Allowed

Central Bank of India v. M/S Rajni Enterprises

DRT12 Dec 2025TA/3234/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application for recovery of arrears. The defendants, who obtained a term loan and cash credit facility, failed to repay dues and neglected summons. The court verified the bank evidence and rejected monetary or non-repayment defence as unrebutted.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs.33,64,491.71 with interest and costs jointly or severally within 30 days; recovery certificate to be issued forthwith.

Central Bank of India versus M/S Rajni Enterprises — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 3234 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.3234 of 2022

¶5

Central Bank of India

¶6

New Seelampur Delhi-110053

¶7

Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s Rajni Enterprises Through its Proprietress — Smt.Rajni Shop No.C-148, Lal Bagh Mandl, Loni, Ghaziabad, UP-201102

¶10

Smt.Rajni w/o Sh.Dinesh Kashyap Proprietress M/s Rajni Enterprises R/o 376, Gali No.7, West Kanti Nagar Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051 Defendants

¶11

Present: Sh.Kamaljit Singh Ranot, Counsel for applicant bank

¶12

Date of Reserve: 28.11.2025

¶13

Date of Pronouncement: 12.12.2025

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 16.08.2022 before DRT-III Delhi and then transferred to DRT-I Delhi through Sh.Atul Arya, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of Rs.33,64,491.71 (Rupees Thirty Three Lacs Sixty Four Thousand Four Hundred Ninety One and paisa Seventy One only) as of 18.05.2022 along with interest at contractual rate

¶16

kJ`

¶17

¶18

T.A. No. 3234 of 2022

¶19

of interest and penal interest @2% and future interest from the 31.10.2023 till the date of realization with costs.

¶20

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the defendant no.1 through its proprietress being defendant no.2, the applicant bank sanctioned Cash Credit facility of Rs.28,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Eight lacs only) @10.35% interest and Term Loan of Rs.2.00 lacs @8.10% interest per month on 18.04.2020 under Stand Up India scheme for business purpose against hypothecation of stock covered under CGTMSE scheme.

¶21

In order to avail the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendant no.1 through its proprietress submitted loan application and executed D.P.Note, Letter of Waiver, Letter of Continuity, Letter of Interest Variation, Supplementary Agreement, Overdraft Agreement, Term Loan Agreement, and Articles Agreement dated 28.04.2020 in favour of applicant bank.

¶22

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, nonsubmission of stock and book debt statements and failed to maintain financial discipline as per sanction terms. Ultimately, the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 11.10.2021 as per RBI guidelines and issued legal demand notice on 29.11.2021 but defendants neglected and not repa;d the dues, hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶23

¶24

T.A. No. 3234 of 2022

¶25

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 15.07.2025, 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 defendant.

¶26

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Atul Arya, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents such as General Power of Attorney, Loan Application Form, Sanction Letter, D.P.Note, Letter of Continuity, Letter of Waiver, Letter of Interest Variation, Supplemental Agreement, Overdraft Agreement, Term Loan Agreement, Articles of Agreement, NPA Certificate, Legal Demand Notice, Certified Statement of Accounts under Banker Books of Evidence Act marked as Exhibit 1 to 6.

¶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 approved.

¶28

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.

¶29

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

¶30

T.A. No. 3234 of 2022

¶31

ORDER

¶32

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.33,64,491.71 (Rupees Thirty Three Lacs Sixty Four Thousand Four Hundred Ninety One and paisa Seventy One only) as of 18.05.2022 ©10.75% with pendentelite and future interest from 19.05.2022 till the date of realization and costs; failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stock & book debts. In case of default / shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶33

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

¶34

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 10.02.2026.

¶35

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

¶36

__ 5d -_ (GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶37

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 12.12.2025

Central Bank of India v. M/S Rajni Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Central Bank of India v. M/S Rajni Enterprises

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

M/s Parin International versus Idbi Bank Ltd.

Punjab National Bank versus Sh Balwinder Singh

Canara Bank versus Sh. Balraj Singh

Amit Das versus Icici Bank Limited

Canara Bank versus Anmol Khanna

Punjab National Bank versus Radish Trading Pvt. Ltd.