Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. M/S Ezoom Mobility Private Limited

DRT10 Sept 2025OA/145/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Bank of Baroda for recovery of outstanding dues of Rs. 56.61 lakhs plus interest from the borrower and guarantors, ordering payment or sale of hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to pay principal sum of Rs.56,61,529 plus interest @9.55% per annum from 16.08.2022 and costs within 30 days, recoverable from sale of mortgaged/movable/immovable properties in d

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Ezoom Mobility Private Limited — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

O.A. No. 145 of 2023

¶2

Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi 4th floor, Jeevan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi

¶3

Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sharma

¶4

O.A. No.145 of 2023

¶5

Bank of Baroda

¶6

BH-29, Jhulelal Mandir Marg Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088 Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s Ezoom Mobility Private Limited 1209-1212, 12th floor,

¶9

RG Trade Tower

¶10

Netaji Subhash Palace, Delhi-110034

¶11

Mrs. Nisha Gupta w/o Late Mr. Dharamvir Gupta Guarantor)

¶12

-21, 3rd floor, Satyawati Colony, shok Vihar Phase 3, Delhi-110052

¶13

Mr. Himanshu Gupta s/o Late Mr. Dharamviir Gupta Guarantor)

¶14

-21, 3rd floor, Satyawati Colony, shok Vihar Phase 3, Delhi-110052

¶15

Mr. Vansh Gupta s/o Late Mr. Dharamvir Gupta Guarantor)

¶16

-21, 3rd floor, Satyawati Colony, shok Vihar Phase 3, Delhi-110052

¶17

resent: Sh. Sumit Goswami, Counsel for the applicant bank Date of Institution: 11.01.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 10.09.2025

¶18

FINAL ORDER

¶19

This original application has been filed by the applicant II ank on 11.01.2023 through Sh. Brajesh Mohan, authorized epresentative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of

¶20

O.A. No. 145 of 2023

¶21

Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the •efendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.56,61,529/- (Rupees Fifty Six Lacs Sixty One Thousand Five Hundred Twenty Nine •nly) alongwith interest @9.55% per annum with monthly rests rom 16.08.2022 till the date of realization along with costs.

¶22

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the efendant no.1 through its guarantors being defendant no.2 to the applicant bank sanctioned Cash Credit limit of Rs.400.00 acs within which BG limit of Rs.250.00 lacs on 04.12.2017 for usinesi- purpose which was reviewed on 15.11.2018 and ; 1.01.2019 @11.55% interest per annum with monthly rests gainst hypothecation of stocks, book debts and mortgage of ropertw owned by defendant no.2. Further, on the request of he defendant no.1, the applicant bank sanctioned Term Loan acility under BGECLS scheme for Rs.60,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty acs only) on 16.01.2021 @7.50% interest.

¶23

In order to avail the loan facilities, the defendants ubmitted loan applications and executed Board Resolutions, ttestation Memo, D.P Note, Letter of Continuing Security, omposite Hypothecation Agreement, Letter of Undertaking, eclara,lons cum Undertakings cum Authority, General form of uarantee, Draft of Stamped Counter Indemnity, Power of AL ttorney with the applicant bank on 06.12.2017, 31.01.2019 nd 16.01.2021.

¶24

That in order to secure the loan facilities, the defendants ypothecated the stocks and book debts of defendant no.1 and efendant no.2 along with Sh.Dharam Vir Gupta (since eceased) created equitable mortgage of Industrial property at lot no.555, Sector-C, DSIDC, Narela Industrial Area, Delhi

¶25

¶26

O.A. No. 145 of 2023

¶27

measuring 350 square meters with the applicant bank on 06.12.2017 which was extended on 31.01.2019 by defendant no.2. in favour of applicant bank.

¶28

The defendant no.1 through its guarantors executed Acknowledgement of Debt and Securities thereby acknowledging the debt towards the applicant bank on 31.01.2019. The applicant bank registered its charge with Registrar of Companies on the hypothecated assets of defendant no.1 on 16.01.2021.

¶29

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions of sanction and failed to regularize the account with the applicant bank. Ultimately, the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 16.08.2022 as per RBI guidelines but the defendants failed to regularize the account. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶30

Notices under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 was issued on 31.08.2022 to the defendants by the applicant bank but they failed to clear the dues.

¶31

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite of proper service, the defendant has chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 20.11.2024, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as they have not appeared before the Tribunal and even written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have not been filed by the defendant.

¶32

¶33

O.A. No. 145 of 2023

¶34

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its vidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Brajesh Mohan, authorized epresentative of the applicant bank who has proved the ocuments as Power of Attorney, Sanction letters, emorandum of Entry, Letter of Confirmation of Creation, eclaration in the matter of mortgage, Review letter, Board esolution, Attestation memo, D.P Note, Letter of Continuing ecurity, Composite Hypothecation Agreement, Letter of ndertaking, Declarations cum Undertakings cum Authority, enera form of Guarantee, Draft of Stamped Counter ndemnity, Power of Attorney in respect of Book debts, Letter f Acknowledgement of debt, Certificate of Registration of harge, Notice u/s 13(2) of SARFAESI, Statement of Account longwith Certificate u/s 2(a) of the Banker's Book Evidence ct and u/s 65B of the Evidence Act marked as Ex.AW-1/1 to x.AW-1/33 (Colly).

¶35

The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments ade in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the pplicant bank is based on the documents and the same have II een duly approved.

¶36

The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and here is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant ank and the applicant bank has proved its case beyond easonable doubts.

¶37

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

O.A. No. 145 of 2023

ORDER

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the pplicant bank, jointly or severally, within a period of 30 days, sum of Rs.56,61,529/- (Rupees Fifty Six Lacs Sixty One housand Five Hundred Twenty Nine only) together with nterest @9.55% per annum with monthly rests from 16.08.2022 till the date of realization and costs; failing which he aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of ypothecated stocks, book debts and mortgaged property •eing building situated at Plot no.555, Sector-C, DSIDC, Narela ndustrial area, Delhi. In case of shortfall, the same shall be ecovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties •f the defendants.

¶42

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

¶43

III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery ID fficer, DRT I, Delhi on 10.11.2025.

¶44

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

¶45

< sd (GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶46

Dictated and pronounced in open court) ated: 10.09.2025

¶47

Bank of Baroda v. M/S Ezoom Mobility Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. M/S Ezoom Mobility Private Limited

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

Bank of India versus Vishesh Enterprises

Bank of India versus J P Apparels

Canara Bank versus M/S R B Builders and Ors.

Anil versus State Bank of India

Maharaj Singh Sindhu versus Iifl Home Finance Limited

Hdfc Bank versus Ms Neeraj Electronics