Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. M/S Brijlal Udyog

DRT19 Dec 2025TA/2120/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application for recovery of dues against two defendants who absconded. The Tribunal awarded the principal amount plus interest at 12% per annum and directed issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Allowance of Original Application; Order for payment of Rs. 10,96,128/- with 12% p.a. interest, costs, and issuance of recovery certificate.

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Brijlal Udyog — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 2120 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. 2120 of 2022

¶5

Bank of Baroda (e-Dena Bank) IX-6093-94, Main Road Gandhi Nagar, New Delhi-110031

¶6

Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s Brijlal Udyog Regd. Add: D-1/764, Harsh Vihar Mandoli, Delhi-110093

¶9

Mr. Arpeet Gupta s/o Sh. Ajay Gupta R/o D-265, Phase-1, Ashok Vihar Delhi-110052

¶10

Defendants

¶11

Present: Mr. Tarun Kumar, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶12

Date of Reserve: 05.12.2025

¶13

Date of Pronouncement: 19.12.2025

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

This original application has been filed by the applicant before DRT II, Delhi on 21.06.2019 & transferred to DRT-I Delhi through Smt.Seema, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 read with Rule 8 of Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 1993 against the defendants for recovery of Rs.10,96,128/- (Rupees Ten Lacs Ninety Six Thousand One Hundred Twenty Eight only) as on 31.03.2019 together with pendentelite and future interest

¶16

¶17

T.A. No. 2120 of 2022

¶18

@12.25% per annum with monthly rests from 01.04.2019 till the date of realization and costs.

¶19

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant no.1 and 2 in the business of printing of carry bags, the applicant bank sanctioned Term Loan facility for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs only) @9.75% interest per annum to be repayable in 60 EMIs of Rs.16670/- on 27.12.2017 under Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojana against hypothecation of machinery to be purchased from loan availed in order to purchase machinery for the purpose of business improvement.

¶20

That in order to avail the loan facility, the defendants executed Agreement of Hypothecation, Undertaking, General Letter of Lien and Set Off for Borrowing Arrangement from borrowers, Consent Clause, Demand Promissory Note, Declaration in favour of the applicant bank on 27.12.2017.

¶21

It has been submitted by the applicant banks that after availing the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendant miserably failed and neglected to pay the interest and installments in the accounts 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 31.03.2019 as per RBI guidelines and issued notice on 10.04.2019 and recall notice on 14.06.2019 but the defendants failed to regularize the account. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this tribunal for recovery of its dues.

¶22

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 10.11.2025, the

¶23

¶24

T.A. No. 2120 of 2022

¶25

defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared before the Tribunal nor written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have been filed.

¶26

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Smt. Seema, authorized representative of the applicant who has proved the documents as General Power of Attorney, Agreement of Hypothecation, Undertaking, Declaration, Demand Promissory Note, General Letter of Lien and Set off for borrowing arrangement from borrowers, Consent clause to be executed by borrower, Statement of account marked as Ex.CW-1/1 to Ex.CW-1/7.

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and there is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant

¶30

T.A. No. 2120 of 2022

¶31

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 30 days, a sum of Rs.10,96,128/- (Rupees Ten Lacs Ninety Six Thousand One Hundred Twenty Eight only) together with pendentelite and future interest @12% per annum with monthly rests from 31.03.2019 till the date of realization along with costs failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stocks, machinery, book debts, etc. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendant.

¶35

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

¶36

(III) Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 17.02.2026.

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 19.12.2025

Bank of Baroda v. M/S Brijlal Udyog

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. M/S Brijlal Udyog

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hdfc Bank versus Dinesh Manchanda

Central Bank of India versus M/S Kanha Trilogy

Icici Bank Limited versus Gulab Chand

Ashwin Bhagwatrao Gawalikar versus Dcb Bank Limited

Sham Lal Goyal versus Canara Bank

State Bank of India versus Teja Singh