Allowed

Punjab National Bank v. Ms Geeta Trading Company

DRT30 Oct 2025OA/553/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT at Lucknow adjudicated a banking dispute where the applicant sought recovery of an outstanding loan of Rs. 81.21 lakhs against the proprietorship firm and guaranteeors. The court accepted the bank's evidence via affidavit, deemed the defendants' inaction as waiver, and directed payment with interest coupled with an injunction against asset alienation.

What did the court decide?

Mandatory payment of Rs. 81.21 lakhs with interest, enforcement via sale of secured and personal assets if not paid within two months, injunction against alienation of property, and issuance of Recove

Punjab National Bank versus Ms Geeta Trading Company — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

/ '/

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW

¶3

Office action
Date of order or I Order with signature of court
taken with
proceeding
date
O.A. No.553/2023
30.10.2025 The Judgment is signed and
pronounced on separate sheets. Separately
attached in 08 sheets.
Order be uploaded on the Tribunal’s
website.
(Dictated)r
<br>(Pravas Kuma_ ingh)
Presiding Officer
(Mugish)

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT LUCKNOW

¶5

Present: Pravas Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

¶6

Case No. Original Application No.553 of 2023

¶7

Dated: 30.10.2025

¶8

Punjab National Bank, having Branch at
Ghooran Talaiya, Shahjahanpur.
.......Applicant-bank
Versus
1. M/s Geeta Trading Company, through it’s
Proprietor Shri Neeraj Kumar Sharma,
Situated at 334, Mohalla Khaleel Sharki,
Shahjahanpur 242001.
2. Shri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Proprietor of M/s
Geeta Trading Company, S/o Shri Phool Chand
Sharma, Resident of House No.219, Mohalla
Khaleel Sharki, Near Nafeesh Dairy,
Shahjahanpur 242001.
3. Smt. Geeta Sharma W/o Shri Neeraj Kumar
Sharma, Resident of House No.219, Mohalla
Khaleel Sharki, Near Nafeesh Dairy, ......Defendants
Shahjahanpur 242001.

¶9

.......Applicant-bank

¶10

Ld. Counsel for Applicant-bank: Shri Kaushal Kishore, Advocate Ld. Counsel for the Defendants: None.

¶11

JUDGEMENT

¶12

This Original Application has been filed by the Applicant-bank under

¶13

Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the

¶14

defendants for the recovery of Rs.81,21,535.05/- (Rupees Eighty One Lacs,

¶15

Twenty One Thousand, Five Hundred Thirty Five and Paisa Five Only) together with pendent-lite and future interest, costs and other reliefs etc.

O.A. No.553 of 2023

The brief facts of case are that the defendants No.1 is a proprietorship firm of which defendant no.2 is the sole proprietor and the defendant No.3 is the guarantor. The defendant no.2 on behalf of defendant no.1 approached the Applicant-bank for financial assistance. The Applicant-bank considered the request of the defendants and sanctioned Cash Credit Limit of Rs.40.00 lacs vide its sanction letter dated 03.03.2015 on certain terms and conditions (Exhibit No. A-2 & Exhibit No. A-3) to this Original Application.

¶20

To secure aforesaid credit facility, defendant No.2 on behalf of the defendant No.1 had executed and signed various security documents in favour of the Applicant-bank. The defendant No.3 signed and executed Guarantee Agreement dated 03.03.2015 (Exhibit No.A-4 to Exhibit No.A-6) to this Original Application.

¶21

In order to further secure the repayment of the bank dues, the defendant No.3 created equitable mortgage in respect of property i.e. (a) Residential House Situated at Mohalla Khaleel Garbi, District Shahjahanpur admeasuring 132.29 square meter in the name of defendant No.3 in favour of the bank by deposit of title deed (Exhibit No. A-7 to Exhibit No.A-9) to this Original Application.

¶22

That the defendants had signed and executed the Balance & Security Confirmation Letter dated 29.06.2016, a copy of which is being annexed as (Exhibit No. A- 10) to this Original Application.

¶23

At the request of the defendant No2 on behalf of the defendant No.1 had approached the applicant bank for grant of Cash Credit Limit of enhancement from Rs.40.00 lacs to Rs.60.00 lacs vide its sanction letter

¶24

O.A. No.553 of 2023

¶25

¶26

dated 10.01.2018 on certain terms and conditions (Exhibit No.A-11) to this Original Application.

