Allowed

Punjab National Bank v. Ms Mittal Buildwell

DRT13 Oct 2025OA/677/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of dues totaling Rs. 67.67 Lakhs with interest. The defendants failed to repay loans sanctioned in 2013 and 2020, leading to the filing of this original application. The court granted a recovery certificate and ordered sale of assets.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 67.67 Lakhs plus 12% annual interest; direction to pay dues in 2 months; permission to sell hypothecated and personal assets.

Punjab National Bank versus Ms Mittal Buildwell — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW

¶2

a Office action
proceeding taken with
date
O.A. No.677/2022
13.10.2025 The Judgment is signed and
pronounced on separate sheets. Separately
attached in 07 sheets.
Order be uploaded on the Tribunal’s
website.
(Dictated)
/
(Pravas Kumar Singh)
Presiding Officer
(MK)

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT LUCKNOW

¶5

Present: Pravas Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

¶6

Case No. Original Application No.677 of 2022

¶7

Dated: 13.10.2025

¶8

Punjab National Bank, having Branch at Nehru Nagar, Ghaziabad. ........Applicant-bank Versus 1. M/s Mittal Buildwel (Partnership Firm) Through its Partners Smt. Kirti Rathi Sikariaand and Mr. Prakash Sikaria Having its Office at:- A-43/1, Site-4, Sahibabad Industrial Area, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, 201010. 2. Mrs. Kirit Rathi Sikaria (Borrower) W/o Sri Prakash Sikaria lst Address: B-201, Gardenia Greens, Sector18, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, 201012 2-d Address: A-43/1, Site-4, Sahibabad Industrial Area, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, 201010. 3. Mr. Prakash Sikaria (Borrower) S/o Sri Shyam Sundar Sikaria lst Address: B-201, Gardenia Greens, Sector18, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, 201012. 2nd Address: A-43/1, Site-4, Sahibabad Industrial Area, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, 201010. ...... Defendants

¶9

........Applicant-bank

¶10

Ld. Counsel for Applicant-bank: Shri Praveen Dwivedi, Advocate Ld. Counsel for the Defendants: Shri Suneet Kr. Sharma, Advocate

O.A. No.677 of 2022

JUDGEMENT

This Original Application has been filed by the Applicant-bank under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendants for the recovery of Rs.67,67,375.66/- (Rupees Sixty Seven Lacs, Sixty Seven Thousand, Three Hundred Seventy Five and Paisa Sixty Six Only) together with pendent-lite and future interest, costs and other reliefs etc. 2. The brief facts of case are that the defendants No.1 is a proprietorship firm of which defendant Nos.2 & 3 are the borrowers. The defendant No.1 2 had approached the Applicant-bank for financial assistance. The Applicantbank considered the request of the defendants and sanctioned Cash Credit Loan of Rs.45.00 lacs and Term Loan of Rs.45.00 laos vide its sanction letter dated 19.02.2013 on certain terms and conditions (Exhibit No.A-3) to this Original Application.

¶15

To secure aforesaid credit facility, defendants had executed and signed various security documents in favour of the Applicant-bank, a copy of which is being annexed as (Exhibit No.A-4 to Exhibit No.A-8) to this Original Application.

¶16

That on 15.12.2017 the defendant has closed the Term Loan Account and NOC has been issued to defendants, a copy of which is being annexed as (Exhibit No.A-9) to this Original Application.

¶17

Subsequently, at the request of the defendant No.1 again approached the applicant bank for grant of Working Capital Term Loan (WCTL) under GECL Loan Facility of Rs.8,97,046/- vide its sanction letter dated 16.06.2020,

:R\\:

O.A. No.677 of 2022

a copy of which is being annexed as (Exhibit No. A-10) to this Original Application.

¶22

That the defendants had executed the balance and security confirmation letter dated 01.02.2019, a copy of which is being annexed as

¶23

(Exhibit No. A-11) to this Original Application.

¶24

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

¶25

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 31.03.202 1 by the bank as per RBI guidelines (Exhibit No. A-12), thereafter the Applicant-bank issued Registered Recall Notice dated 02.06.2021 to the defendants (Exhibit No. A- 13). The applicant bank served a Legal Notice dated 15.05.2022 in respect of the defendants have send reply through advocate of the legal notice 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.

