BANK OF BARODA vs SHRI JOGESHWAR SHARMA on 3 November 2026

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 24.L0.2019 through Shri. Brijesh Kumar Rajput Chief Manager of the applicant bank, under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.24,87,8731- together with cost, charges and pendentellite and future interest @15.75olo 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 no.1, the applicant bank sanctioned a Pronote Loan Facility (PLO) of Rs.3,00,000/-, vide sanction letter dated 30.06.2006. The defendant nos.2

- Defendants a -Applicant bank Present: Shri. R. Raja Bhallal, Counsel for applicant bank. Defendants are exparte, since, 27.02.2025.

TANO.963of2024 2 and 3 stood as guarantor. The defendants executed all necessary loaning documents on 03.07.2006.

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 31'12.2006. The applicant bank served a notice dated 21.08.2019 to the defendants but failed to recover the same Thus, the present O.A.ff.A. 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 expafte on 27.02.202s.

5. The applicant bank has filed evidence by way of affidavit of Mr. Brijesh Kumar Rajput, Chief Manager of the applicant bank as,Annexure A-1 to Annexure A-19, 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 ihat the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. The evidence and documents filed by the applicant bank not reQg[ed by the defendants by not s,\.

TA NO. 963 of 2024

placing any evidence and there is no question of disbelieving the evidence and documents filed by the applicant bank based upon the wriften/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 3 to pay jointly and severally to the applicant bank within 30 days from today, a sum of Rs.24,87,8731- along with cost, expenses and interest @12.25o/o 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 personal movable and immovable assets of the defendant nos.1 to 3.

3) Recovery Certiflcate 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 pafties. ^1

TANO.963 of 2024

5) Parties are directed to appear before the Ld. Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi on 04.0t.2027. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. This judgement has been signed, dated and pronounced in open court. e^ ( File be consigned to records. ! 9J. Date : 03.11.2026 (SUSHIL runqnn RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, DEIhi Date : 03.11.2026 (SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi t