Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. M/S Mohiz Printo Hub and Another

DRT19 Nov 2025OA/1336/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the application filed by Bank of Baroda for recovery of Rs.37,18,307.14 p from M/s Mohiz Printo Hub and proprietor Sh. Mohinder Kumar. The Tribunal fixed interest at 08% p.a. and issued a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Granted recovery of Rs.37,18,307.14 p with interest @08% p.a., costs, and a Recovery Certificate was issued.

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Mohiz Printo Hub and Another — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1336/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 17.09.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 19.11.2025

¶6

Bank of Baroda (erstwhile Vijaya Bank) a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 and having its Head Office at Mandavi, Baroda and one of its branch at Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, Ludhiana through its Constituted Attorney Sh. Palwinder Singh, son of Sh. Harbhajan Singh, Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda, Ludhiana and who is also the Principal Officer of the plaintiff/applicant.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s Mohiz Printo Hub, through its sole proprietor Sh. Mohinder Kumar son of Sh. Bali Mahto, Sunder Nagar, Near King Palace, Ludhiana-141001.

¶10

Sh. Mohinder Kumar son of Sh. Bali Mahto, Sole Proprietor M/s Mohiz Printo Hub, Sunder Nagar, Near King Palace, Ludhiana141001.

¶11

2^nd Address: - Ward No. 57, Near Baba Bhan Singh Park, Sunet, Ludhiana-141012.

¶12

3^rd Address: - SCF-19, Block-F, BRS Nagar, Ludhiana 4^th Address: - 73-G, BRS Nagar, Ludhiana

¶13

5^th Address: - Mohiz Printo Hub, 2571/B, Jagat Nagar, Near Simran Gas, Tehsil and District Ludhiana-141008.

¶14

….……Defendants Advocates:

¶15

Argued by Sh. Rahul Garg, Advocate proxy for Sh. Ashok Kumar Verma, Advocate for the applicant

¶16

Defendants already ex-parte

¶17

2 OA/1336/2025 BANK OF BARODA VS M/S MOHIZ PRINTO HUB AND ANOTHER

¶18

FINAL ORDER

¶19

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act,1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.37,18,307.14p (Rupees Thirty Seven Lacs Eighteen Thousand Three Hundred Seven & Paise Fourteen Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Palwinder Singh, Chief Manager, o f the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide General Power of Attorney dated 10.01.2001, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶20

The brief facts of the OA that the defendant no. 1 through its proprietor defendant no. 2 had approached the applicant for the grant of CC Limit of Rs.5.00 Lacs. Thereafter, the defendant no. 1 thorough its proprietor defendant no. 2 approached the applicant for enhancement of CC Limit to Rs. 9.50 Lacs and again for enhancement of the limit to Rs. 20.00 Lacs and thereafter again to Rs. 35.00 Lacs.

¶21

The applicant sanctioned the CC Limit of Rs.5.00 Lacs vide Sanction letter dated 30.11.2017, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants vide undertaking dated 30.11.2017, which is Annexure A5 to this OA. Thereafter, the CC Limit was enhanced by the applicant to Rs. 9.50 Lacs vide sanction letter dated 20.11.2021, which is Annexure A13 to this OA. The limit was again enhanced by the applicant to Rs. 20.00 Lacs vide sanction letter dated 04.11.2022, which is Annexure A20 to this OA and was again enhanced to Rs. 35.00 Lacs vide sanction letter dated 01.11.2023, which is Annexure A30 to this OA. 4. Defendant no. 1 through its proprietor defendant no. 2 hypothecated stock of all kind of printing and embroidery of hosiery goods, book debts etc. vide loan cum agreement cum hypothecation deed dated 30.11.2017, which is Annexure A4 to this OA; loan cum agreement cum hypothecation deed dated 28.03.2019, which is Annexure A11 to this OA; Composite hypothecation agreement dated 20.11.2021, which is Annexure A18 to this OA; Composite

¶22

3 OA/1336/2025

¶23

BANK OF BARODA VS M/S MOHIZ PRINTO HUB AND ANOTHER

¶24

hypothecation agreement dated 04.11.2022, which is Annexure A24 to this OA.

¶25

Documents executed:- Gazette notification dated 02.01.2019 of amalgamation of Vijaya Bank with Bank of Baroda, which is Annexure A1 to this OA; Annexure to HOC 104/2000, Authorization letter, letter granting authorization for access to godown, statutory liability, undertaking as to payment of interest, all dated 30.11.2017, which are Annexures A6 to A10 to this OA; Letter of acknowledgement of debt dated 05.09.2020, which is Annexure A12 to this OA; D.P. Note, Declaration cum undertaking, Letter of sole proprietorship, letter of continuing security, all dated 20.11.2021, which are Annexures A14 to A17 to this OA; Letter of acknowledgement of debt dated 30.11.2021, which is Annexure A19 to this OA; D.P. Note, Letter of Sole Proprietorship, Letter of continuing security, Declaration cum undertaking cum authority, undertaking for CGTMSE, Letter of undertaking, Letter of Authority, Power of Attorney in respect of book debts facility, all dated 04.11.2022, which are Annexures A21 to A23, A25 to A29 to this OA; Loan agreement, which is Annexure A31 to this OA; Letter of acknowledgement of debt dated 09.08.2024, which is Annexure A32 to this OA; Notice dated 31.01.2025 u/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, along with postal receipts, which are Annexures A33 to A36 to this OA; Statement of account, which is Annexure A37 to this OA.

¶26

The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan account there was a debit of Rs.37,18,307.14p, which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notices but they did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 6. The defendants were served notices to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte on 13.11.2025.

¶27

4 OA/1336/2025 BANK OF BARODA VS M/S MOHIZ PRINTO HUB AND ANOTHER

¶28

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Varun Gupta, Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, h as been filed.

¶29

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶30

It was argued by learned proxy counsel that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case. From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A37 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant for availing of the loan facility which was granted to them and for that they had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. The defendants failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, account of the defendants was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.37,18,307.14p (Rupees Thirty Seven Lacs Eighteen Thousand Three Hundred Seven & Paise Fourteen Only) along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the account.

¶31

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has claimed [email protected]%p.a. plus @2% penal interest with monthly rests from 08.09.2025 till the realization.

¶32

The Tribunal is of the considered opinion that sometimes in appropriate cases the prerogative of mercy is the brightest jewel in the crown of the Judge. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case including nature of the mortgaged property/hypothecated assets, undertaking of the defendants, quantum of loan and prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yester years, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @08.00%p.a. in the loan account from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶33

5 OA/1336/2025

¶34

BANK OF BARODA VS M/S MOHIZ PRINTO HUB AND ANOTHER

¶35

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.37,18,307.14p (Rupees Thirty Seven Lacs Eighteen Thousand Three Hundred Seven & Paise Fourteen Only), jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00%p.a. in the loan account from the date of filing of OA till the date of realization of the amount. Accordingly, the applicant shall be entitled to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of hypothecated assets of the defendants in execution proceedings if not sold earlier under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. If the dues of the applicant still remain unsatisfied, it shall be entitled to recover the same by attachment and sale of personal assets of the defendants. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶36

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of. 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 01.12.2025. 15. Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant and be sent to defendants through registered/speed post and this order be also uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal and record be consigned. Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 19.11.2025.

¶37

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶38

Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Bank of Baroda v. M/S Mohiz Printo Hub and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. M/S Mohiz Printo Hub and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Messrs Rosy Hi Tech Spinning Mills and Others versus Punjab National Bank

Gaurav Chandola and Another versus Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd. and Others

Icici Bank Limited versus M/S Jai Jeet Enterprises and Another

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Sukhwinder Singh and Another

Canara Bank versus Sh. Malkeet Singh and Another

Central Bank of India versus M/S Paras Traders and Others