CANARA BANK (SYNDICATE BANK) vs SANDEEP GOSWAMI on 30 October 2026

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on t1.07.2019 through Sh. Harish Vig, Chief Manager of the applicant bank, under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,09,41,674.40 together with cost, charges and pendentellite and future interest @17.50o/o 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.l &, the applicant bank sanctioned a SOD Facility of Rs.2,24,00,000/-, vide sanction letter dated 30.10.2014. The security created in favour of the applicant bank is the Plot bearing no. D-56, 1* Floor, Old Double Storey, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi-110024. Further defendant no.3 stogdas personal guarantor. The O\

TA NO. 1489 of 2022

defendants executed all necessary documents on 31.10.2014. loaning

3. It is further submifted 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 31.01.2017. The applicant bank served a demand notice dated 24.03.20t7 to the defendants but failed to recover the same Thus, the present O.A.fLA. is preferred by the applicant bank to recover its dues.

4. On notice by this Tribunal, defendants failed to put appearance at all, despite publication' Accordingly, the defendants were proceeded against exparte on 06.02.2024.

5. The applicant bank has flled evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Harish Vig, Chief Manager of the applicant trank as Annexure A-1 to Annexure A16, 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 aQd-.there is no question of s\'.

TA NO. 1489 of2022

disbelieving the applicant bank documents. evidence and documents filed by the based upon the written/printed 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 3 to pay jointly and severally to the applicant bank within 30 days from today, a sum of Rs.3,09,41,674.40 along with cost, expenses and interest @13olo from the date of filing 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 mortgaged property i.e., Plot bearing no. D-56, 1't Floor:, Old Double Storey, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi-110024. In case of short fall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of personal movable and immovable assets of the defendant nos.1 to 3.

3) Recovery Ceftificate 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. 6,,

TA NO. 1489 of 2022

5) Parties are directed to appear before the Ld. Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi on 30.12.2026. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. File be consigned to records. Date : 30.10.2026 _l

I (SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFRCER DRT-II, Delhi This judgement has been signed, dated and pronounced in open court. Date : 30.10.2026 !e) (SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi