Allowed

Punjab National Bank v. M/S Sunrise Enterprises

DRT20 Sept 2025TA/1675/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application for recovery of dues totaling approximately Rs.52.8 lakh. The court found the bank's case proven by documentary evidence, noting the defendants' absence. Defendants were directed to pay the sum with interest and face recovery from hypothecated assets or property if unpaid.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs.52,79,196/- with interest within 30 days; recovery from sale of hypothecated stocks, book debts, and mortgaged property in case of shortfall.

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Sunrise Enterprises — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

O.A. No.1675 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. 1675 of 2022

¶5

Punjab National Bank

¶6

(e-Oriental Bank of Commerce Circle Sastra Centre East Delhi Pocket E, Mayur Vihar Phase II, Delhi-110091

¶7

Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s Sunrise Enterprises Through its proprietor Sh.Anil Kumar At: 355/A-2, Gali No.6, Friends Colony Industrial Area, Shandra, Delhi-110095

¶10

Sh. Anil Kumar s/o Sh.Mahender Singh (Proprietor)

¶11

At: 208, Dhakka Village, Kingsway Camp, GTB Nagar, Delhi-110009

¶12

Sh. Shailesh Kumar Sharma (Guarantor)

¶13

At: 203, Gali No. 1, Krishna Nagar, opp.Modi Steel Factory, Modi Nagar — 201204 Defendants

¶14

Present: Shri Arun Kumar Shukla, Counsel for applicant bank.

¶15

Date of Institution: 27.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 20.09.2025

¶16

FINAL ORDER

¶17

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 27.10.2021 in DRT-II, Delhi and then transferred to DRT-I through its authorized representative under Section 19

Sr-

O.A. No.1675 of 2022

of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act,1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.52,79,357/- (Rupees Fifty Two Lacs Seventy Nine Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty Seven only) as on 30.09.2021 together with pendentelite and future interest @11% per annum with penal interest @2% p.a with monthly rests from the date of filing of this application with costs.

¶22

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant no.1 through its proprietor being defendant no.2 vide their loan application dated 03.03.2016 along with KYC documents, the applicant bank sanctioned Cash Credit (Hyp.) facility of Rs.40,00,000/-(Rupees Forty Lacs only) on 23.03.2016 @11.95% interest per annum with monthly rests for expansion of business and other requirements against the hypothecated stocks and mortgaged of property owned by defendant no.3 who stood as guarantor for the credit facility sanctioned by the applicant bank in favour of defendant no.1. On the request of defendant no.1, the credit facility was renewed vide letter dated 30.06.2017.

¶23

That in order to avail the said loan facility, the defendant no.1 through its proprietor submitted loan application and executed Agreement for Hypothecation of Assets — Annexure A4, Common Agreement Annexure-A5 on 23.03.2016 and defendant no.3 executed Agreement of Guarantee AnnexureA6 on 23.03.2016 with the applicant bank.

¶24

That in order to secure the loan facility, the defendant no.1 through its proprietor hypothecated the stocks and all receivables, claims, investments etc. including book debts towards applicant bank. Further, the defendant no.3 created equitable mortgage of property bearing No.203, Gali NO.1, Krishna Nagar, Op. Modi Steel Factory, Modi Nagar-201204 by depositing title deed i.e. Gift Deed dated 08.03.2016 duly

¶25

50(-

¶26

O.A. No.1675 of 2022

¶27

registered with Sub-Registrar, Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad, on 09.03.2016 as Document No.2996 in Nahi No.1, Jild No.8375 on pages 269 to 314 of the property and also executed Confirmation of deposit of title deed on 23.03.2016.

¶28

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to honor its commitments to make the payment of interest/installments due as per terms and conditions of the sanction and failed to regularize the account despite regular follow up by the applicant bank. The applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 02.07.2018 as per RBI guidelines and issued loan recall notice on 07.10.2021 but defendants failed to regularize the accounts. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶29

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 05.03.2025, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared before the Tribunal and even no written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have been filed by the defendants.

¶30

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Akhouri Binay as authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as Power of Attorney, Loan Application along with KYC documents, Sanction Letter, Agreement for Hypothecation of Asset, Common Agreement, Agreement of Guarantee, Letter of Confirmation of Deposit of Title Deed, Copy of Title Deed, Renewal Request, Sanction of Renewal of Limit, Recall Notice, Statement of Account, Certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act and Certificate

¶31

¶32

O.A. No.1675 of 2022

¶33

under 2A9B) of Bankers' Books Evidence Act marked as Ex.AW-1 to AW-14.

¶34

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.

¶35

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.

¶36

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

¶37

FINAL ORDER

¶38

I, allow this TA and direct the defendants, to pay to the applicant bank, jointly or severally, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.52,79,196/- (Rupees Fifty Two Lacs Seventy Nine Thousand One Hundred Ninety Six Only) as on 30.09.2021 together with pendentelite and future interest @11% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing of this application till the date of realization failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stocks, book debts etc. and mortgaged property bearing No.203, Gali NO.1, Krishna Nagar, Op. Modi Steel Factory, Modi Nagar-201204 owned by defendant no.3. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶39

¶40

O.A. No.1675 of 2022

¶41

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

¶42

(Ill) Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 19.11.2025.

¶43

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

¶44

BALLAE4-I SHTARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶45

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 20.09.2025

¶46

Punjab National Bank v. M/S Sunrise Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. M/S Sunrise Enterprises

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

Uco Bank versus M/S Riddhi Medical Store

Central Bank of India versus M/S Pragati Cables

Icici Bank Limited versus Lokender Attari