¶26

As per books of the bank maintained in the usual and ordinary course of banking business, an outstanding of Rs.67,67,375.66/- (Rupees Sixty Seven Lacs, Sixty Seven Thousand, Three Hundred Seventy Five and Paisa Sixty Six Only) including interest upto 09.05.2022, 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 dP"land.

¶27

a \r-

¶28

O.A. No.677 of 2022

¶29

The Applicant-bank filed the Statement of loan Accounts. (Exhibit No.A-15 to Exhibit No.A-17) to this Original Application.

¶30

The cause of action for filing the present application arose firstly on 19.02.2013, 02.03.2013 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 on 19.02.2013 and 30.06.2016. The cause of action arose on 26.04.2016, 01.07.2016, 16.01.2017, 05.01.2018 and 03.12.2018 when the defendants and applicant has sent letter to each other. The cause of action further arose on when tII i Legal Notice dated 15.05.2022 was sent to the defendants, recalling the entire outstanding dues and they failed to pay the same.

¶31

The defendants have filed WS. I find that, that only ornamental defense has been taken by the defendants such as (a) it is in violation of

¶32

Rule 10 of the DRT procedure Rule 1993 which stipulates that the application may not be filed seeking more than one relief in one single application , it is to be mentioned that Rule 10 has been omitted by IRB notification dated 21.01.2002 w .e .f. 21.01.2003. (b) No cause of action has arisen, any cause for the denial has not been stated (c) Complete set off documents have not been filed, any particular document has not been pointed out.

¶33

1 find that any of the ground raised by the defendant is not tenable in the eyes of law. The defendant was required to take specific plea and prove

¶34

the same with its evidence

¶35

O.A. No.677 of 2022

¶36

¶37

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 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.

¶38

In support of the case Sri Vir Singh, Chief Manager of the Applicantbank has filed an affidavit.

¶39

On a careful scrutiny of the evidence on affidavit and Exhibits marked as Exhibit No.A-1 to Exhibit No.A-18, 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.

¶40

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 hypothecated assets and personal assets/ properties of the defendants.

O.A. No.677 of 2022

The Applicant-bank has claimed [email protected]% per annum with monthly rest w.e.f. 09.05.2022 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 @12% per annum with monthly rest reducing balance from the date of filing of the O.A. till the date of realization with costs.

¶45

1 find that the bank has proved the execution of loan documents and creation ofhypothecation 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 hypothecated asset as well as the personal properties are to be sold.

¶46

It is, therefore , ordered

¶47

(i) That the Original Application No.677 of 2022 of the Applicant bank for issuance of Recovery Certificate to the tune of Rs.67,67,375.66/(Rupees Sixty Seven Lacs, Sixty Seven Thousand, Three Hundred Seventy Five and Paisa Sixty Six Only) along with the interest @12% per annum with monthly rest from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 01.07.2022 till the loan is fully liquidated and costs succeeds as proceeded against the defendants.

¶48

(ii) The defendant Nos.1 to 3 are directed to pay the dues within a period of two months from the date of judgement, failing which the

O.A. No.677 of 2022

Applicant-bank will be entitled to recover the same from the secured assets, personal movables and immovable assets of the defendants.

¶53

(iii) The Applicant–bank is entitled to recover aforesaid amount by sale of 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.

¶54

(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

¶55

Applicant-bank.

¶56

(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 29.12.2025 before R.O., DRT, Lucknow.

¶57

(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 .

¶58

Judgment is pronounced in the open court.

¶59

Dated: 13.10.2025

¶60

(Pravas Kum Presiding Officer

¶61

(MK)

Punjab National Bank v. Ms Mittal Buildwell

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. Ms Mittal Buildwell

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

Yes Bank versus Chaurasiyaji Enterprises

Yes Bank versus Mahalaxmi Logistics

Manish Goel versus Cfm Asset Reconstruction Private Limited

Ms Brainseducational Society versus Indian Bank

Ms Kashish Garments versus Punjab National Bank

M S Art Palace versus Punjab and Sind Bank