Allowed

Punjab and Sind Bank v. Singh Fab Pvt. Ltd.

DRT3 Nov 2025TA/3339/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of Rs. 2.20 crores plus interest. The court rejected defenses regarding blank documents and challenged accounts, re-ordered interest at 12%, and directed immediate recovery.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs.2,20,78,717.25 with interest @12% p.a. and costs within 30 days; recovery certificate issued.

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Singh Fab Pvt. Ltd. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 3339 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.3339 of 2022

¶5

Punjab and Sind Bank 21, Bank House, Rajendra Place Ground Floor, New Delhi Applicant Versus 1. Singh Fab Pvt. Ltd. Regd Office: Flat no.11-A, Tower-3 Central Park-2, Sector-48 Sohna Road, Gurgaon-122001

¶6

Sh.Muninder Pal Singh s/o Late Sh. Rajinder Singh R/o Flat no.11-A, Tower-3 Central Park-2, Sector-48 Sohna Road, Gurgaon-122001 3.^{Sh.Harman Singh s/o Muninder Pal Singh} R/o Flat no.11-A, Tower-3 Central Park-2, Sector-48 Sohna Road, Gurgaon-122001 4. Smt. Narender Kaur w/o Muninder Pal Singh R/o Flat no.11-A, Tower-3 Central Park-2, Sector-48 Sohna Road, Gurgaon-122001 5. Sh. Meet Pal Singh s/o Muninder Pal Singh R/o Flat no.11-A, Tower-3 Central Park-2, Sector-48 Sohna Road, Gurgaon-122001 Defendants

¶7

Present: Sh.Sarthak Bhatia, Counsel for the applicant bank Date of Reserve: 15.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 03.11.2025

¶8

¶9

T.A. No. 3339 of 2022

¶10

FINAL ORDER

¶11

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank before DRT-III Delhi on 02.11.2017 and then transferred to DRT-I through Sh. Ashok Kumar and amended Original Application filed by Sh.Dheerendra Vikram Singh, authorized representatives 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.2,20,78,717.25 (Rupees Two Crores Twenty Lacs Seventy Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Seventeen and paisa Twenty Five only) along with interest @14.65% per annum from the date of filing this application till the date of realization along with costs.

¶12

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the defendant no.1 being private limited company of defendant no.2 to 5 as its directors/ co-sharers, the applicant bank sanctioned Packing Credit limit of Rs.125 lacs on 11.03.2013 which was enhanced to Rs.200 Lacs on 13.12.2013 and Post Shipment limit of Rs.25.00 lacs on 11.03.2013. Further, the applicant bank sanctioned Housing Loan for a sum of Rs.170.39 Lacs on 16.08.2013 @10.75% interest per annum, which was to be repayable in 240 Equated Monthly Installments of Rs.1,73,000/- each. All the credit facilities were sanctioned against hypothecation of goods, book debts and mortgage of property.

¶13

That in order to avail the credit facilities, the defendants submitted loan applications and executed Sanction Letters, Certificate of Execution of Document, Form No.84-AA(R), Form No.14(R), Form No.106, Form No.291, Form No.412, Form

¶14

5d -

¶15

¶16

T.A. No. 3339 of 2022

¶17

No.126, Form No.200, Form No.199, Form No.14, Letters of Undertaking, F.Ex.-21/66(R), Form No.192 (RR) Hypothecation of Goods, Form No.108, Form No.15(R), Form No.103, Power of Attorney, Loan Agreement, Form No.84A(R), Form No.256(RR), Undertaking of Taking of Housing Loan Sanction, Affidavits, Form No.142, Agreement of Hypothecation of Book Debts and Assets, Form No.255(RR), Form No.191(RR), Form No.412 and Form No.84-AA(R) in favour of applicant bank.

¶18

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that in order to secure the loan facilities, the defendants mortgaged the property bearing Flat no.49, Block-G, measuring 420 sq. yards in South City, Phase II, Nirvana Country, Sohna Road, Gurgaon-122018 owned by defendant no.2 by way of deposit of original title deeds duly registered as Document No.19916, Bahi No.1, Jild NO.9753 on Pages 140 and additional copy pasted on Bahi No.1, Jild No.832 on Page 52-53 in the office of Joint Sub-Registrar, Gurgaon on 15.10.2010 in favour of the applicant bank on 02.07.2013 which was extended on 16.08.2013 and 17.12.2013.

