Allowed

Punjab National Bank v. Sri Saurabh Shrivastava

DRT19 Nov 2025OA/984/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DR&T allowed the application filed by Punjab National Bank for recovery of dues of Rs. 33,98,008.85 against three borrowers and a proforma defendant NBFC. The bank proved execution of loan and hypothecation documents. The Tribunal granted a recovery certificate and directed sale of assets if dues remain unpaid.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of recovery certificate for Rs. 33,98,008.85 with interest; recovery from hypothecated assets or personal properties if not paid within two months; injunction against asset transfer.

Punjab National Bank versus Sri Saurabh Shrivastava — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL

¶2

LUCKNOW

¶3

Dateoforderor proceeding	Orderwithsignatureofcourt	Officeaction takenwith date
O.A. No. 984/2022 19.11.2025	The Judgment is signedand pronounced on separate sheets. Separately attachedin09 sheets. Order be uploaded on the Tribunal’s website. (Dictated)
	<br>(PravasKumarhingh) PresidingOfficer (Manoj)

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT LUCKNOW

¶5

Present: Pravas Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

¶6

Case No. Original Application No. 984 of 2022

¶7

Dated: 19.11.2025

¶8

Punjab National Bank having its Branch at Mahmadabad Kotwa, District Raebareli, U.P. ........Applicant Bank

¶9

Versus

¶10

1. Sri Saurabh Srivastava S/o Shri Santosh Shrivastava R/o 307, Shantiniketan, Ajeetapura, Lalitpur, U.P.

¶11

1. Sri Sanjay Jain S/o Sri Santosh Kumar Jain, Resident of 370, Talabpura 07, Lalitpur, Uttar Pradesh, 284403.

¶12

1. Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava S/o Sri Raghuraj Singh Shrivastava, Resident of 307, Shantiniketan, Ajeetapura, Lalitpur, Uttar Pradesh, 284403.

¶13

1. Seri Equipment Finance Limited, having its Head Office Plot No. Y-10, Block EP, Sector V, Salt Lake City, Kolkata, 700091. Registered Office at "Vishwakarma" 86C, Topsia Road, South Kolkata 700046

¶14

......defendants

¶15

Counsel for applicant-bank: Shri Praveen Dwivedi, Advocate Counsel for the defendant no. 1 to 3: Sh. Ranjeet Kr. Rawat, Advocate. Counsel for the defendant no. 4: Sh. Ritesh Khare & Namrata

¶16

Chandorkar, Advocates,

JUDGEMENT

O.A. No. 984 of 2022

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. 33,98,008.85 (Rupees Thirty Three Lacs Ninety Eight Thousand, Eight and paise Eighty Five only) together with pendentelite and future interest, costs and other reliefs etc.

¶21

The brief facts of case are that the defendants No.1 approached the applicant bank through defendant no.4 for purchase of HYDRAULIC CRAWLER EXCAVATR SY210 C-9 (AC) of Rs. 35,02, 000/-. As per the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India for co-origination Model between Banks and Non-Banking Financial Companies-Non- Deposit taking-Systemically Important (NBFC -ND-SIs) for providing competitive credit to priority sector, the bank and NBFC has sanctioned the as

¶22

follows.

¶23

Loan	Sanctioned Amount	PNB erstwhile United Bank of Indiashare	I SERIShare
HYDRAULIC CRAWLER	43,77,500/.	80%	20%
EXCAVATR		Rs.35,02,000/-	Rs. 8,75,500/-
SY210 C-9(AC) of Rs
51,50,000/

¶24

The applicant bank considered the request of the defendants and sanctioned his part Rs. 35,02,000/- vide sanction letter dt. 09.09.20219 (Exhibit A-5). The defendants have accepted all the terms and

¶25

/h\ tV

¶26

o.A. No. 984 of 2022

¶27

¶28

conditions of credit facility sanctioned bY the applicant bank and SERI Equipment Finance Services.

¶29

To secure aforesaid credit facility, defendant no. 2 & 3 executed hypothecation agreement on 26.11.2019 to secure the liability undertaken by defendant no. 1 in respect of the above facility. The liability of defendant no. 2 & 3 is joint several and co-extensive with that of defendant no. 1. The defendants had executed and signed various security documents in favour of the applicant-bank on 26.11.2019 loan and security documents. The defendant no. 4 Seri Equipment Finance Limited is proforma defendant.

¶30

To avail the aforesaid credit facility, the applicant-bank opened loan account in the name of the defendant No.1.

¶31

After availing the abovementioned credit facility from the applicant-bank, the defendants failed to maintain financial discipline and also failed to comply with the terms and conditions of agreement as required in the matter. The applicant-bank made all possible efforts through oral persuasion and letters etc. The defendants was reminded many times by several applications by the applicant-bank to regularize the loan account, but the defendants kept mum and have not come forward to make any efforts regarding payment of dues but the loan account of the defendants were remained irregular and the defendants did not care to deposit the amount to adjust/ regularize the account despite various assurances given by defendants Consequently, the loan

O.A. No. 984 of 2022

accounts of the defendant No.1 were classified as N.P.A. on 31.03.2021 by the applicant-bank as per RBI guidelines, therefore, the applicantbank issued legal notice Dated 25.08.2022 (Exhibit No.A-9) to the defendants and requested for repayments, but the Defendants did not paid their heed to the same, hence, this Original Application has been instituted .

