CANARA BABK (SYNDICATE BANK) vs RAJENDER SINGH & ORS on 30 October 2026

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 29.11.2018 through Anil Kumar Gupta, Senior Manager of the applicant bank, under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.70,82,528.34 together with cost, charges and pendentellite and future interest @18o/o from date of filing of this O.A. till the realization in full.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the defendant no.1 has ava;ied the SOD Limit from the applicant bank to the extent rrf Rs.15,00,000/- on 27.02'2007. The shop of the defendant no.1, bealng no.2 & 3, basement floor A'

TANO. 1108 of 2023

property bearing no. D-34, out of Khasra No.3212, Soudan Market, Punjab Basti, Nangloi, Delhi, was mortgaged with the bank by virtue of UREM as collateral security by deposit of title deeds. The propefi belongs to defendant no.2 by virtue of sale deed dated 10.06.2004. The defendant nos.2 to 4 have stood as guarantors. The defendants executed all necessary loaning documents on 23.02.2007 and 27.02.2007. It is submitted that the defendant no.1 has approached the bank and apprised the bank that theii shops have been acquired by the government and were demolished and as such they are not in a position to repay the loan amount and sought time for the same.

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 dated 29.09.2010. The applicant bank served a legal notice dated 07.09.2018 to the defendants but failed to recover the same Thus, the present O.A.[I.A. is preferred by the applicant bank to recover its dues.

4. On notice by this Tribunal, defendants put appearance through counsel but failed to file written statement and the right to file written statement of vide order dated 14.08.2025' defendant was closed

9. \

TA NO. I108 of 2023

5. The applicant bank has filed documents as Paper No.1 to Paper No.54, 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.

5. After perusing the records, this Tribunal is of the view that the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. The documents filed by the applicant bank not rebutted by the defendants by not placing any evidence and there is no question of disbelieving the documents flled 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.

ORDER

1) I hereby allow this T.A. of the applicant bank and direct the defendant nos.1 to 4 to pay jointly and severally to the applicant bank within 30 days from today, a sum of Rs.70,82,528.34 along with cost, expenses and interest @l4o/o from the date of fililrg of this O.A. which has become T.A 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 personal movable and immovable assets of the defendant nos.1 to 4.

3) Recovery Certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to Recovery Officer, DgbF-Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi. il*i

TANO. 1108 of 2023

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, Delhi on 30.12.2026. Pending lAs, if any, stand disposed of. File be consigned to records. eA Date : 30.10.2026 (SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, DEIhi This judgement has been signed, dated and pronounced in open court. Date : 30.10.2026 /\ ^ - --t I (SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi