Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Ms Isha Pharma and Surgicals

DRT26 Sept 2025OA/892/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by Bank of Baroda for recovery of dues amounting to Rs.1.41 crores. The court held that the bank proved execution of loan documents and creation of mortgage. Defendants were directed to pay dues within two months, failing which secured assets would be sold. Recovery Certificate to be issued.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs.1.41 crores within two months; Application succeeds with interest at 9% per annum; Recovery Certificate to be issued; Injunction imposed against transferring properties.

Bank of Baroda versus Ms Isha Pharma and Surgicals — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

P-

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW

¶3

a Office action
proceeding taken with
date
O.A. No.892/2023
26.09.2025 The Judgment is signed and
pronounced on separate sheets. Separately
attached in 07 sheets.
Order be uploaded on the Tribunal’s
website.
(Dictated)
f
' \qJ
(Pravas KumaFSingh)
Presiding Officer
(MK)

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT LUCKNOW

¶5

Present: Pravas Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

¶6

Case No. Original Application No.892 of 2023

¶7

Dated: 26.09.2025

¶8

Bank of Baroda, having Branch at Patel Nagar
Alambagh, Lucknow Uttar Pradesh – 226005.
........Applicant-bank
Versus
1.
M/s lsha Pharma & Surgicals through it’s
proprietor Sri Somil Kumar having its principal
place of business Shop No.B-7, Surya
Medicine Market, Naya Gaon East, Aminabad,
Lucknow – 226018.
2. Sri Somil Kumar S/o Sri Awadhesh Kumar R/o
230/53, Begumganj, Raja Bazar, Lucknow
226003 .
3. Sri Harshit Kumar S/o Sri Awadhesh Kumar
R/o 230/53, Begumganj, Raja Bazar, Lucknow ...... Defendants
– 226003.

¶9

Ld. Counsel for Applicant-bank: Shri Ajesh Anand, Advocate

¶10

Ld. Counsel for the Defendants: Shri Sandeep Kumar Bajpai, Advocate

¶11

JUDGEMENT

¶12

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.1,41,95,230.67/- (Rupees One Crore, Forty One Lacs, Ninety Five Thousand, Two Hundred Thirty and Paisa Sixty Seven Only) together with pendent-lite and future interest, costs and other reliefs

etc

2 O.A. No.892 of 2023

¶17

The brief facts of case are that the defendants No.1 is a proprietorship firm of which defendant no.2 is the proprietor and the defendant No.3 is the guarantor. The defendant no.2 on behalf of defendant no.1 had approached the Applicant-bank for grant of OD Limit of Rs.95.00 lacs vide its sanction letter dated 07.02.2020 on certain terms and conditions (Exhibit No. A-1 Exhibit No. A-2) to this Original Application.

¶18

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 on 07.02.2020. The defendant No.3 signed and executed Guarantee Agreement dated 07.02.2020 (Exhibit No. A-3 to Exhibit No. A-11) to this Original Application.

¶19

In order to further secure the repayment of the bank dues, the IHI i defendant No.2 & 3 created equitable mortgage in respect of property i.e. Open Roof of 4th Floor of Residential House bearing municipal No.110/60 (old No.110/46A) Naya Gaon East, District Lucknow measuring 315.985 square meter in favour of the bank by deposit of title deed (Exhibit No. A-12 to Exhibit No. A-17A) to this Original Application.

¶20

That thereafter at the request of defendant No.2 had approached the applicant bank for grant of WCTL of Rs.14.00 lacs under BGECLS Scheme vide its Sanction Letter dated 10.06.2020, a copy of which is being annexed as (Exhibit No. A- 18) to this Original Application.

¶21

That the defendants No.2 on behalf of the defendant No.1 had signed and executed various security documents in favour of the applicant bank on 10.06.2020. The defendant No.3 signed and executed guarantee agreement

¶22

O.A. No.892 of 2023

¶23

¶24

dated 10.06.2020 (Exhibit No.A-19 to Exhibit No.A-27) to this Original Application.

¶25

Copy of Extension of Mortgage (LDOC-90k) dated 10.06.2020 and copy of letter od confirmation of creation/extension mortgage by joint owner (LDOC-90 J) dated 10.06.2020, a copy of which is being annexed as (Exhibit No. A-28 to Exhibit No. A-3 1) to this Original Application.

¶26

That again the defendants requested for restructuring of the loan account and to defer the repayment of the overdue amount in working capital limit of Rs.95.00 lacs, and FITL of Rs. 12,82,092.00 which was sanctioned, a copy of sanction letter dated 27.09.2021 is enclosed as (Exhibit No. A-32) to this Original Application.

¶27

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.

¶28

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 01.01.2022 by the bank as per RBI guidelines, thereafter the Applicant-bank issued Demand Notice dated 17.01.2022 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to the defendants (Exhibit No. A-33/34), 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.

¶29

As per books of the bank maintained in the usual and ordinary coufse of banking business, an outstanding of Rs.1,41,95,230.67/- (Rupees One Crore, Forty One Lacs, Ninety Five Thousahd, Two Hundred Thirty and Paisa au/ i

¶30

¶31

O.A. No.892 of 2023

¶32

Sixty Seven Only) including interest upto 21.08.2023, 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-35 to Exhibit No.A-37) to this Original Application.

¶33

The cause of action for filing the present application arose firstly on 07.02.2020 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 10.06.2020 and 27.09.2021. Thereafter the cause of action arose on 08.06.2020, 16.07.2020, 18.08.2020, 19.08.2020, 11.09.2020 and 02.11.2020 and on various dates when the defendants deposited cash in his cash credit limit account. The cause of action further arose on when demand Notice dated 17.01.2022 was sent to the defendants, recalling the entire outstanding dues and they failed to pay the same.

¶34

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

¶35

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

{by

O.A. No.892 of 2023

claimed in Original Application on the basis of documents and pleading submitted by it.

¶40

In support of the case Shri Shiv Sagar Chaurasiya, Chief Manager of the Applicant-bank has filed an affidavit.

¶41

On a careful scrutiny of the evidence on affidavit and Exhibits marked as Exhibit No.A-1 to Exhibit No.A-38, 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.

¶42

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.

¶43

The Applicant-bank has claimed [email protected]% in OD Account, [email protected]% in WCTL, [email protected]% in FITL per annum with monthly rest w.e.f. 22.08.2023 till the date of realization and costs. On the

¶44

6 O.A. No.892 of 2023

¶45

basis of foregoing discussion, interest of justice will be served if pendentlite and future interest is granted @9% in above the three loan accounts per annum with monthly rest reducing balance from the date of filing of the O.A. till the date of realization with costs.

¶46

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

¶47

personal properties are to be sold.

¶48

It is, therefore , ordered

¶49

(i) That the Original Application No.892 of 2023 of the Applicant bank for issuance of Recovery Certificate to the tune of Rs.1,41,95,230.67/- (Rupees One Crore, Forty One Lacs, Ninety Five Thousand, Two Hundred Thirty and Paisa Sixty Seven Only) along with the interest @9% per annum with monthly rest from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 28.08.2023 till the loan is fully liquidated and costs succeeds as proceeded against the defendants.

¶50

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

/a ,IV

O.A. No.892 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.

¶55

(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 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: 26.09.2025

¶60

r \V

¶61

(Pravas K,m,Ri-£bh) Presiding Officer

¶62

(MK)

Bank of Baroda v. Ms Isha Pharma and Surgicals

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Ms Isha Pharma and Surgicals

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

Canara Bank versus Ms Revel Industries

Canara Bank versus Mr Ayodhya Prasad

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Seema Jain

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Marg Darshak Development Projects and Consulting Pvt. Ltd.

Icici Bank Limited versus Ms Vap Infosolutions

Mohd Rihan versus Hinduja Housing Finance Limited