PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK vs AJAY KUMAR & ORS. on 26 October 2026

**FINAL ORDER**

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 12.05.2016 before DRT-II Delhi and then transferred to DRT-I Delhi under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.33,21,571/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lacs Twenty One Thousand Five Hundred Seventy One only) as on 09.05.2016 along with pendentelite and future interest @12.25% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing of this application till the date of realization and costs.

2. The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant no.1 vide application dated 08.05.2013, the applicant bank sanctioned home loan for Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty lacs only) @12.25% interest per annum to be repayable in 240 Equal Monthly Installments of Rs.29,449/- on 09.05.2013 in order to purchase under construction flat bearing no.1303, 13^th Floor, Tower FH/B, Foster Heights, Plot No.14, Sector-2, Crossing Republic, Behind ABES Engineering, NH-24, Ghaziabad, UP being constructed by defendant no.3. The defendant no.2 stood as guarantor for the loan facility sanctioned in favour of defendant no.1 by the applicant bank. The defendant no.1 agreed to pay penal interest @2% per annum in case of default or delay in repayment of instalment.

SD

3. That in order to avail the housing loan facility, the defendant no.1 submitted loan application and executed Agreement of Sale dated 14.05.2013, Agreement for Housing Loan, Irrevocable Power of Attorney in favour of the applicant bank and the defendants executed Tripartite Agreement dated 15.05.2013 in favour of applicant bank. The defendant no.2 and 3 executed Agreement of Guarantee on 15.05.2013 in respect of housing loan.

4. As per Tripartite Agreement dated 15.05.2013, the defendant no.3 agreed with the terms and conditions of the loan sanctioned and bound to deliver the possession of allotted flat to defendant no.1 and undertook that on completion of construction of the property in question, defendant no.3 had created mortgage in favour of applicant bank and applicant bank disbursed the loan amount in favour of defendant no.3 directly on behalf of defendant no.1. In case, defendant no.1 failed to adhere to the financial discipline and made continuous defaults in repayments towards installments, he is liable to penal interest as well.

5. That in order the secure loan facility, the defendant no.1 executed agreement for housing loan and consented for mortgage the flat bearing no.1303, 13^th Floor, Tower FH/B, Foster Heights, Plot No.14, Sector-2, Crossing Republic, Behind ABES Engineering, NH-24, Ghaziabad, UP towards the applicant bank.

6. It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the housing loan facility, the defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions neither regularize the account nor repaid interest/installment in time to the applicant bank. Ultimately, the applicant bank classified the account as SD

NPA on 31.12.2015 as per RBI guidelines and issued recall cum demand notice dated 07.01.2016 revoking the guarantees executed by defendant no.2 and 3, calling upon the defendants to pay the overdue amount but the defendants failed to clear the dues of the applicant bank, hence the applicant bank has approached this tribunal for recovery of their dues.

7. Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite of proper service the defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings. The defendant no.2 appeared on 17.11.2016 but defendant no.1 and 3 not appeared and proceeded ex-parte.

8. The defendant no.2 filed his written statement contesting the claim of applicant bank and admitted that he along with his wife book a residential flat bearing no.1401, 14^th Floor, Tower-FH/B, in Foster Heights Project, Plot NO.14, Sector-2, NH-24, Crossing Republic Ghaziabad, UP with respondent no.3 and availed home loan of Rs.37.00 lacs from the applicant bank. However, the answering respondent no.2 was surprised to receive notice in the present OA though he does not even known defendant no.1 Sh.Ajay Kumar. It is further contended that on perusal of documents supplied with the notice, it is revealed that a criminal conspiracy was hatched between the officials of the applicant bank and respondent no.1 as well as defendant no.3. The answering respondent has been alleged to be a guarantor for the home loan availed by defendant no.1 from the applicant bank for purchasing another residential flat from defendant no.3 by forging the signatures on the documents and misusing the same by the applicant bank. it is further that the case of the defendant no.2 when he enquired from the defendant no.3, he came to know that the Chairman of defendant no.3 has done such illegal acts inclusion with the SD

officials of the applicant bank and approved many other loans on the basis of forged documents. On further enquiry, it also came to the notice of answering defendant no.2 that a number of FIRs including FIR no.1182/2015 dated 27.11.2015 under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC in Police Station Sector 58 Noida, were registered against defendant no.3. the answering defendant no.2 further submits that he is a victim of fraud and conspiracy jointly committed by the applicant bank, defendant no.1 and defendant no.3 by forging his signatures and misusing the documents without his knowledge or consent. Accordingly, he has prayed that he is not liable for any amount alleged to be outstanding against the loan allegedly obtained by defendant no.1 from the applicant bank and thus, has also prayed for dismissal of the present OA qua him. The only contesting defendant no.2 has not filed any evidence either oral or documentary in support of the allegations levelled by him in his written statement. The rights of defendant no.2 to file his evidence was closed vide order dated 07.11.2017. The final order was passed by this Tribunal on 22.02.2018 and RC was issued but respondent no.1 filed MA No.136/2018 for setting aside ex-parte order as not served properly and that fraud has been played with connivance with SBI officers and investigation is going on the basis of complaint of the bank and I.A.No.1544/18 for condonation of delay and I.A.No.1545/18 for stay the RC proceedings. The matter was heard on 20.04.2022 directing the ex-parte order along with RC be set aside as withdrawn, cancel and posted the matter for completion of pleadings.

9. The matter was heard after that and vide order dated 01.09.2025, it was observed that defendants have not filed their evidence, hence the right to file evidence of defendants sd-

stands closed and proceeded ex-parte as not appeared before the Tribunal as well as evidence and affidavit of assets have been filed by the defendants.

10. In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Sh.Pushpendra Kumar Sirohi, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the copies of documents such as Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Loan Application, Sanction Letter, Loan Agreement, Irrevocable Power of Attorney, Master Undertaking, Tripartite Agreement, Agreements of Guarantee, Transfer Voucher, Letters, Legal Demand Notice along with Postal Receipts, Office Copies of Notices for Invocation of Guarantees, Statement of Account along with Certificate under Section 2A of Bankers' Books Evidence Act marked as Ex.AW-1/1 to Ex.AW-1/16 (Colly).

11. The above evidence led by applicant bank has gone unchallenged and unrebuted because defendant no.1 and 3 are ex-parte whereas defendant no.2 is only contesting defendant has not filed any evidence either oral or documentary to rebut the evidence led by the applicant bank. it is well settled proposition of law that mere averments/allegations do not take the place of proof unless and until there is sufficient cogent and convincing evidence in support thereof. Moreover the case of the applicant bank is entirely based on loan and security documents executed by defendants and prepared in ordinary course of its banking business and same cannot be disbelieved. Thus, the applicant bank is entitled to the recovery certificates as prayed for in the application.

*sd-*

---

12. In the light of the above discussions, the Original Application deserves to be allowed.

ORDER

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank within a period of 30 days, jointly or severally, a sum of Rs.33,21,571/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lacs Twenty One Thousand Five Hundred Seventy One only) as on 09.05.2016 together with pendentelite interest @12.25% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing of this application till the date of realization failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of moveable and immovable property of the defendants.

(II) The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi.

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 28.12.2026.

(IV) Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be sent to all concerned free of cost.

*= sd- here* **(GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA)** **PRESIDING OFFICER** **DRT-I, DELHI**

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 26.10.2026