¶27

That in order to avail the said credit facilities, the defendant No.2 on behalf of the defendant No. 1 had signed and executed various security documents in favour of the applicant bank. The defendant No.3 had signed and executed Agreement of Guarantee on 15.01.2018, a copy of which is being annexed as (Exhibit No. A-12 & Exhibit No. A-13) to this Original Application.

¶28

In order to further secure the repayment of the bank dues, the defendant No.3 created equitable mortgage in respect of property i.e. Residential Property being part of Gata No.54 and 56, situated at Mohalla Hathauda Buzurg, Shahjahanpur admeasuring 49.97 square meter (b) Residential property being part of Gata No.54 and 56, situated at Mohalla Hathauda Buzurg, Shahjahanpur admeasuring 238.77 square meter (c) Residential property being part of Gata No.54 and 56 situated at Mohalla Hathauda Buzurg, Shahjahanpur admeasuring 297.40 square meter in the name of defendant No.3 by deposit of title deed (Exhibit No. A-14 to Exhibit No. A- 18) to this Original Application.

¶29

At the request of defendant No.1 approached the applicant bank9 had renewed the Cash Credit Limit on 17.03.2020, a copy of which is being annexed as (Exhibit No. A- 19) to this original Application.

¶30

Subsequently, at the request of defendant No.2 for avaiiing relief under Covid-19 Regulatory Package on 25.08.2020 due to non-payment of interest in Cash Credit of Rs.60.00 lacs, the applicant bank had sanctioned FITL and had disbursed in Cash Credit Account, a copy of which is being annexed as (Exhibit No. A-20) to this Original Application.

¶31

C J\

¶32

O.A. No.553 of 2023

¶33

That the defendant had deposited a sum of Rs.13.50 laos by cash on 22.02.2021 in the Cash Credit Account (Exhibit No. A-2 1) to this Original Application.

¶34

That at the request of defendant No.1 approached the applicant bank, had renewed the Cash Credit limit on 22.04.202 1, a copy of which is being annexed as (Exhibit No. A-22) to this Original Application.

¶35

In respect of the said facilities, the defendants had executed the following loaning and security documents in favour of the applicant bank. The defendant No.3 had executed the Agreement of Guarantee on 09.06.202, a copy of which is being annexed as (Exhibit No. A:23 to Exhibit No. A-26) to this Original Application.

¶36

To avail the aforesaid credit facility, the Applicant-bank had opened three loan accounts in the name of defendant No. 1 in order to maintain the credit facilities.

¶37

After availing the aforesaid credit facility, the defendants failed to maintain financial discipline and also failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, consequently, the loan account of the defendant no.1/firm was classified as NPA on 02.05.2022 by the bank as per RBI guidelines (Exhibit No.A-27), thereafter the Applicant-bank issued Legal Notice dated 27.03.2023 to the defendants (Exhibit No. A-28), but, the defendants stated no-response and they failed to repay the same and the loan accounts of the defendants are still un-liquidated, hence, this Original Application has been instituted.

¶38

As per books of the bank maintained in the usual and ordinary course of banking business, an outstanding of Rs.81,21,535.05/- (Rupees Eighty

¶39

One Lacs, Twenty One Thousand, Five Hundred Thirty Five and Paisa Five

¶40

-J

¶41

5 O.A. No.553 of 2023

¶42

Only) including interest upto 28.02.2023, were lying due for payment, for which the defendants are jointly and severally liable to repay the same, which they did not pay despite repeated requests and demand. The Applicant-bank filed the Statement of loan Accounts. (Exhibit No.A-29 Exhibit No.A-30) to this Original Application.

¶43

The cause of action for filing the present application arose firstly on 03.03.2015 when the aforesaid credit facility were sanctioned by the Applicant-bank and the same were availed by the defendants and necessary documents were executed by the defendants. The cause of action arose on 10.01.2018 when at the request of defendants, applicant bank had enhanced the credit facility from Rs.40.00 lacs to 60.00 lacs. That the cause of action arose when the applicant bank had sanctioned FITL-I due to non– ayment of interest in Cash credit Account under Covid-19 Regulatory Package on 25.08.2020. The cause of action further arose on when Legal Notice dated 27.03.2023 was sent to the defendants, recalling the entire outstanding dues and they failed to pay the same.

¶44

The summons were served upon the defendants through registered post, all the defendants through counsel appeared before this Tribunal on 18.08.2023, but no written statement has been filed hence, opportunity to file the written statement is closed. The case is proceeded against the defendants.

