Allowed

Idfc First Bank Ltd. v. Jai Jinender Steels

DRT26 Nov 2025OA/31/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application for recovery of Rs. 34.54 lacs owed by defendants who failed to repay a business loan. With the case unrebutted, the Tribunal awarded interest at 12% p.a. and directed the issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs. 34,54,538.92 plus 12% per annum interest from 21.12.2023 and costs. Recovery certificate to be issued.

Idfc First Bank Ltd. versus Jai Jinender Steels — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

O.A. No. 31 of 2024

¶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. 31 of 2024

¶5

IDFC First Bank Ltd.

¶6

B-76, Lower Ground Floor

Sector-2, Noida

Uttar Pradesh

Applicant

Versus

Jai Jinender Steels N-6, Khyala Road

¶12

Vishnu Garden, Delhi-110018

¶13

Sh.Vipin Jain BG-7/94, Paschim Vihar West Delhi-110063

¶14

Also at:

¶15

Sh.Vipin Jain

¶16

c/o Jai Jinender Steels

¶17

N-6, Khyala road

¶18

Vishnu Garden, Delhi-110018

¶19

Ms Kamini Jain

¶20

BG-7/94, Paschim Vihar West Delhi-110063 Defendants

¶21

Present: Ms Shalka Lal, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶22

Date of Reserve: 11.11.2025

¶23

Date of Pronouncement: 26.11.2025

¶24

FINAL ORDER

¶25

This original application has been filed by the applicant on 11.01.2024 before DRT I Delhi through Shri Prateek Chibber, authorized representative of the applicant bank under

¶26

O.A. No. 31 of 2024

¶27

Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 along with pendentelite interest against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.34,54,538.92 (Rupees Thirty Four Lacs Fifty Four Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Eight and paisa Ninety Two only) as on 21.12.2023 together with pendentelite and future interest at contractual rate with monthly rests from 21.12.2023 till the date of realization along with costs.

¶28

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant no.1 through defendant no.2 & 3 vide loan application dated 16.04.2019, the applicant bank sanctioned Business Installment Loan for a sum of Rs.20,40,000/- on 04.05.2019 @18% interest per annum, which was to be repayable in 36 Equated Monthly Installments of Rs.73,751/-.

¶29

That in order to avail the loan facility, the defendants submitted Business Loan Application Form dated 16.04.2019 and executed Sanction Letter dated 04.05.2019 and Loan Agreement 02.05.2019 in favour of the applicant bank.

¶30

It has been submitted by the applicant that after availing the aforesaid loan facility, the defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions and failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of sanction either towards principle or interest despite several requests of the Applicant Bank. The applicant bank issued loan recall notice dated 01.01.2024 calling the outstanding amount but defendants failed to regularize the account. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this tribunal for recovery of its dues.

¶31

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite proper service, the defendants have chosen to absent

¶32

sd-

¶33

O.A. No. 31 of 2024

¶34

from the proceedings. As per order dated. 31.07.2025, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as they have not appeared before the Tribunal nor written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have been filed.

¶35

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Prateek Chibber, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents such as Letter of Authority, Loan Application Form, Sanction Letter, Loan Agreement, Loan Recall Notice, Statement of Account & Foreclosure Statement marked as Ex.AW-1/1 to Ex.AW-1/6.

¶36

The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments made in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the applicant bank is based on the documents and the same have been duly proved.

¶37

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

¶38

As per the provision of Section 19(20) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 which is analogous to Section 34 of CPC, on filing of the suit/claim, the contract between the parties comes to an end and the Court/Tribunal has a discretion to award the same depending upon the circumstances of each case. Same principle has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra & Others. Taking stock of all the circumstances and keeping in view that there is a drastic fall in rates of interest globally and domestically, I am of the opinion

¶39

¶40

O.A. No. 31 of 2024

¶41

that interest of justice will be served if the interest at the rate of 12% p.a. is awarded.

¶42

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

¶43

ORDER

¶44

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank, jointly or severally, within 30 days, a sum of Rs.34,54,538.92 (Rupees Thirty-Four Lacs Fifty Four Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Eight and paisa Ninety Two only) as on 21.12.2023 together with pendentelite and future interest @12% per annum from 21.12.2023 till the date of realization along with costs. In case of shortfall, the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable property of the defendants.

¶45

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

¶46

(III) Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 23.01.2026.

¶47

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

¶48

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

¶49

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 26.11.2025

Idfc First Bank Ltd. v. Jai Jinender Steels

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idfc First Bank Ltd. v. Jai Jinender Steels

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parthas Textiles versus Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited

Dcb Bank versus Arun Sharma

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Bansal Foods

Ajay Kashyap versus Piramal Capital

Ajith Gopidas versus the Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd.

Jose George versus State Bank of India