¶36

The RBI has filed a petition under section 227 read with section 239(2)(zk) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with rules 5 and 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Rules, 2019, before National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Branch and Mr. Rajneesh Sharma has been appointed as Administrator vide order dated 08.10.2021 passed by Hon’ble NCLT Kolkata Branch in case no. CP (IB) No. 295/KB/2021.

¶37

As per books of the bank maintained in the usual and ordinary a course of banking business, an outstanding of Rs. 33,98,008.85 (Rupees Thirty Three Lacs Ninety Eight Thousand, Eight and Eighty Five only) including interest upto 31.07.2022, 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 demand. The applicant bank filed the Statement of loan Accounts. (Exhibit No.A-11.) 7. The cause of action for filing the present application arose firstly 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 09.09.2019. The cause

(INF

O.A. No. 984 of 2022

of action further arose on when Recall Notice dt. 25.08.2022 was sent to the defendants, recalling the entire outstanding dues and theY failed to pay the same.

¶42

The summons were served upon the defendant through registered post, the defendants appeared before the Tribunal to contest their case, hence the matter proceeded against the defendants on contest.

¶43

The defendant no. 4 has filed one recall application for recalling the order dated 30.04.2025. It is made clear that vide order dated 30.04.2025 the matter was adjourned for 10.11.2025 for ex-parte hearing, however on 10.11.2025 the defendants were appeared before this Tribunal through BH counsel and matter was heard. There is no any specific order has been passed against defendant no. 4

¶44

regarding ex-parte. Therefore, there is no need to pass any order on recall application as this Tribunal has not passed any ex-parte order against defendant no. 4 vide order dated 30.04.2025, Accordingly, the I.A. Dy. No. 5834/2025 is rejected as infructuous.

¶45

From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the defendants

¶46

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.

¶47

O.A. No. 984 of 2022

¶48

In support of the case Sh. Mukesh 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-12, 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 applicantbank’s claim is within limitation against defendants, therefore, the defendant no. 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the dues. The defendant no. 4 Seri Equipment Finance Limited is proforma defendant.

¶50

Accordingly, the defendants No. 1 to 3 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 defendant no. 1 to 3.

¶51

o.A. No. 984 of 2022

¶52

The applicant-bank has claimed [email protected]% per annum with monthly rest from the date of filing of O.A. i.e. 23.09.2022 till the date of realization and costs. The contest between applicant-bank and the defendants comes to an end after filing of the O.A. as per the provisions of Section 19(2) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 (as amended from time to time) which is analogous to Section 34 to the CPC, the Tribunal/ Court has direction in awarding pendentlite and future interest. I am also supported in my view by Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case titled Central Bank of India vs. Ravindra and others reported in AIR 2001 SC page 3095. On the basis of foregoing discussion, interest of justice will be served if pendent- lite and future interest is granted @10% per annum with monthly rate reducing balance from the date of filing of the O.A. till the date of realization with costs.

¶53

1 find that the bank has proved execution of loan documents and hypothecation of vehicle in its favour. In the result, the Original Application succeeds against the defendant no. 1 to 3 with costs. The liability of the defendant No. 1 to 3 are joint and several and hypothecated asset as well as the personal properties are to be sold. It is, therefore , ordered

¶54

(i) That the Original Application No.984 of 2022 of the applicant bank for issuance of Recovery Certificate to the tune of Rs. 33,98,008.85 (Rupees Thirty Three Lacs Ninety Eight Thousand,

¶55

¶56

O.A. No. 984 of 2022

¶57

Eight and paise Eighty Five only) along with the interest @10 per annum with monthly rest from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 23.09.2022 till the loan is fully liquidated and costs succeeds against the defendant No.1 to 3.

¶58

(ii)

¶59

The defendant no. 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 defendant no. 1 to 3.

¶60

(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 no. 1 to 3 jointly and severally.

¶61

(iV) The defendant no. 1 to 3 are here by 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.

¶62

¶63

9 O.A. No. 984 of 2022

¶64

(v) Let Recovery Certificate be issued immediately u/s 19(22) of the

¶65

Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993 by fixing 30.01.2026

¶66

before Recovery Officer, DRT, Lucknow.

¶67

Judgement is pronounced in the open court.

¶68

Dated: 19.11.2025.

¶69

¶70

(Pravas Kuma, _ Jh) Presiding Officer

Punjab National Bank v. Sri Saurabh Shrivastava

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. Sri Saurabh Shrivastava

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

Jatan Kumar versus Canara Bank

M S Krishna Traders versus PNB Housing Finance Ltd.

Union Bank of India versus Smt Sudha Singh

Hdfc Bank versus Business Point

Anoop Kumar Gupta versus Union Bank of India

Saba Ceramics versus Punjab National Bank