Allowed

Bank of India v. Shree Pawan Housiery

DRT13 Oct 2025OA/786/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Bank of India for recovery of dues against Smt. Meena Sharma. Noting the defendant's absence, the court awarded principal interest at 12% per annum instead of the higher contractual rate, directing payment within 30 days and issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Direction to pay Rs.22,63,807/- plus interest at 12% p.a. from 21.09.2023 and costs within 30 days; Recovery Certificate to be issued.

Bank of India versus Shree Pawan Housiery — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

O.A. No. 786 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.786 of 2023

¶5

Bank of India

¶6

E-3/5„ Jhandewalan Extension Jhandewalan Extension Branch New Delhi

¶7

Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Shree Pawan Hosiery Proprietress Smt. Meena Sharma w/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma L-2/6A, Nag Mandir road Munga Ram Bhawan Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110052

¶10

Also at:

¶11

Shree Pawan Hosiery Proprietress Smt. Meena Sharma Ground Floor, Plot no.62 Block-, Pocket-N, Sector-3 Bawaa DSIDC Park Bawana, Delhi-110086

¶12

Defendant

¶13

Present: Shri Varun Sharma, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶14

Date of Reserve: 29.09.2025

¶15

Date of Pronouncement: 13.10.2025

¶16

FINAL ORDER

¶17

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 26.09.2023 before DRT-I, Delhi through Sh.Varun Narain, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993

scf

O.A. No. 786 of 2023

against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.22,63,807/(Rupees Twenty-Two Lacs Sixty Three Thousand Eight Hundred Seven only) as on 14.09.2023 along with pendentelite and future interest @12.35% per annum with monthly rests from 21.09.2023 till the date of realization along with costs.

¶22

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the defendant through its proprietress Smt.Meena Sharma in the business of manufacturing and trading of garments, the applicant bank sanctioned Cash Credit Facility for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs only) and Term Loan of Rs.1,60,000/- on 27.05.2019 to be repayable in 48 EMI of Rs.3,333/- p.m. against hypothecation of stock and plant and machinery. Further, on the request of the defendant, the applicant bank sanctioned Working Capital Demand Loan of Rs.2,75,000/- on 30.09.2020 under Guaranteed Emergency Credit Line scheme of Govt. of India due to Covid 19 pandemic. The applicant bank reviewed the loan facilities and reduced Cash Credit facility from Rs.25,00,000/- to Rs.20,00,000/@12.35% interest per annum on 17.09.2022. The defendant also agreed to pay penal interest @2% per annum in case of default or delay in repayment of interest or instalment.

¶23

In order to avail the loan facilities, the defendant submitted loan applications and executed Acceptance of Bank's Sanction Letters, Stamped Demand Promissory Note, Hypothecation cum Loan Agreement, Composite Authority Document, Supplementary Agreement and RBLR agreement with the applicant bank on 14.10.2020.

¶24

¶25

O.A. No. 786 of 2023

¶26

The Defendant executed the Acknowledgement of Debt and Security towards the applicant bank on 29.01.2022 acknowledged the debt.

¶27

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendant 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 21.04.2023 as per RBI guidelines and issued legal notice dated 20.05.2023 but defendant failed to regularize the account and hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶28

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendant and despite of proper service, the defendant has chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 09.07.2025, the defendant has been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared before the Tribunal and even written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have not been filed by the defendant.

¶29

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Sh.Varun Narain, authorized representative of the applicant bank, who has proved the documents as Power of Attorney, Personal Profile, Acceptance of Bank's Sanction Letters, Stamped Demand Promissory Note, Stamped Hypothecation cum Loan Agreement, Composite Authority Document, Application Form dated 28.09.2020, Supplementary Loan cum Hypothecation Agreement, RBLR Agreement, Acknowledgement of Debt and Security, Review Sanction Letter, Legal Notice, Certificate under Banker's Books Evidence Act 1861 and Uncharged Interest Calculation Sheets marked as Ex.PW-1/1 to Ex.PW-1/18 (CoIly).

¶30

SGr

¶31

O.A. No. 786 of 2023

¶32

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 approved.

¶33

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

¶34

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.

¶35

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

¶36

ORDER

¶37

I, allow this OA and direct the defendant to pay to the applicant bank, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.22,63,807/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Sixty Three Thousand Eight Hundred Seven only) together with

sue-

O.A. No. 786 of 2023

pendentelite and future interest @12% per annum with monthly rests from 21.09.2023 till the date of realization and costs; failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stocks, book debts and plant & machinery etc. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendant.

¶42

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

¶43

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 12.12.2025.

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 13.10.2025

¶47

Bank of India v. Shree Pawan Housiery

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Shree Pawan Housiery

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

State Bank of India versus M/S Teotia Automobile Company

Santosh Jain versus Punjab National Bank

Uco Bank versus Sh Lalji Yadav

Canara Bank versus Srn Industries

Icici Bank Limited versus Gundappa Upaleppa

Union Bank of India versus Dyavaiah