Allowed

Idbi Bank Ltd. v. Deepak Kumar Jain

DRT20 Dec 2025TA/2693/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by IDBI Bank Ltd. against its defaulters for recovery of Rs.10,16,856/- along with interest. The Tribunal directed joint or several payment and deemed the defendants guilty based on unrebutted documentary evidence. It awarded interest at 12% p.a.

What did the court decide?

Direct the defendants to pay Rs.10,16,856/- along with future interest @12% p.a. monthly rest.

Idbi Bank Ltd. versus Deepak Kumar Jain — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No.2693 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.2693 of 2022

¶5

IDBI Bank Ltd. D-105, Vivek Vihar Delhi-110095

¶6

Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

1.^{Sh.Deepak Kumar Jain s/o Vimal Jain} Proprietor of M/s Anshika Designers R/o Wz-54, Flat No.102, Sumit Radhe Apartment Gali NO.2, Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony Palam Village, South West Delhi-110045

¶9

Also at:

¶10

Sh.Deepak Kumar Jain s/o Vimal Jain M/s Archana Sarees

¶11

Gall No.2, Sadh Nagar, Main Market Palam Colony, Delhi-110045

¶12

Sh.Darshan Kumar Kohli s/o Bishambher Lal Kohli R/o 2, ER Block, Inder Puri New Delhi-110012

¶13

Mrs.Archana Jain w/o Deepak Kumar Jain Plot No.D-1/41/147, SF, Defendants Mahavir Enclave Part I, Delhi-110045

¶14

Present : Shri Vivek Kumar, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶15

Date of Reserve: 09.12.2025

¶16

Date of Pronouncement: 20.12.2025

¶17

FINAL ORDER

¶18

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 10.05.2018 before DRT-III Delhi & then transferred to DRT-I Delhi through Shri Deepak Kumar, authorized

T.A. No.2693 of 2022

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.10,16,856/- (Rupees Ten Lacs Sixteen Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Six only) as on 31.03.2019 together with pendentelite and future interest @14.00% per annum with monthly rest from 01.04.2019 till the date of realization & costs.

¶23

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant no.1 as proprietor of M/s Anshika Designers and guarantee of defendant no.2 and 3, the applicant bank sanctioned Cash Credit facility of Rs.10.00 lacs as working capital on 30.09.2015 @12.00% interest per annum with monthly rest against hypothecation of stocks and book debts under Prime Mantri Mudra Yojna scheme.

¶24

That in order to avail the credit facility, the defendants no.1 as proprietor submitted loan application and executed Demand Promissory Note, Hypothecation-cum-Loan Agreement as well as the defendant no.2 and 3 executed Common Guarantee Deed dated 30.09.2015 for the credit facility availed by defendant no.1.

¶25

That in order to secure the loan facility, the defendant no.1 hypothecated the stocks and book debts towards applicant bank.

¶26

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facility, the defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions and despite of several requests and reminders, defendants did not deposited interest

¶27

¶28

T.A. No.2693 of 2022

¶29

and make transaction in the account with applicant bank. Ultimately, the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 30.11.2018 as per RBI guidelines and issued recall notice dated 05.01.2019 but defendants failed to regularize the account.

¶30

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 17.10.2023, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as they have not appeared before the Tribunal nor written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have been filed.

¶31

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Deepak Kumar, authorized representative of applicant bank who has proved the documents such as Copy of Delegation of Powers, Sanction Letter, D.P. Note, Hypothecation cum Loan Agreement, Common Guarantees Deed, Undertaking, Loan Revival Letter, Recall Notice, Statement of Account and Certificate under Section 2A of Bankers' Book Evidence Act marked as Ex.AW1/1 to Ex.AW1/11.

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

¶35

T.A. No.2693 of 2022

¶36

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.

¶37

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

¶38

ORDER

¶39

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.10,16,856/- (Rupees Ten Lacs Sixteen Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Six only) as on 31.03.2019 along with pendentelite and future interest @12.00% per annum with monthly rest from 01.04.2019 till the date of realization, failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of the hypothecated stocks and book debts etc. In case of shortfall, the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable property of the defendants.

¶40

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

sd-

T.A. No.2693 of 2022

(III)^{Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer,} DRT I, Delhi on 18.02.2026.

¶45

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

¶46

E 5C-/ — YS (GOVIND BALLAn3 rSHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶47

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 20.12.2025

¶48

Idbi Bank Ltd. v. Deepak Kumar Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idbi Bank Ltd. v. Deepak Kumar Jain

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

Icici Bank Limited versus I P Electricals and Hardware Company

State Bank of India versus Manish Kumar Purohit

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Brijlal Udyog

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Nirmala Printer and Stationers

Canara Bank versus Siddharth Gandhi

Bank of Baroda versus Ms Sarthak Pack Well