Allowed

Indian Bank v. M/S Prince Enterprises

DRT24 Nov 2025TA/2585/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed ex-parte by Indian Bank against M/s Prince Enterprises and Ms. Meenu Dabas for recovery of outstanding dues. The court replaced the claimed interest rate with 12% per annum and directed recovery from hypothecated assets or properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs. 27,28,568/- with future interest at 12% per annum within 30 days. Recovery certificate issued to Recovery Officer.

Indian Bank versus M/S Prince Enterprises — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No.2585 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. 2585 of 2022

¶5

Indian Bank

¶6

142/116, Main Ghewra Road Kanjhawala, New Delhi-110018

¶7

Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s Prince Enterprises Through its proprietor Ms Meenu Dabas House No.3026, Second Floor, Eldeco County, Sonepat, Haryana-131001

¶10

Also at:

¶11

House No.18, Old Housing Colony Near Subzi Mandi, Sonepat, Haryana-131001

¶12

Ms Meenu Dabas d/o Sushil Kumar Dabas Proprietor of Prince Enterprises House No.3026, Second Floor, Eldeco County, Sonepat, Haryana-131001 Defendants

¶13

Present: Shri Anil Kumar Singh, Counsel for applicant bank

¶14

Date of Reserve: 13.11.2025

¶15

Date of Pronouncement: 24.11.2025

¶16

FINAL ORDER

¶17

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 15.01.2022 before DRT III Delhi and then transferred to DRT-I Delhi through Sh.Krishan 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.27,28,568/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lacs Twenty Eight

¶18

¶19

T.A. No.2585 of 2022

¶20

Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Eight only) as on 09.01.2022 together with pendentelite and future interest @15.00% per annum with monthly rest from 09.01.2022 along with costs.

¶21

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant No.1 through its proprietress being defendant no.2, the Applicant Bank sanctioned OCC IB — Micro Loan facility of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs Only) @@10.50% rate of interest on 23.05.2018 & Term Loan GECL of Rs.4.00 lacs on 01.06.2020 @7.90% rate of interest for business purpose against hypothecation of stock and book debts covered under CGTMSE scheme.

¶22

That in order to avail the said loan facility, the defendant no.1 through its proprietress being defendant no.2 executed Demand Promissory Notes, Agreements for Open Cash Credit, Agreements of Hypothecation of Movables, Disposal of Proceeds Letter, Term Loan Agreement on 23.05.2018 and 02.06.2020.

¶23

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that in order to secure the loan facilities, late defendant no.1 through defendant no.2, hypothecated the stocks and book debts towards applicant bank.

¶24

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the loan facilities, the defendant no.1 did not adhere to financial discipline and also to deliver financial commitments as per terms and conditions of the sanction despite visits etc. Ultimately, the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 12.06.2021 as per RBI guidelines. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶25

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite of proper service, the defendant have chosen to absent

¶26

¶27

T.A. No.2585 of 2022

¶28

from the proceedings. As per order dated 03.03.2025, 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.

¶29

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Krishan Kumar, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has submitted the documents such as Power of Attorney Ex.AW-1/1, Demand Promissory Note Ex.AW-1/2 & AW-1/5, Agreement for Open Cash Credit Ex.AW-1/3, Agreement of Hypothecation of Movables Ex.AW-1/4 & AW-1/8, Disposal of Proceeds Letter Ex.AW-1/6, Term Loan Agreement Ex.AW-1/7, Acknowledgement of Liability Ex.AW-1/9, NPA Certificate Ex.AW-1/10, Statement of Account Ex.AW-1/11, Certificate under Bankers' Books Evidence Act Ex.AW-1/12.

¶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

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

¶33

Sc!

¶34

T.A. No.2585 of 2022

¶35

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.

¶36

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

¶37

ORDER

¶38

(I) I, allow this OA and direct the defendants, jointly or severally, to pay to the applicant bank, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.27,28,568/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lacs Twenty Eight Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Eight only) as on 09.01.2022 together with pendentelite and future interest @12.00% per annum from 09.01.2022 till the date of realization failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stocks and book debts. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 24.11.2025

Indian Bank v. M/S Prince Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Bank v. M/S Prince Enterprises

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

Manish Kumar versus Punjab National Bank

Hdfc Bank versus Dilbag Trading Co.

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S Aijaz Ahmad Kuchay, (Erstwhile M/S Aijaz Brick Kiln)

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Deepak Electric Company

Hdfc Bank versus Jagjeevan Singh Bhullar

State Bank of India versus Swati Khanna @Swati Dhaiya