¶45

From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the defendants were provided with fair opportunities to contest the claim of the bank. As the defendants opted not to contest the case, so only point of consideration

¶46

O.A. No.553 of 2023

¶47

before this Tribunal is as to whether bank is legally entitled to the amount as claimed in Original Application on the basis of documents and pleading submitted by it.

¶48

In support of the case Shri Amit Kumar, Chief Manager of the Applicant-bank has filed an affidavit.

¶49

On a careful scrutiny of the evidence on affidavit and Exhibits marked as Exhibit No.A-1 to Exhibit No.A-32, it is proved that defendants had availed the credit facilities from the Applicant-bank by executing loan and security documents detailed as above in favour of the Applicant-bank. A perusal of the application, evidence and documents relied upon clearly show that defendant had utilized the above loan facilities as granted to them. The Applicant-bank had maintained the Books of account in the ordinary course of banking business showing disbursal of the loan amount. The Bank had also charged interest from time to time and the entries are relevant u/s 4 of the Banker Books of Evidence Act. It is also proved that the Applicant-bank’s claim is within limitation against defendants, therefore, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the dues.

¶50

Accordingly, the defendants are directed to pay the balance dues to the Applicant-bank within a period of 2 months from the date of judgement failing which the Applicant-bank will be entitled to sell the mortgaged property, hypothecated assets and personal assets/ properties of the defendants.

¶51

The Applicant-bank has claimed [email protected]% in Cash Credit, [email protected]% in FITL-1 and [email protected]% in FITL-II per annum with

¶52

¶53

r.'-N/

¶54

' O.A. No.553 of 2023

¶55

monthly rest w.e.f. 28.02.2023 till the date of realization and costs. On the basis of foregoing discussion, interest of justice will be served if pendentlite and future interest is granted @9% per annum with monthly rest reducing balance from the date of filing of the O.A. till the date of realization with costs.

¶56

1 find that the bank has proved the execution of loan documents and creation of mortgage in its favour. In the result, the Original Application succeeds as proceeded against the defendants with costs. The bank has proved the loan execution of loan documents in favour of the bank and availment of credit facility. The liability of the defendant Nos.1 to 3 are joint and several and mortgaged property, hypothecated asset as well as the personal properties are to be sold.

¶57

It is, therefore , ordered

¶58

(i) That the Original Application No.553 of 2023 of the Applicant bank for issuance of Recovery Certificate to the tune of Rs.81/21/535.05/_ (Rupees EightY One Lacs, Twenty One Thousand, Five Hundred Thirty Five and Paisa Five Only) along with the interest @9% per annum with monthly rest from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 03.05.2023 till the loan is fully liquidated and costs suc(...eeds as proceeded against the defendants.

¶59

(ii) The defendants are directed to pay the dues within a period of two months from the date of judgement, failing which the Applicant-bank will be entitled to recover the same from the secured assets/ personal movables and immovable assets of the defendants

O.A. No.553 of 2023

(iii) The Applicant–bank is entitled to recover aforesaid amount by sale of mortgage property & hypothecated assets (if not sold earlier under the provision of the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act 2002). The amount, if any already recovered by sale of any hypothecated assets or otherwise shall be recoverable, if the dues of the Applicant-bank still remain unsatisfied, the same shall be recovered by attachment and sale of the personal movable assets of the defendant jointly and severally.

¶64

(iV) The defendants are hereby restrained by means of injunction from depleting, transferring, encumbering, alienating or in any way dealing with their properties/estates without first paying the claim of the

¶65

Applicant-bank.

¶66

(V) Let Recovery Certificate be issued immediately u/s 19(22) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 by fixing 06.01.2026 before R.O., DRT, Lucknow.

¶67

(vi) The Applicant-bank is directed to file a memo of cost for preparing Recovery Certificate u/s 19(22) of the Recovery of Debts Bankruptcy Act, 1993 .

¶68

Judgment is pronounced in the open court.

¶69

Dated: 30.10.2025

¶70

(Pravas Kurba~r SIngh) Presiding Officer

¶71

(MK)

Punjab National Bank v. Ms Geeta Trading Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. Ms Geeta Trading Company

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

Punjab National Bank versus M/s. Al Noor and Sons

Axis Bank versus Nikhil Bansal

Ms Youth and Style through its proprietor mohd arif versus Jana Small Finance Bank Ltd.

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Mr Javed Naseer

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Divine Construction

M S Balaji Enterprises versus Aryavart Bank