UNION BANK OF INDIA vs NEETIMA YADAV on 22 May 2025

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been flted by the applicant bank, on 16'08'2022 through Shri Anuj Kumar, Branch Head of the applicant bank' under Section 19 ofthe RDB Act, 1993 againstthe defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs'28,80'249'96 together with cost, charges and pendentellite and future interest @11.75olo p'a' from date of filing of this T'A' titl the realization in full.

2. The brief facts of the case are that at the request of the defendants, the applicant bank sanctioned an Education/TermLoanofRs'25,00,000/-forcompletion One Year & Six Months, of Ab-inito to CPL Course from Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Uran, Academy to be completed by defendant no'Ustudent' vide sanction None for aPPlicant bank' iiriinur."tn singh, counsel for defendants' st

TANO.232of 2021

letter dated 07 -04.20L4, securd by equitable mortgage of immovable Property No'503' HUDA Plots' Sector 56, Urban Estate, Gurgaon, Haryana measuring 164.6 Sq. Yds., belonging to and owned by defendant no.2 as well as personal guarantee of defendant no'3' The defendant nos. 1 & 2 executed all necessary loaning documents on 02'05'2014' The defendant no'3 also offered her personal guarantee and executed Education Loan Guarantee dated 02'05'2014' The defendant no'2 being the lawful owner of the above said property created extension of charge in respect of the above said property already mortgaged with the bank.

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 defendantstoregularizetheloanaccountbyvisitsand letters, but there was no response from the defendants, hence the account was classified as NPA on3l.03.202l.Therefore,theapplicantbankserveda demand notice dated 08'06'2021 and 18'07'2022 to the defendants, demanding the amount due as on that date, but failed to recover the same' Thus' the present OM[.A. is preferred by the applicant bank to recover its dues.

4. On notice by this Tribunal' the defendants put appearance through counsel but failed to file written *atement and evidence' . - CA

TANO.232of2023 3

5. On the other hand the applicant bank has filed the evidence by way of the affidavit of Shri Anuj Kumar, Branch Head of applicant bank as Annexure-A to Annexure-U along with the OA which have gone unchallenged and un-rebutted. Hence, the case of the applicant bank stands fully established against the defendants with respect to non-payment of EMI/ 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 filed by the applicant bank based upon the written/printed documents. In the light of the above discussions, the present TA deserues to be allowed'

ORDER

1) I hereby allow this T.A. of the Applicant Bank and direct the defendant nos. 1 to 3 to pay jointly and severally to the applicant bank within 30 days from today, a sum of Rs.28,80,249'96 along with cost' expenses and interest @ 11.75olo 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 pgtid2the same shall be c)

TANO' 232of2023

recoverd from the sale of moftgaged property bearing No.503, HUDA Plots' Sector 56' Urban Estate' Gurgaon, Haryana measuring 164'6 Sq'Yds' In case of short fall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of personal movable and immovable assets of the defendant nos.l to 3'

3) Recovery Certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to Recovery Officer' Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il'

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

5) Pafties are directed to appear before the Ld' Recovery Officer, DRT-II' Delhion 22'07'2025' Pending IAs, if anY, stand disPosed of' Fite be consigned to records' Delhi. Date :22'05.2025 This judgement has been pronounced in oPen coutt' Date :22'05.2025 ! 4.\ 1-{ (susHIL KUMAR RASToGI) bnegotttc oFFIcER DRT-II, Delhi signed, dated and <a ( SUSHIL KU T'trAR NNJTOCT) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi T I I I I i I I I I i I I I