Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Ms Sarthak Pack Well

DRT20 Dec 2025TA/2820/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bank of Baroda sought recovery of dues from Sarthak Pack Well and its proprietor under the RDBFI Act. The defendants were absent. The Tribunal allowed the application and directed payment with interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Directing defendants to pay Rs.61,92,785.96 (as on 10.08.2021) plus interest @12% p.a. from 11.08.2021 with quarterly rests and costs within 30 days; recovery to be effected from sale of hypothecated/

Bank of Baroda versus Ms Sarthak Pack Well — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 2820 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.2820 of 2022

¶5

Bank of Baroda

¶6

ROSARB, 8718, First Floor,

¶7

Desh Bandhu Gupta Marg

¶8

Ram Nagar, Paharganj,

New Delhi-110055

Applicant

Versus

M/s Sarthak Pack Well Regd.Office:

¶13

Plot No.5, Damodar Park Industrial Area Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095

¶14

Also at:

¶15

M/s Sarthak Pack Well Plot No.B-125, Sector-3 Bawana, Delhi

¶16

Smt.Sandhya w/o Sh.Nikhil Kumar Proprietress of M/s Sarthak Pack Well WZ-59, Govind Gall, Babarpur Shandara, Delhi-110032

¶17

Defendants

¶18

Present: Sh.Shivam Gupta, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶19

Date of Reserve: 12.12.2025

¶20

Date of Pronouncement: 20.12.2025

¶21

FINAL ORDER

¶22

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank before DRT-III, Delhi & then transferred to DRT-I Delhi on 17.09.2009 under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 against the

¶23

T.A. No. 2820 of 2022

¶24

defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.61,92,785.96 (Rupees Sixty One Lacs Ninety Two Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty Five & paisa Ninety Six only) as on 10.08.2021 along with @12.00% pendentelite and future interest plus @2% penal interest per annum from 11.08.2021 till the date of realization with costs.

¶25

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of defendant no.1 through its proprietress being defendant no.2 vide loan application and KYC documents, the applicant bank sanctioned Cash Credit facility of Rs.25.00 lacs (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs only) under MSME and Term Loan facility of Rs.31.50 lacs (Rupees Thirty One Lacs Fifty Thousand only) for purchase of machinery & plants on 08.01.2019 against hypothecation of stocks, book debts and plant & machinery covered under CGTMSE scheme.

¶26

That in order to avail the credit facilities, the defendant no.1 through its proprietor defendant no.2 submitted loan application with PAN Card & Voter Card and executed Composite Agreement of Hypothecation, Power of Attorney, Letter of Sole Proprietorship, Letter of Undertaking in respect of Book Debts, Letter of Authority, Letter of Continuing Authority, Declaration cum Undertakings cum Authority, D.P.Note, and Letters of Authority, Instrument of Hypothecation of Moveable Machinery, Composite Undertaking cum Declaration all dated 08.01.2019 with the applicant bank.

¶27

That in order to secure the loan facilities, the defendant no.2 hypothecated the plant & machinery, stocks and book debts towards applicant bank.

¶28

T.A. No. 2820 of 2022

¶29

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions of sanction and failed to route their transactions through the account and submit regular stocks statements and also failed to regularize the account despite overdue notice dated 2011.2019. Ultimately, the applicant bank classified the accounts as NPA on 31.03.2021 as per RBI guidelines but no response from the defendants, hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their 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 10.11.2025, 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 its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Sashi Kant Asopa, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents such as Agreement of Hypothecation and Composite Undertaking cum Declaration, Power of Attorney, Declaration cum Authority, Letter of Continuing Security, Letter of Sole Proprietorship and Statement of Account marked as Ex.CW1/1 to Ex.CW1/5 and Ex.PW-1/6.

¶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 approved.

¶33

T.A. No. 2820 of 2022

¶34

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.

¶35

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

¶36

ORDER

¶37

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants tc pay to the applicant bank, jointly or severally, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.61,92,785.96 (Rupees Sixty One Lacs Ninety Two Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty Five & paisa Ninety Six only) as on 10.08.2021 together with interest @12% per annum with quarterly rests from 11.08.2021 till the date of realization and costs; failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stock, book debts and plant & machinery etc. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Date: 20.12.2025

Bank of Baroda v. Ms Sarthak Pack Well

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Ms Sarthak Pack Well

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

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

State Bank of India versus Lalita