Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. M/S Aparajita Assosicates

DRT12 Sept 2025OA/449/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application under Section 19 of RDBFI Act for recovery of overdue loan dues of Rs.74.14 lakh from the borrower and guarantors who failed to appear in the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Directing defendants to pay Rs.74,14,038.88 with interest within 30 days; recovery from sale of mortgaged/hypothecated properties on default; issuance of recovery certificate.

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Aparajita Assosicates — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2025)

¶1

O.A. No.449 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.449 of 2023

¶5

Bank of Baroda (E-Vijaya Bank) ROSARB, 4th Floor, Rajendra Place, New Delhi-110008 Applicant

¶6

Versus 1. M/s Aparajita Associates Through LRs of deceased Proprietor Sh. Rakesh Ram Pathak 40, CSC Market, Guru Harkrishnan Nagar Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110087

¶7

Mr. Rakesh Ram Pathak (Proprietor) Through LR's since deceased 40, CSC Market, Guru Harkrishnan Nagar Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110087 Also at: 33, Site-1, CSC Market Guru Harkrishnan Nagar, Paschim Vihar New Delhi-110087

¶8

Mrs. Rashmi Rakesh Pathak w/o Late Rakesh Ram Pathak (Guarantor) 33, Site-1, CSC Market Guru Harkrishan Nagar, Paschim Vihar New Delhi-110087 4. Mr. Anand Amrit Raj (Guarantor) A-4/420, Paschim Vihar New Delhi-110063 Also at: Ramchandrapur Gopalganj Bihar-841440 Defendants Present: Mr. Biswajit Kumar Patra, Counsel for applicant Bank

¶9

¶10

O.A. No.449 of 2023

¶11

Date of Institution: 25.04.2023

¶12

Date of Pronouncement: 12.09.2025

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank before DRT I, Delhi on 25.04.2023 through Shri Anirudh Sharma, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act,1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.74,14,038.88 (Rupees Seventy Four Lacs Fourteen Thousand Thirty Eight and paisa Eighty Eight only) as on 17.04.2023 together with pendentelite and future interest @9.5% per annum with monthly rests and penal interest @2% from 17.04.2023 till realization with costs.

¶15

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant no.2 as proprietor of defendant no.1, the applicant bank sanctioned Working Capital Loan of Rs.65,00,000/(Rupees Sixty-Five Lacs only) on 21.03.2018 against hypothecation of stocks and book debts and mortgage of Shop No.40, First Floor, Guru Harkishan Nagar, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi owned by defendant no.2. The defendant no.3 and 4 stood as guarantors for the said facility sanctioned in favour of the defendant no.1 & 2.

¶16

That in order to avail the said loan facility, the defendants submitted Loan Application and executed Loan Agreement Cum Hypothecation Deed for Priority/Non Priority Sector Advances, Agreement for Demand Cash Credit, Undertaking, Letter of Guarantee, Original Title Deed of property with the applicant bank on 30.03.2018.

¶17

¶18

O.A. No.449 of 2023

¶19

That in order to secure the loan facility, the defendant no.2 hypothecated the stock, book debts of defendant no.1 and created mortgage of his property bearing Shop No.40, First Floor, Guru Harkishan Nagar, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi in favour of the applicant bank.

¶20

The Defendants executed Acknowledgement of debt dated 08.04.2021 acknowledging the debt of Rs.57,67,877.98 towards the applicant bank.

¶21

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to honor its commitments to make the payment of interest/installments due as per terms and conditions of the sanction and failed to regularize the account despite regular follow up by the applicant bank. The applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 30.09.2021 but defendants failed to regularize the accounts. Thereafter, the applicant bank issued Demand Notice/Recall notice dated 06.01.2023 but no response, hence, the applicant bank has approached this tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶22

Notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 dated 01.10.2021 was issued to the defendants by the applicant bank but they failed to clear the dues. The applicant bank taken the possession of mortgaged property vide notice u/s 13(4) on 16.12.2022.

¶23

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite of proper service, the defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 09.06.2025, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared

¶24

¶25

O.A. No.449 of 2023

¶26

before the Tribunal and even no written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have been filed by the defendants.

¶27

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Mr. Anirudh Sharma, authorized representative of the applicant bank, who has proved the documents as Board Resolution, Loan Application Form, Sanction Letter, Loan Application cum Hypothecation Deed, Agreement for Demand Cash Credit, Affidavit cum Undertaking, Copy of Title Deeds, Acknowledgement of Debt, Notice u/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, Copy of Legal Demand notice as Ex.AW-1/1 to Ex.AW-1/10 (Colly).

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

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

¶31

ORDER

¶32

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants, to pay to the applicant bank, jointly or severally, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.74,14,038.88. (Rupees Seventy Four Lacs Fourteen Thousand Thirty Eight and Paisa Eighty Eight only) as on 17.04.2023 together with pendentelite and future interest sd-

¶33

¶34

O.A. No.449 of 2023

¶35

@9.5% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing of this application till the date of realization failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stocks and book debts and sale of mortgaged property being Shop No.40, First Floor, Guru Harkishan Nagar, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶36

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

¶37

(Ill) Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 10.11.2025.

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 12.09.2025

¶41

Bank of Baroda v. M/S Aparajita Assosicates

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. M/S Aparajita Assosicates

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joji Esthaphan versus Axis Bank

Canara Bank versus Bharat Kumar Gupta

Indian Bank versus M/S Ujjwala Food Industries

Union Bank of India versus Smt Seema

Punjab National Bank versus Reshu Devi and Ors.

Idbi Bank versus Sh Avtar Singh