Allowed

Central Bank of India v. Prime Foam Pvt.Ltd

DRT21 Jun 2025TA/120/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application filed under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, permitting recovery of dues from defendants after their default on a cash credit facility.

What did the court decide?

Directing defendants to pay Rs. 1,15,19,356/- along with pendentelite and future interest within 30 days or recover from sale of hypothecated assets and properties.

Central Bank of India versus Prime Foam Pvt.Ltd — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 120 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

T.A. No.120 of 2023

¶5

Central Bank of India

¶6

2342-2343, Chaman Lal Mansion

¶7

Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh

¶8

New Delhi-110005 Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

Prime Foam Pvt. Ltd.

¶11

Through its Director Shri Surender Kumar Alagh 271-272, Chaopanki Industrial Area Bhiwadi, District Alwar, Rajasthan

¶12

Sh. Surender Kumar Alagh w/o Jagan Nath Alagh

¶13

Managing Director of Prime Foam Pvt.Ltd. R/o 346, Sector-14, Ward No.5

¶14

Gurugram, Haryana-124002

¶15

Ms. Divya Alagh

¶16

Director of Prime Foam Pvt.Ltd. R/o House No.346, Sector-14,

¶17

Gurugram, Haryana-124002

¶18

Sh. Aman Bhatia s/o Vijay Bhatia Director of Prime Foam Pvt.Ltd. R/o 166, Sector-14 Near Dev Public School Gurugram, Haryana-124002

¶19

Sh. Lakshya Chandna s/o Naresh Kumar Chandna No.88, Hope Apartment Sector-15-2, Gurgaon Haryana-122001 Defendants

¶20

Present: Sh.S.A.Khan, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶21

¶22

T.A. No. 120 of 2023

¶23

Date of Institution: 27.03.2018

¶24

Date of Pronouncement: 21.06.2025

¶25

FINAL ORDER

¶26

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank before �Delhi on 27.03.2018 and then transferred to DRT-III Delhi through Smt. Shankar Sumita, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,15,19,356/- (Rupees One Crore Fifteen Lacs Nineteen Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Six only) as on 26.03.2018 along with pendentelite and future interest @10.60% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing this application till the date of realization along with costs.

¶27

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the Defendant no.1 through its directors being defendant no.2 to 5, the applicant bank sanctioned Cash Credit facility for Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) on 02.03.2012 @11.25% interest per annum with monthly rests under Cent Sehyog Scheme covered under CGTMSE scheme against hypothecation of stock, book debts, which was further renewed on 02.08.2013 and 31.03.2015. The defendants also agreed to pay @2% penal interest in case of default in repayment of overdue amount.

¶28

That in order to avail the credit facility, the defendant no.1 through its directors submitted Loan Application along with Certificate of Incorporation, Article of Association,

¶29

¶30

T.A. No. 120 of 2023

¶31

Certificate of Registration of company under Rajasthan VAT Act 2003 and executed Sanction Letter, Demand Promissory Note, Letter of Interest, Letter of Waiver, Consent Clause, Letter of Continuity, Agreement of Hypothecation, Guarantee for Advances, Affidavit, Two Registration Certificate, Certificate of Registrar of Companies, Letter of Interest Variation in favour of the applicant bank on 03.03.2012 and 02.08.2013 and 31.03.2015 .

¶32

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid credit facilities, the defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions of sanction and failed to maintain financial discipline, failed to pay amount due towards interest and installments to regularize the accounts with the applicant bank. Ultimately, the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 29.09.2017 as per RBI guidelines but the defendant failed to regularize the account. Hence, the applicant bank approached this tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶33

Notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 dated 02.11.2017 was issued to the defendants calling upon them to pay the entire outstanding dues with the applicant bank but the defendants did not clear the dues. Further, the applicant bank issued a possession notice dated 08.01.2018 under section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act.

¶34

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 05.06.2024, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as they have not appeared before the Tribunal and even written statement,

¶35

¶36

T.A. No. 120 of 2023

¶37

evidence and affidavit of assets have not been filed by the defendant.

¶38

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Sh.Atul Gupta, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as Power of Attorney, Loan application, Sanction Letter, Demand Promissory Note, Letter of Interest, Letter of Waiver, Consent Clause, Letter of Continuity, Agreement of Hypothecation to Secure Demand Cash Credit against Goods/Book Debts, Guarantee for Advances, Affidavit, Two Registration Certificate, Certificate of Registrar of Companies, Form of Guarantee, Letter of Interest Variation, Balance Sheet, Acknowledgement Letter, Certified Statement of Accounts u/s Section 2A as per Bankers' Book of Evidence Act, Notice u/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, Notice u/s 13(4) marked as Ex.AW-1/1 to Ex.AW-1/28.

¶39

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.

¶40

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.

¶41

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

T.A. No. 120 of 2023

ORDER

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.1,15,19,356/- (Rupees One Crore Fifteen Lacs Nineteen Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Six only) as on 26.03.2018 together with pendentelite and future interest @10.60% from the date of filing this application till the date of realization failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stocks and book debts etc. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶46

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

¶47

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 20.08.2025.

¶48

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

¶49

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

¶50

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 21.06.2025

¶51

Central Bank of India v. Prime Foam Pvt.Ltd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Central Bank of India v. Prime Foam Pvt.Ltd

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

Central Bank of India versus Naresh

Punjab National Bank versus Roshan S/O Rambhau Varhekar

Akila Bi versus the India Shelter Finance Corp Ltd.

Central Bank of India versus M/S Nandi Keshwar Traders

Canara Bank versus Sh. Mohan Lal Gupta

Icici Bank Limited versus Mr. Ranbir