Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. M/S K. K. Enterprises

DRT25 Nov 2025TA/1171/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's appeal for recovery of dues. The court rejected the defendants' plea of blank document execution, applying the precedent that such claims must be filed before police or bank authorities. The bank's evidence was unchallenged, and the tribunal awarded principal, interest, and costs, directing issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs.1,24,11,291.92 (as on 30.03.2017) with future interest at 12% p.a. and costs; recovery certificate issued forthwith.

Bank of Baroda versus M/S K. K. Enterprises — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 1171 of 2022

¶2

Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi 4th floor, Jeevan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi

¶3

Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sharma

¶4

T.A. No. 1171 of 2022

¶5

ank of Baroda .41B/1, Loni Road Ram Nagar, Shandara, Delhi-32 Applicant
Versus
1.^{M/s K.K.Enterprises} D-8A, Mansarovar Park, Shandara, Delhi-110032 2.^{Mrs. Reetu Gupta w/o Late Sh.Kuldeep Agarwal} D-8A-1521, Mansarovar Park, Shandara, Delhi-110032
3.^{Sh.Deepak Aggarwal} s/o Late Sh.Janeshwar Dayal Aggarwal D-8A-1521, Mansarovar Park, Shandara, Delhi-110032
4.^{Mrs. Kusum Lata w/o} Late Sh.Janeshwar Dayal Aggarwal 1/4713, Balbir Nagar Extension Street No.4, Shandara, Delhi-32
5. Sh.Sandeep Aggarwal s/o Late Sh.Janeshwar Dayal Aggarwal 1/4713, Balbir Nagar Extension Street No.4, Shandara, Delhi-32
6. Sh.Kuldeep Aggarwal s/o Late Sh.Janeshwar Dayal Aggarwal D-8A-1521, Mansarovar Park, Shandara, Delhi-110032 7. Sh.Amardeep Aggarwal s/o Late Sh.Janeshwar Dayal Aggarwal 1/4713, Balbir Nagar Extension Street No.4, Shandara, Delhi-32 ---

¶6

T.A. No. 1171 of 2022

¶7

8 Mrs.J^{.yoti d/o Late Sh.Janeshwar Dayal Aggarwal} 1 4713, Balbir Nagar Extension S reet No.4, Shandara, Delhi-32

¶8

Mrs. Arti d/o Late Sh.Janeshwar Dayal Aggarwal

¶9

/4713, Balbir Nagar Extension Defendants treet No.4, Shandara, Delhi-32

¶10

resent: Shri M.S.Saluja, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶11

Date of Reserve: 04.11.2025

¶12

Date of Pronouncement: 25.11.2025

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

This original application was filed by the applicant bank against the' defendants on 31.03.2017 before DRT-III, Delhi and then transferred to DRT-I Delhi through Shri Sunil Kumar Dogra, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 for recovery of Rs.1,24,11,291.92 (Rupees One Crores Twenty Four Lacs Eleven Thousand Two Hundred Ninety One 8r. paisa Ninety Two only) as on 30.03.2017 together with pendentelite and future interest @ 14.10% with monthly rests from 31.03.2017 till its realization with costs.

¶15

The brief facts of the case are that defendant no. 1 through its proprietress being defendant no.2 and defendant no.3 along with Sh.Janeshwar Dayal Aggarwal as guarantors was engaged in the business of wholesale of Ayurvedic Herbal Medicines etc. was sanctioned Loan limit of Rs.75,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Lacs only) on 21.05.2013 @12.75% interest per annum with monthly rests against hypothecation of stocks, book debts etc. and mortgage of property bearing No. 1/4713, Balbir 5d

¶16

¶17

T.A. No. 1171 of 2022

¶18

N gar Extension, Street No.4, Shandara, Delhi-32 owned by Sh.Janeshwar Dayal Aggarwal, since deceased on 09.02.2015. On the request of defendant no.1, the applicant bank enhanced e Cash Credit (Hyp.) limit to Rs.98.00 lacs on 17.02.2014. e defendant no.3 to 9 being legal heirs of Sh.Janeshwar yal Aggarwal — since deceased on 09.02.2015 have been pleaded. The defendants obligated to pay additional penal

¶19

terest @2% p.a. in case of default or delay in repayment.

