Allowed

Central Bank of India v. M/S Pragati Cables

DRT20 Sept 2025TA/1431/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the bank's original application for recovery of loan dues, directing the absent defendants to pay the principal, interest, and costs, with authority to recover the amount through hypothecated and other assets. A recovery certificate was issued.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay principal, pendentelite and future interest plus costs within 30 days; Recovery Certificate issued for recovery through sale of assets.

Central Bank of India versus M/S Pragati Cables — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 1431 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.1431 of 2022

¶5

Central Bank of India

¶6

Arthala, Plot no.17 & 18 Anand Industrial Estate Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP-201007 Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s Pragati Cables Through its Proprietor Smt. Pragati w/o Hemant Sharma H.No. 09/107, Shastri Gali

¶9

Vishwas Nagar, Shandara, East Delhi-110032

¶10

Sh. Hemant Sharma s/o Ved Prakash Sharma H.No.10/120, Gali No.10

¶11

Siddharth Gali, Vishwas Nagar Shandara, East Delhi-110032

¶12

Sh. Sanjay Dudheria s/o Sagar Mal Dudheria H.No.6/105, Gali No.4 Vishwas Nagar, Shandara, East Delhi-110032 Defendants

¶13

Present: Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for applicant bank

¶14

Date of Institution: 27.12.2019

¶15

Date of Pronouncement: 20.09.2025

¶16

FINAL ORDER

¶17

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank before DRT-II, Delhi on 27.12.2019 and then transferred to DRT-I Delhi, through Sh.Anil Kumar, authorized

¶18

¶19

T.A. No. 1431 of 2022

¶20

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.24,02,156.77 (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Two Thousand One Hundred Fifty Six and Paisa Seventy Seven only) as on 02.02.2019 alongwith future and pendentelite interest @9.35% per annum with monthly rests from 24.12.2019 till the date of realization with costs.

¶21

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the defendant no.1 through its proprietor vide loan application dated 13.07.2017, the applicant bank sanctioned Term Loan and Cash Credit facility for a sum of Rs.14,75,000/- and Rs.9,80,000/- totaling to Rs.24,55,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Fifty Five Thousand only) for the manufacturing and trading of cable business under Cent Start Up India Scheme on 17.07.2017 against hypothecation of stocks, raw materials and machinery purchased out of bank finance. The defendant no.2 and 3 stood as guarantors for the credit facilities sanctioned in favour of defendant no.1

¶22

In order to avail the loan facilities, the defendant no.1 submitted loan application dated 13.07.2017 and executed Agreement of Hypothecation to secure Cash credit against Goods, Supplementary Agreement, Consent clause, Letter of Interest and defendant no.2 & 3 executed Form of Guarantee for Advances and Credits along with Consent Clause on 17.07.2017 in favour of the applicant bank.

¶23

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 were irregular in maintaining the account. The defendants failed to

¶24

¶25

T.A. No. 1431 of 2022

¶26

serve interest timely despite repeated requests made by the applicant bank and defaulted in repayment of their liabilities with the applicant bank. Ultimately, the applicant bank classified the accounts as NPA on 27.01.2019 as per RBI guidelines and issued Demand Notice dated 11.02.2019 but defendants failed to regularize the account. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶27

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 07.02.2025, 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 defendants.

¶28

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of Affidavit of Sh. Anil Kumar, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents Power of Attorney, Loan application, Sanction letter, Loan application form, Agreement of hypothecation to secure Demand Cash Credit against goods, Supplementary agreement, Consent Clause, Letter of Interest, Form of Guarantee for advances, Statement of Loan Accounts certified under Section 656(2) of Indian Evidence Act and Section 2A (b) of Bankers' Books of Evidence Act, Demand letter, Tracking report and Court Fee/DD marked as Ex.PW-1/1 to Ex.PW-1/14.

¶29

The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments made in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the

¶30

¶31

T.A. No. 1431 of 2022

¶32

applicant bank is based on the documents and the same have been duly approved.

¶33

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.

¶34

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

¶35

ORDER

¶36

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.24,02,156.77 (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Two Thousand One Hundred Fifty Six and Paisa Seventy Seven only) as on 02.02.2019 together with pendentelite and future interest @9.35% per annum with monthly rests from 24.12.2019 till the date of realization and costs; failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stocks, goods & machinery etc. 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 19.11.2025.

¶39

T.A. No. 1431 of 2022

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 20.09.2025

¶43

Central Bank of India v. M/S Pragati Cables

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Central Bank of India v. M/S Pragati Cables

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

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Eagle Inn Resort

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Bhoomi Telecom

Ms Kashyap Trading Company versus Canara Bank

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Sunrise Enterprises

Uco Bank versus M/S Riddhi Medical Store

Icici Bank Limited versus Lokender Attari