Allowed

Central Bank of India v. M/S Vishnu Traders

DRT13 Oct 2025OA/897/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Central Bank of India for recovery of loans against M/s Vishnu Traders. The court ruled in favor of the bank on unchallenged documentary evidence following default by defendants.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of stated amounts via sale of hypothecated assets including Mahindra Bolero and Maruti Swift, or other movable/immovable properties.

Central Bank of India versus M/S Vishnu Traders — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

O.A. No. 897 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

CP.A. No.897 of 2023

¶5

Central Bank of India

¶6

D-38, Block B, Acharya Niketan Mayur Vihar Phase I, Delhi-110091

¶7

Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s Vishnu Traders Through its Proprietress - Ms Anjali R/o 10/125-126, Vishwas Nagar Shandara, Delhi-110032

¶10

Also at: M/s Vishnu Traders WS-122, Budh Bazar Road Sudamapuri, Shandara, Delhi-32

¶11

Ms Anjali c/o Poonam w/o Rahul Proprietress M/s Vishnu Traders B-137/A„ Road No.20, Baljeet Nagar, Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008 Defendants

¶12

Present: Ms Rekha Tiwari, Counsel for the applicant bank Date of Reserve: 25.09.2025

¶13

Date of Pronouncement: 13.10.2025

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 18.11.2023 through Sh.Parma Nand Jha, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of Rs.33,24,612/- in Cash Credit

¶16

Sd-

¶17

O.A. No. 897 of 2023

¶18

account @11.35% along with pendentelite and future interest, Rs.2,06,465.80 in Term Loan account @10.60% along with pendentelite and future interest, Rs.4,83,347.46 in Vehicle Loan-I account @10.60% along with pendentelite and future interest and Rs.4,20,069.40 in Vehicle Loan II account @9.75% along with pendentelite and future interest from the 31.10.2023 till the date of realization along with costs.

¶19

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the defendant no.1 through its proprietress being defendant no.2, the applicant bank sanctioned Cash Credit (Hyp.) facility of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty lacs only) and Term Loan of Rs.2.00 lacs @8.35% interest per month under Stand Up India scheme for the business of PVC seeds, plastic products, furniture and fixtures. On further request of defendants, the applicant bank sanctioned Vehicle Loan of Rs.6.00 lacs on 31.07.2020 under Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojana and second Vehicle Loan of Rs.5.00 lacs on 22.02.2021 @8.10% and @7.25% interest p.a respectively for purchase of Bolero Pik Up CMG MS BSVI car and Maruti Swift LXI Car.

¶20

In order to avail the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendant no.1 through its proprietress submitted loan applications and executed Demand Promissory Note, Article of Agreement, Certificate of Deposit of Execution of Documents, Consent Clause, Agreement of Hypothecation to secure Cash Credit against Goods, Term Loan Agreement, Supplementary Agreement, Letter of Waiver dated 06.07.2020. In addition, the defendant no.1 through its proprietress executed Agreement for Hypothecation of Goods, Articles of Agreement, Letter of Interest Variation and Consent Clause etc. in favour of the applicant bank on 31.07.2020 & 02.03.2021.

¶21

¶22

O.A. No. 897 of 2023

¶23

That in order to secure the loan facilities, the defendants hypothecated the stocks in trade, goods and fixed assets in favour of applicant bank. In addition, the defendants hypothecated the Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vehicle namely Bolero Pik Up CMG MS BSVI car bearing No.DL1LAE1079, Chasis No.MA1ZN2UKKL1G31917 and Maruti Suzuki Car bearing No.DL5CS5868, Swift LXI 2021 Car with UTR No.CBINR52021030210013920 as security in favour of applicant bank.

¶24

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions of sanction and failed to maintain financial discipline as per sanction terms. Ultimately, the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 24.05.2023 as per RBI guidelines due to non-submission of monthly stock statements, non-deposit of daily collections through the account despite request of the applicant bank. The applicant issued notice on various dates requesting for regularization of the accounts and also issued legal demand notice on 12.07.2023 but defendants neglected, hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶25

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 19.05.2025, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as they have not appeared before the Tribunal and even written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have not been filed by the defendant.

¶26

¶27

0.A. No. 897 of 2023

¶28

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Parma Nand, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as Power of Attorney, Loan Application Form, Sanction Letter, Demand Promissory Note, Letter of Continuity, Agreement of Hypothecation and Term Loan Agreement, Certificate of Deposit of Execution of Documents, Consent Clause, Supplementary Agreement, Letter of Waiver, General Letter of Hypothecation, Articles of Agreement, Registration Document of Vehicle Loan, Letter of Interest Variation, Certificate of NPA, Letters, Legal Demand Notice, Statement of Loan Accounts, Statement of Accrued Interest along with Interest Certificate, Interest Certificate, Certificate in terms of Bankers Book of Evidence Act marked as Page no.1 to 235.

¶29

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.

¶30

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.

¶31

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

¶32

ORDER

¶33

allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank, jointly or severally, within a period of 30 days,

¶34

¶35

O.A. No. 897 of 2023

¶36

a sum of Rs.33,24,612/- in Cash Credit account @11.35% with pendentelite and future interest, Rs.2,06,465.80 in Term Loan account @10.60% with pendentelite and future interest, Rs.4,83,347.46 in Vehicle Loan-I account @10.60% with pendentelite and future interest and Rs.4,20,069.40 in Vehicle Loan II account @9.75% with pendentelite and future interest from the 31.10.2023 till the date of realization and costs; failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stock, book debts, Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vehicle namely Bolero Pik Up CMG MS BSVI Car bearing No.DULAE1079, Chasis No.MA1ZN2UKKL1G31917 and Maruti Suzuki Car bearing No.DL5CS5868; Swift LXI 2021 Car with UTR No.CBINR52021030210013920. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 13.10.2025

¶42

Central Bank of India v. M/S Vishnu Traders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Central Bank of India v. M/S Vishnu Traders

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

State Bank of India versus M/S Teotia Automobile Company

Santosh Jain versus Punjab National Bank

Uco Bank versus Sh Lalji Yadav

Bank of India versus Shree Pawan Housiery

Canara Bank versus Srn Industries

Icici Bank Limited versus Gundappa Upaleppa