Allowed

Punjab National Bank v. Amit Kumar Malhotra & Ors.

DRT23 Dec 2025TA/1657/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the original application filed by Punjab National Bank against the defendants for recovery of a loan facility. The defendants absented themselves from the proceeding, and the case went unrebutted. The Tribunal ordered repayment of the principal amount, interest, and costs.

What did the court decide?

Directing defendants to pay Rs. 11,82,245/- along with pendentelite and future interest @11.50% per annum, with costs, recoverable from sale of hypothecated and other properties.

Punjab National Bank versus Amit Kumar Malhotra & Ors. — Corruption | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 1657 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. 1657 of 2022

¶5

Punjab National Bank (e-Oriental Bank of Commerce) Dakshini Block-A, Shalimar Bagh Delhi-110088

¶6

Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Amit Kumar Malhotra Proprietor: M/S Sukhmani Fab AG-602, 3rd floor

¶9

Shalimar bagh, Delhi-110088

¶10

Also at:

¶11

AF-59B, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088

¶12

Smt. Renuka Malhotra w/o Ujwal Malhotra AG-602, 3rd Floor Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088 Defendants

¶13

Present: Sh.Vishesh Singh, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶14

Date of Reserve: 10.12.2025

¶15

Date of Pronouncement: 23.12.2025

¶16

FINAL ORDER

¶17

This original application has been filed by the applicant before DRT III, Delhi on 21.09.2017 and then transferred to DRT-I Delhi through Shri Sanjay Gupta, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.11,82,245/- (Rupees Eleven Lacs Eighty Two Thousand Two

¶18

T.A. No. 1657 of 2022

¶19

Hundred Forty Five only) together with pendentelite and future interest @11.50% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing of this application till the date of realization and costs.

¶20

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant no.1, the applicant bank sanctioned Cash Credit Facility for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs) on 28.09.2011 @13.25% interest per annum with monthly rests against hypothecation of stocks and receivables. Further, on the request of the defendants vide loan application dated 16.03.2016, the applicant bank enhanced Cash Credit Facility from Rs.2 Lacs to Rs.20 Lacs on 16.03.2016 @11.70% per annum with monthly rests plus 2% penal interest. Defendant no.2 stood as a guarantor for the facilities sanctioned in favour of the defendant no.1 by the applicant bank.

¶21

That in order to avail the said loan facility, the defendants submitted loan application and executed Sole Proprietorship letter, Supplemental agreement, Agreement of Hypothecation of assets, Common Agreement with the applicant bank.

¶22

The defendants executed Balance & Security dated 28.12.2012, 22.03.2014, 28.03.2015 and 16.03.2016 acknowledging their liability towards the applicant bank.

¶23

It has been submitted that after availing the aforesaid loan facility, the defendants miserably failed and neglected to pay the interest in the account and failed to maintain financial discipline as per terms and conditions despite various notices and reminders. The applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 31.08.2016 as per RBI guidelines and issued demand notice on 21.06.2017 but the defendants failed to regularize

¶24

sd-

¶25

¶26

T.A. No. 1657 of 2022

¶27

the account. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this tribunal for recovery of its dues.

¶28

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite proper service, the defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 15.05.2025, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as they have not appeared before the Tribunal nor written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have been filed.

¶29

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Sanjay Gupta, AR of the applicant who has proved the documents as General Power of Attorney, Sanction letter, Agreement of Hypothecation of Assets, Common Agreement, Hypothecation of stock and receivables, Agreement of Guarantee, Balance & Security Letter, Sole Proprietorship Letter, Supplemental agreement, Common agreement, Agreement of Guarantee, Authority letter, Demand notices, Statement of account as Ex.AW-1/1 to Ex.AW-1/19.

¶30

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 proved.

¶31

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.

¶32

T.A. No. 1657 of 2022

¶33

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

¶34

ORDER

¶35

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank, jointly or severally, within 30 days, a sum of Rs.11,82,245/- (Rupees Eleven Lacs Eighty Two Thousand Two Hundred Forty Five only) together with pendentelite and future interest @11.50% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing of this application till the date of realization along with costs failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stocks and assets etc. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶36

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

¶37

(III) Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 20.02.2026.

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 23.12.2025

¶41

Punjab National Bank v. Amit Kumar Malhotra & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. Amit Kumar Malhotra & Ors.

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 Ms. Indu Soni

Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank) versus Parminder Singh

Canara Bank versus Iqbal Singh

Srt Subrata Mahanta and Anr. versus Punjab National Bank

Punjab National Bank versus Shubh Foods Products Co.

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Skyla Fashion