Allowed

Punjab National Bank v. M/S Deepak Electric Company

DRT24 Nov 2025TA/194/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by a bank for recovery of outstanding dues from a borrower and a guarantor. The court noted the defendants were absent and excluded a witness statement, ultimately awarding principal plus interest at 12% p.a.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to pay Rs. 29,27,012/ with interest at 12% p.a. from 01.12.2015, realizable from hypothecated stocks or sale of properties.

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Deepak Electric… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 194 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.194 of 2023

¶5

Punjab National Bank

¶6

(e-Oriental Bank of Commerce) Circle Ghaziabad Sastra

¶7

K3-13, 2nd Floor, Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad, U.P. Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s Deepak Electric Company Shop no.2098/20A, Atma Ram market Chah Indara, Bhagirath Palace Delhi-110006

¶10

Mrs. Sheela Goyal w/o Sh.Tara Chand Goyal G-3-A Naveen Shandara Behind Shyam Lal college Delhi-110032

¶11

Also at:

¶12

Mrs. Sheela Goyal w/o Sh.Tara Chand Goyal Shop no.2098/20-A, Atma Ram Market Chah Indara, Bhagirath Palace Delhi-110006

¶13

Sh. Deepak Goyal s/o Sh.Tara Chand Goyal G-13 A, Naveen Shandara Behind Shyam Lal College Delhi-110032 Defendants

¶14

Present: Sh. Arun Bhardwaj, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶15

Date of Reserve: 07.11.2025

¶16

Date of Pronouncement: 24.11.2025

T.A. No. 194 of 2023

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed before DRT-III, Delhi on 03.12.2015 & then transferred to DRT-I, Delhi by the applicant bank through Sh.Anil Kumar, 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.29,27,012/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lacs Twenty Seven Thousand Twelve only) as on 02.12.2015 along with pendentelite and future interest @13.70% from 03.12.2015 till the date of realization along with costs. Further, the name of Shri Ashok Kumar was substituted as authorized representative in place of Sh.Anil Kumar, erstwhile ARs for the applicant bank.

¶21

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of defendant no.1 through its proprietor being defendant no.2, the applicant bank sanctioned Overdraft/Cash Credit facility (Hypothecation) facility for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lacs only) @12% interest per annum with monthly rests against hypothecation of stocks and mortgage of a property. The defendant no.3 stood as guarantor for the credit facility availed by defendant no.1.

¶22

That in order to avail the loan facility, the defendant no.1 through defendant no.2 executed Sole Proprietorship Letter, Agreement of Hypothecation of Assets, Agreement for Overdraft, Common Agreement, Undertaking and defendant no.3 executed Agreement of Guarantee with the applicant bank on 11.08.2010.

¶23

The defendant no.1 through its proprietor being defendant no.2 also executed Balance Confirmation letters

¶24

¶25

T.A. No. 194 of 2023

¶26

dated 14.10.2011 and 23.06.2014 confirming the outstanding dues towards the applicant bank.

¶27

That in order to secure the credit facility, the defendant no.3 created equitable mortgage of property situated at Shop No.2098/20A, Atma Ram Market, Chah Indara, Bhagirath Palace, Delhi-110006 by depositing title deeds along with chain of documents in favour of the applicant bank on 12.08.2010

¶28

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facility, the defendants did not maintain the financial discipline and miserably failed to adhere to the terms and conditions due to which account maintained becoming irregular. Ultimately, the applicant bank classified the account as NPA as per RBI guidelines but defendants gave no response, hence the applicant bank has approached this tribunal for recovery of its dues.

¶29

Notices under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 dated 09.02.2013 issued on the defendants and notice under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act issued but defendants neglected to clear the dues.

¶30

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 28.12.2017, 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.

¶31

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed the copies of documents such as Power of Attorney of AR, Loan

sc Q

T.A. No. 194 of 2023

Application, Sanction Letter, Sole Proprietorship Letter, Hypothecation of Assets, Overdraft, Common Agreement, Undertaking, Agreement of Guarantee, Balance & Security Confirmation Letters, Partition Deed, Sale Deed, Letter of Deposit, Notices u/s 13(2) and 13(4) of SARFAESI Act, Statement of Accounts marked as Annexure Al to A22 from page no.1 to 180.

¶36

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.

¶37

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.

¶38

As per the provision of Section 19(20) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 which is analogous to Section 34 of CPC, on filing of the suit/claim, the contract between the parties comes to an end and the Court/Tribunal has a discretion to award the same depending upon the circumstances of each case. Same principle has been 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 drastic fall in rates of interest globally and domestically, I am of the opinion. that interest of justice will be served if the interest at the rate of 12% p.a. is awarded.

¶39

In the light of the above discussions, the Original Application deserves to be allowed. 5d

T.A. No. 194 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.29,27,012/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lacs Twenty seven Thousand Twelve only) as on 02.12.2015 together with pendentelite and future interest @12% per annum from 0112.2015 till the date of realization and costs; failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from hypothecated stocks etc. and mortgaged property situated at the Shop no.2098/20A, Atma Ram Market, Chah Indara, Bhagirath Palace, Delhi-110006. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶45

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

¶46

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 22.01.2026.

¶47

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

¶48

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

¶49

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 24.11.2025

¶50