, the defendants failed to put appearance at all, despite publication' accordingly, defendants were proceeded against exparte on 09.01.2024.

5. The applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affldavit of Sh. Naresh Kumar, Principal Officer of the applicant bank which have gone unchallenged and un- rebufted. Hence, the case ofthe applicant bank stands fully established against the defendants with respect to non-payment of EMV outstanding amount'

6. After perusing the records, this Tribunal is of the view that the applicant bank has proved its case q).' I I I I i

TA NO. 155912023 3 beyond reasonable doubts' The documents and evidence filed by the applicant bank not rebutted by the defendants by not placing any evidence and there is no question of disbelieving the evidence filed by the applicant bank based upon the written/printed documents. In the light of the above discussions, the present TA deserves to be allowed'

ORDER

1) I hereby allow this T.A. of the Applicant Bank and direct the defendant no.1 & 2 to pay jointly and severally to the applicant bank within 30 days from today, a sum of Rs.25,79,834.50 along with mst, expenses and interest @ 9.600/o from the date of filing of this O.A which has become TA 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 assets' In case of short fall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of personal movable and immovable assets of the defendant nos. 1to 2.

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. aI

TA NO. 1s5912023 4

5) Parties are direct to appear before the Ld. Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi on t5.07.2025. Pending IAs, if any, stand disPosed of. File be consigned to records. ( s"l Date: 15.05.2025 '_ I . (SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi This judgement has been signed, dated and pronounced in oPen court. Date : 15.05.2025 gAi (susHIL rufr-an HiBroGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi T