Allowed

Punjab National Bank v. M/S M.I.Reinforcement

DRT25 Apr 2025TA/8/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an original application for recovery of dues. The bank proved the loan, default, and issuance of notices under S. 13(2) SARFAESI. The defendants were absent. The Tribunal directed repayment of the principal sum, interest, and costs.

What did the court decide?

Order: Allow OA. Direct defendants to pay Rs.55,68,055/- with interest and costs. Direct issuance of recovery certificate to Recovery Officer.

Punjab National Bank versus M/S M.I.Reinforcement — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No.8 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. 8 of 2022

¶5

Punjab National Bank B-6, Gamma Shopping Complex

¶6

Block-E, Gamma-I Greater Noida-201308, UP Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s M.I. Reinforcement Through its Proprietor Sh. Mohd. Islam

¶9

C-8, Sector B-1, Tronica City UPSIDC Industrial Area Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201102

¶10

Sh. Mohd Islam s/o Sh.Asgar Ali T-196, Gali no.1, Gautam Puri Zero Pushta Road Garhi Mendu, North East Delhi Delhi-110053

¶11

Ms. Nuzhat Kamal D/o Sh. Kamal Akhtar (Guarantor) J-9, Street No.11, Brahmpuri Garhi Mendu, North East Delhi Delhi-110053 Defendants

¶12

Present: Sh.M.K.Jha, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶13

Date of Institution: 18.08.2020

¶14

Date of Pronouncement: 25.04.2025

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 18.08.2020 before DRT-III, Delhi and then transferred to DRT-I Delhi through Shri Anil Kumar,

¶17

T.A. No.8 of 2022

¶18

authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act,1993 read with Rule 8 of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 1993 against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.55,68,055/(Rupees Fifty Five Lacs Sixty Eight Thousand Fifty Five only) as on 15.07.2020 together with pendentelite future interest @8.60% along with penal interest @2% from the date of filing this application with its costs.

¶19

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant no.1 being proprietorship concern of defendant no.2 as its proprietor submitted application for Cash Credit Facility along with necessary documents etc., the applicant bank sanctioned Credit Facility of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lacs only) against mortgage of immovable property on 29.08.2018 @10.60% interest per annum against hypothecation of goods, book debts and mortgage of property as per terms of sanction duly accepted by defendants.

¶20

That in order to avail the said loan facility, the defendants submitted Loan Application Forms along with necessary documents and executed Hypothecation of Goods and Book debts to Secure Cash Credit Facility on 29.08.2018 in favour of the applicant bank.

¶21

That in order to secure the loan facility, the defendant No.3 created mortgage of property by depositing title deeds of property bearing No.1027, land measuring 250.83 sq. meters at Village Chandrawali alias Shandara, Near GT Road Abadi, Tehsil Vivek Vihar, Shandara, Delhi which was already mortgage by the defendant no.3 in the account of M/s M.I. Raw Foods (India) Pvt. Ltd., which duly registered at Tehsildar Shandara on 29.10.2015 vide Registration Number

¶22

T.A. No.8 of 2022

¶23

4589, Book No.1, Volume 2028, on Page 1 to 8 on 14.06.2018.

¶24

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendants failed to honor its commitments to make the payment of interest/installments due to the applicant bank as per terms and conditions of the sanction and failed to regularize the account despite regular follow up. The applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 30.06.2019 as per RBI guidelines and issued final recall notice dated 06.08.2020 but the defendants neglected and failed to regularize the account. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶25

Notices under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 was issued by the applicant bank on 05.07.2019 to the defendants but they failed to clear the dues.

¶26

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 13.12.2024, 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.

¶27

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Anil Kumar, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has submitted the documents such as Power of Attorney Ex.AW1/1, Loan Application Ex.AW-1/2, Sanction Letter Ex.AW-1/3,

¶28

T.A. No.8 of 2022

¶29

Hypothecation of Goods and Book Debts Ex.AW-1/4, Copy of Title Deed Ex.AW-1/5, Notice under Section 13(2) Ex.AW-1/6, Recall Notice dated 06.08.2020 Ex.AW-1/7, Statement of Account Ex.AW-1/8, Certificate under Section 65-B(2) of Indian Evidence Act u/s 2A(b) of Banker's Books Evidence Act and NPA Certificate Ex.AW-1/9(Colly).

¶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

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

¶33

ORDER

¶34

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.55,68,055/- (Rupees Fifty Five Lacs Sixty Eight Thousand Fifty Five only) as on 15.07.2020 together with pendentelite and future interest @10.60% per annum with monthly rests from the 16.07.2020 till the date of realization and costs; failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stocks, book debts, as well as mortgaged property bearing No. 1027, Land measuring 250.83 sq. mtrs. at Village Chandrawali alias

¶35

T.A. No.8 of 2022

¶36

Shandara, Near GT Road Abadi, Tehsil Vivek Vihar, Shandara, Delhi. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendant.

¶37

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

¶38

(Ill) Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 24.06.2025.

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 25.04.2025

Punjab National Bank v. M/S M.I.Reinforcement

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. M/S M.I.Reinforcement

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

M/S Sandeep Gupta Commission Agent versus Axis Bank

Canara Bank versus Smt,.Subhadrabai

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Highcity Infrastructures Pv Ltd. Rep by Its Directors Sri.R. Umashankar and Smt.H.Devika

Sreekala K S versus State Bank of India

Sri Umakanthraju C versus Srujana Vividoddesha Souharda Sahakari Niyamitha

Union Bank of India versus G S Chethan