¶19

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 regularize the accounts with the applicant bank. Ultimately, the applicant bank classified the accounts as NPA on 30.06.2015 as per RBI guidelines.

¶20

Notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 was issued by the applicant bank on 07.08.2015 calling upon the defendants to pay the entire outstanding dues but the defendants neglected to clear the

¶21

Se(,.,

¶22

¶23

T.A. No. 3339 of 2022

¶24

dues. The applicant bank took physical possession of mortgaged property and sold through e-auction for Rs.301.50 lacs and appropriated the proceeds in the account. It has been submitted that even after the sale of the mortgaged property, the outstanding dues are Rs.1,87,65,745/- as on 31.08.2017 from the defendants.

¶25

It has been submitted that the defendants also filed their written statement. Apparently, defendants have raised the objection that the applicant bank has got the signature of the defendants on blank documents while granting the loan facilities to the defendants. This Tribunal has gone through the documents which are duly filled and executed by the defendants and this Tribunal is of the view that plea of blank documents is no plea in the eyes of law as has been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of "Indian Bank Vs. Cheese Wafers (India) Pvt. Ltd. It was held if the defendants have not filed any complaint before higher authorities of the bank or filed any complaint before police authorities...... ". Thus, the plea of blank documents is not maintainable after filing of the suit and the same is rejected.

¶26

The defendants have also challenged the statement of account of the bank but this Tribunal is of the view that statement of account is duly certified under Section 4 of the Bankers Books of Evidences Act and the same cannot be challenged unless specific entry is pointed by the defendants. Hence, the said objection is not maintainable and the same is hereby rejected.

¶27

As regards to objection of the defendants that the applicant bank has charged the exorbitant rate of interest, this Tribunal is of the view that as per the provision of Section 19(20) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial

¶28

¶29

T.A. No. 3339 of 2022

¶30

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.

¶31

The witness of the applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments made in this O.A. The evidence lead by the applicant bank which consists of mainly written / typed documents has gone unchallenged and there is no question of disbelieving the same based upon the documents. This Tribunal has also observed that not an iota evidence has been led by the defendants against the claim of the applicant bank and has made only submission on fact as stated in the written statement evidence. That in the civil proceedings it cardinal principle, that whosoever alleges a fact he/she has to prove in the court of law by leading evidence mere assertion are not sufficient and nowhere defendants have denied about the availment of the loan.

¶32

In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Tribunal is of the view that the defendants have failed to convince this Tribunal and this Tribunal do not find any merit and reject the contentions of the defendants as baseless.

¶33

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 19.08.2025,

¶34

5d-

¶35

¶36

T.A. No. 3339 of 2022

¶37

defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as they have not appeared before the Tribunal.

¶38

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavits of Sh. Ashok Kumar & Sh.Dheerendra Vikram Singh, authorized representatives of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as General Power of Attorney, Sanction Letters, Certificate of Execution of Documents, Form no.84-AA (R), Form no.14 (R), Form no.106, Form no.291, Form no.412, Form no.126, Form no.200, Form no.199, Form no.14, Undertaking, F.Ex.-21/66 (R ), Form 192 (RR), Form no.15, Form no.103, Letter of Undertaking, Power of Attorney, Loan Agreement, Form no.84-A(R), Form no.256(RR), Letter of Undertaking in respect of takeover of Housing Loan, Affidavits, Letter of Hypothecation Form, Form no.412, Packing Credit Agreement, Hypothecation of Goods to Secure Demand Cash Credit, Agreement for Hypothecation of Book Debts, Sale Deed, Sale Certificate, Statement of Account duly certified under Banker's Evidence Act, Revival letter marked as Ex.AW-1/1 to Ex.AW-1/56.

¶39

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.

¶40

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.

¶41

54-

¶42

¶43

T.A. No. 3339 of 2022

¶44

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

¶45

ORDER

¶46

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.2,20,78,717.25 (Rupees Two Crores Twenty Lacs Seventy Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Seventeen and paisa Twenty Five only) alongwith interest @12% per annum from the date of filing this application till the date of realization and costs; failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated assets, goods, book debts, etc. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶47

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

¶48

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 02.01.2026.

¶49

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

¶50

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

¶51

(Dictated _and pronounced in open court) Dated: 03.11.2025

¶52