¶20

. In order to avail the credit facility, the defendant No.2 as

¶21

p oprietress of defendant no.1 executed Letter of P oprietorship, D.P.Note, Letter of Continuing Security, mposite Hypothecation Agreement, Composite Undertaking-

¶22

, c m-Declaration, Letter from Borrowers and Guarantors, P wer of Attorney in respect of Book Debts on 31.03.2013 and 1 .02.2014. The defendant no.3 along with Sh.Janeshwar ayal Agarwal executed Agreement of Guarantee on

¶23

17.02.2014.

¶24

That in order to secure the credit facility availed by

¶25

efendant no.1, Sh.Janeshwar Dayal Aggarwal created quitable mortgage of his property bearing No. 1/4713, Balbir agar Extension, Street No.4, Shandara, Delhi-32 on 1.05.2013 and extended on 17.02.2014 by depositing Sale eed dated 12.05.2000 with parent title deeds.

¶26

The defendant no.1 to 4 admitting and acknowledged

¶27

nd executed debt-cum-security dated 01.02.2016 for s.1,05,05,436.07 towards applicant bank.

¶28

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after

¶29

vailing the loan facility, the defendant no.1 failed to maintain financial discipline, not routed their sale transactions through

¶30

T.A. No. 1171 of 2022

¶31

t e account and failed to submit periodical stock statements a d book debt statement regularly due to which the account b came irregular, the applicant classified the account as NPA •^{n 31.12.2015 as per RBI guidelines. The applicant bank issued} I gal notice dated 25.02.2017 to the defendant but they failed •^{o clear the dues hence the applicant bank has approached this} ribunal for recovery of its dues.

¶32

Notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and

¶33

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 dated 21.01.2016 was issued to the defendants calling upon them to pay the entire outstanding dues with the applicant bank. The defendant no.1,2 & 6 except defendant no.3,4^{15 & 7-9 replied to the notice after expiry of} 60 days vide objections on 17.03.2016 which was duly replied by applicant bank on 21.04.2016. The applicant bank issued notice for possession u/s 13(4) on 17.05.2016 duly published in two newspapers dated 20.05.2016 but defendants failed to liquidate the outstanding in the account.

¶34

The defendant no.1 & 2 challenged the Sarfaesi

¶35

1. proceedings and filed SA no.139 of 2016 but no stay was granted and applicant bank took physical possession of mortgaged property on 29.08.2016.

¶36

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its

¶37

1. evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Mohd Abid, authorized representative of the applicant who has proved the documents such as Power of Attorney Ex.AW1/1, Letter for Enhancement Ex.AW1/2, Sanction Letter Ex.AW1/3, Letter of Sole Proprietorship Ex.AW1/4„ D.P.Note Ex.AW1/5, Letter of Continuing Guarantee Ex.AW1/6, Composite Hypothecation Agreement Ex.AW1/7, Composite Undertaking-cum-

¶38

Sd-

¶39

¶40

T.A. No. 1171 of 2022

¶41

claration Ex.AW1/8, Letter from Borrowers/Guarantors D .AW1/9, Power of Attorney Book Debt Ex.AW1/10, Letter of E knowledgement of Debt Ex.AW1/11, Agreement of uarantee Ex.AW1/12, Letter of Confirmation of Mortgage x.AW1/13, Extension of Mortgage Ex.AW1/14, Sale Deed x.AW1/15, Parent Title Deeds Ex.AW1/16(Colly), Letter of Expiry of Mortgagor Ex.AW1/17, Letter from Defendant x.AW1/18, Letter of Acknowledgement of Debt cum Security Ex.AW1/19, Notice u/s 13(2) Ex.AW1/20, Reply to Notice Ex.AW1/21, Reply/Rejoinder Ex.AW1/22, Possession Notice g Ex.AW1/23, Publication Ex.AW1/24 &25, Le al Notice Ex.AW1/26, Certified Statement of Accounts Ex.AW1/2^{7 & 28.}

¶42

ed 10. Notices of this O.A. were issued and defendants fil s their written statement dated 16.122017 praying for dismissal of suit stating that the applicant bank obtained signature on certain printed or blank and plain sheets of paper, not provided photocopies, No Board Resolution for Power of Attorney to AR, PA not notarized, suit filed on false and fabricated documents, rate of interest interpolated and filled in alleged documents. were never agreed to, various miscellaneous charges debited, denied the amount claimed in the application, not provided statement of accounts at any point of time and statements of account wrong.

