Allowed

Punjab National Bank v. Sh. Deepankar Tiwari

DRT22 Jan 2025TA/2922/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Punjab National Bank for recovery of dues against a defaulting borrower. The defendant, who borrowed under P梅GEM, failed to repay, and the Tribunal decreed the principal amount with adjusted interest rates.

What did the court decide?

Defendant directed to pay Rs.13,37,716.84 with future interest at 12% p.a. from 07.06.2018. Recovery from hypothecated stocks, plant, and other properties of the defendants.

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Deepankar Tiwari — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 2922 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.2922 of 2022

¶5

Punjab National Bank C-3/9, Prashant Vihar Delhi-110085

¶6

Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh.Deepankar Tiwari s/o Sh.Anil Kumar Tiwari Proprietor of Anand Press R/o A-3/49-50, Sector 11 Rohini, Delhi-110085

¶9

Also at: Sh.Deepankar Tiwari GI-29, G T Karnal Road Delhi

¶10

Also at:

¶11

Sh.Deepankar Tiwari Plot No.35, Gali No.15, Samaypur industrial Area, Samay Pur, Delhi

¶12

Defendant

¶13

Present: Sh.Arun Kumar Shukla, Counsel for applicant bank

¶14

Date of Institution: 08.06.2018

¶15

Date of Pronouncement: 22.01.2025

¶16

FINAL ORDER

¶17

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 08.06.2018 before DRT-III, Delhi & then transferred to DRT-I, Delhi through Smt. Nisha Bhawaker, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of

¶18

scf

¶19

T.A. No. 2922 of 2022

¶20

Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.13,37,716.84 (Rupees Thirteen Lacs Thirty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Sixteen & paisa Eight Four only) as on 06.06.2018 along with pendentelite and future interest @10.60% per annum in Cash Credit Account and @9.75% in Term Loan account with monthly rests plus @2% penal interest from 07.06.2018 till the date of realization along with costs.

¶21

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of defendant being proprietor of M/s Anand Press vide application dated 07.06.2013 under Prime Ministers Employment Generation Programme (PMEGP) received through Khadi & Village Industries Board, the applicant bank sanctioned Cash Credit facility of Rs.3.00 lacs (Rupees Three Lacs only) and Term Loan of Rs.12.00 lacs @13.25% interest per annum against hypothecation of stock and plant & machinery. As per request of defendant vide various letters, the loan was disbursed to M/s Nirakar Enterprises through Demand Draft on 26.07.2013 based on quotation issued dated 19.03.2013.

¶22

That in order to avail the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendant submitted loan application and executed Loan Agreement Form PNB-544, Term Loan Agreement PNB-639, Undertaking, Irrevocable Letter of Authority PNB-546, Hypothecation of Goods & Book Debts PNB-1031, Hypothecation of Current Assets, Supplementary Agreement for Reschedulement of Term Loan PNB-881 on 25.07.2013, 01.11.2013 and 03.02.2015.

¶23

That in order to secure the loan facilities, the defendant hypothecated the paper printing machinery and paper cutting machine in favour of applicant bank.

¶24

5c/--

¶25

T.A. No. 2922 of 2022

¶26

The defendant acknowledged the debt towards the applicant bank and executed Balance and Security Confirmation Letter dated 01.07.2016 & 01.10.2016 with applicant bank.

¶27

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 despite of several requests and reminders vide various letters issued by applicant bank, defendants neither regularize the account nor liquidated the loan with applicant bank. Ultimately, the applicant bank classified the accounts as NPA on 21.10.2016 as per RBI guidelines and issued recall notice dated 26.04.2018 but defendants neglected. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶28

Notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 dated 30.08.2016 was issued to the defendants by the applicant bank and took symbolic possession of the hypothecated assets on 01.07.2017.

¶29

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendant and despite of proper service, the defendant has chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 18.07.2024, the defendant has 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 defendant.

¶30

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of filing the original documents such as Copy of Power of Attorney, Application to KBIC, Letter dated

¶31

T.A. No. 2922 of 2022

¶32

05.02.2013, Photocopies of documents dated 23.01.2013, Appraisal cum Sanction Letter, Affidavit and Certificate from KYC National Nodal Agency, Loan Agreement, Term Loan Agreement, Undertaking, Letter of Authority, Agreement for Hypothecation of Goods and Book Debts to Secure Cash Credit, Hypothecation of Current Assets, Supplementary Agreement, Balance & Security Confirmation Letters, Quotation & related Letters, Copy of Letters, Retail Invoice, Letter dated 13.04.2016, Legal Notice with Postal Receipts, Notice u/s 13(2), Possession Notice, Statement of Account etc.

¶33

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.

¶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

As per the provision of Section 19(20) of the Remvery 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.

¶36

T.A. No. 2922 of 2022

¶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.13,37,716.84 (Rupees Thirteen Lacs Thirty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Sixteen & paisa Eight Four only) together with pendentelite and future interest ©12.0% per annum from 07.06.2018 till the date of realization and costs; failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stocks & plant and machinery etc. In case of shortfall / default, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶40

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

¶41

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 24.03.2025.

¶42

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

¶43

sd-

¶44

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

¶45

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 22.01.2025

Punjab National Bank v. Sh. Deepankar Tiwari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. Sh. Deepankar Tiwari

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 Saraj Singh

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S Ishtiyaq Ahmad Kasana

Ashok Kumar versus Punjab National Bank

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Janaki Traders and Ors.

Bank of Baroda versus M/S S G India Auto Dealer

The South Indian Bank Limited versus M/S Als Satellite Education Private Limited