¶43

In its reply, the applicant bank has vehemently denied each and every allegations of defendants and submitted that defendant no.1 and 2 filed S.A.no.139/2016 before Flon'ble Tribunal but no stay was granted and bank took physical possession of the property and auctioned for Rs.66.41 lacs on 29.08.2016 and delivered the possession to purchasers on 29.01.2018. 561—

¶44

T.A. No. 1171 of 2022

¶45

1 Heard and perused the pleadings. Apparently, d fendants have raised the objections that the applicant bank h s got signed the blank documents from them while granting t e loan facilities to the defendants. This Tribunal has gone t rough the documents which are duly filled and executed by he defendants no.1 to 3 and this Tribunal is of the view that lea of blank documents is no plea in the eyes of law as has een held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of

¶46

`Indian Bank Vs. Cheese Wafers (India) Pvt. Ltd. It was held if the defendants have not filed any complaint before higher authorities of the bank or filed any complaint before police authorities ...... ". Thus, the plea of blank documents is not maintainable after filing of the suit and the same is rejected.

¶47

The witness of the applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments made in this O.A. The evidence lead by the applicant bank which consists of mainly written / typed documents has gone unchallenged and there is no question of disbelieving the same based upon the documents. This iota

¶48

Tribunal has also observed that not an evidence/documents has been led by the defendants against the claim of the applicant bank and has made only submission on fact as stated in the written statement evidence In the civil fact

¶49

that whosoever alleges a

¶50

proceedings it cardinal principle, he/she has to prove in the court of law by leading evidence mere assertion are not sufficient and nowhere defendants have denied about the availment of the loan.

¶51

In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Tribunal is of the view that the defendants have failed to convince this Tribunal and this Tribunal do not find any merit and reject the contentions of the defendants as baseless. I

¶52

¶53

T.A. No. 1171 of 2022

¶54

h reby allow this O.A. as the applicant bank has proved its

¶55

cl im beyond reasonable doubt.

¶56

As per the provision of Section 19(20) of the Recovery of ebts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 which

¶57

i. analogous to Section 34 of CPC, on filing of the suit claim, he contract between the parties comes to an end and the ourt/Tribunal has a discretion to award the same depending pon the circumstances of each case. Same principle has been

¶58

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 drasticfall in rates of interest globally and domestically, I am of the opinion t

¶59

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

¶60

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

¶61

ORDER

¶62

(I) I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank, jointly or severally, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.1,24,11,291.92 (Rupees One Crores Twenty Four Lacs Eleven Thousand Two Hundred Ninety One & paisa Ninety Two only) as on 30.03.2017 together with pendentelite and future interest @12.00% per annum along with costs from aforesaid 31.03.201^{7 till the date of realization failing which then} amount shall be recovered from the sale of hyphecated stocks, book debts of Defendant no.1 and from sale of mortgaged property bearing No. 1/4713, Balbir Nagar

¶63

T.A. No. 1171 of 2022

¶64

Extension, Street No.4, Shandara, Delhi-32. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of defendants.
(II) The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi.
(III)Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 22.01.2026.
(IV)Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be sent to all concerned free of cost. t'#)-°1-1 (GOVIND BALLABH SHAR1 A) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 25.11.2025

Bank of Baroda v. M/S K. K. Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. M/S K. K. Enterprises

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

Basil Co. versus Kerala Gramin Bank

Uco Bank versus Sh. Bachchan Kumar Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Bhagwant Singh

Indu Kumari Pandey versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Mr. Praveen

Central Bank of India versus M/S Modern Canvas India