Allowed

Idbi Bank v. F.T.Communication

DRT29 Dec 2025TA/359/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application for recovery of Rs. 1.78 crore. The tribunal directed repayment of principal, future interest at 12% p.a., and costs, granting relief over the argument for penal interest.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the original application; directed payment of Rs. 1,78,83,753.45 plus interest at 12% p.a.; authorized recovery from hypothecated and mortgaged assets.

Idbi Bank versus F.T.Communication — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No.359 of 2023

¶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. 359 of 2023

¶5

IDBI Bank Ltd. 1st Floor, Videocon Tower, E-1, Jhandewalan Extension New Delhi-110055 Applicant
Versus
1. M/s F.T. Communication Through its proprietor Sh.Sanjeev Kumar Gupta 8C/6, 2nd Floor, Abdul Aziz Road Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005
2. Sh.Sanjeev Kumar Gupta Proprietor of M/s F.T. Communication 8C/6,2ndFloor, Abdul Aziz Road Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005
3. M/s Balaji Education Trust 203, Agarwal Plaza, Sector-14, Rohini, Delhi Defendants
Present: Shri Sanjay Bajaj, Counsel for the applicant bank
Date of Reserve: 11.12.2025
Date of Pronouncement: 29.12.2025
FINAL ORDER
This original application has been filed by the applicant
bank on 29.11.2016 before DRT-III Delhi & then transferred to
DRT-I Delhi under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to
ranks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 against the

¶6

¶7

T.A. No.359 of 2023

¶8

defendants for recovery of Rs.1,78,83,753.45 (Rupees One Crore Seventy Eight Lacs Eighty Three Thousand Two Hundred One and Paisa Fifty Nine only) as on 01.10.2016 along with pendentelite and future interest @16.65% rate of Interest with monthly rest from 01.10.2016 in WCTL account and from 02.10.2016 in Expenses account till the date of realization and costs.

¶9

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of defendant no.1 through its proprietor being defendant no.2, the applicant bank sanctioned Cash Credit Facility of Rs.75.00 lacs on 22.01.2010 for Working Capital, which was enhanced to Rs.150.00 lacs on 29.06.2010 against hypothecation of current assets, assignment of Life Policy of IDBI Fortis and equitable mortgage of properties. The defendant no.3 has been made Proforma defendant as mortgaged property is in their possession fraudulently sold by defendant no.2 and shall remain subject to right of applicant bank over the property.

¶10

That in order to avail the credit facility, the defendant no.2 as proprietor and guarantor executed Loan-cumHypothecation Agreement, Demand Promissory Note, Delivery Letter to DPN, Continuity Security Letter and Undertaking on 27.01.2010 & on 17.07.2010 at the time of enhancement of limit and also executed Guarantee Agreement and Undertaking etc. towards the applicant bank.

¶11

That in order to secure the credit liability, the defendant no.2 hypothecated the Current Assets of defendant no.1, Life Policy of IDBI Fortis in the name of defendant o.2 and created equitable mortgage of property i.e. All those piece and parcel of land measuring 1.64 acres, Khewat No.178, Khatoni No.226,

¶12

¶13

T.A. No.359 of 2023

¶14

Mustatil No.21, Kila No.11/2(6-10), 20/1(6-11), Tehsil & District Faridabad, Haryana by executing Letter confirming Deposit of Title Documents, Affidavit regarding deposit of certified copy of deed no.20870 dated 12.03.2007, Deed of Indemnity, Power of Attorney, Affidavits, Declarations etc. on 03.02.2010 and 17.07.2010. The property extended for credit facility of Rs.75 lacs in the name of M/s Jet Communication, another concern of defendant no.2.

¶15

The defendant no.2 being proprietor of defendant no.1 acknowledged the debt on 17.07.2010 and executed reval letter dated 01.05.2012.

¶16

The defendant no.1 through defendant no.2 vide letter dated 27.04.2012 requested to liquidate the dues within 6 monthly instalments of Rs.25 lacs plus interest at contracted rate from 01.08.2012 and applicant bank converted the balance outstanding in Cash Credit into WCTL but defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions of said facility sanctioned. Due to default in repayment of instalments by the defendants and not routing the transactions through the account and not allowing applicant bank for inspection of hypothecated stocks etc., the account became overdue despite repeated request by the applicant bank. The applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 28.09.2012 as per RBI guidelines and issued recall notice dated 13.10.2012 to pay the entire dues.

¶17

Notices under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 was issued on 08.08.2013 to the defendants and issued notice dated 19.11.2013 to clear the dues or applicant bank proceed to publish the name and photograph in

5d-

T.A. No.359 of 2023

newspapers. The applicant bank published the names of defendants as defaulter in two newspapers on 19.03.2014.

¶22

The applicant bank filed FIR on 25.02.2014 and 15.03.2014 with P.S.Paharganj against defendant no.2 for stealing the relevant files of loan from office premises and also sold the mortgaged property to defendant no.3 without permission of applicant bank which is under investigation and is subjudice. The defendant no.2 vide various letters offered to settle the account subject to waiver of penal interest & charges and furnished PDCs of some third party which was rejected by the applicant bank due to conduct of the defendants violated the financial discipline.

¶23

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 08.07.2019, the defendant no.3 has been declared ex-parte. The defendant no.1 & 2 filed their written statement on 07.11.2017 much beyond the stipulated time and this tribunal disallowed the written statement vide order dated 08.07.2019 and have been proceeded ex-parte. The defendant no.3 also proceeded exparte vide order dated 22.10.2014.

¶24

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Siddharth Saksena & Sh.Rakesh Kumar Dhalla, authorized representatives of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as Sanction Letters, Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreements, Demand Promissory Notes, Delivery Letters to DPN, Continuing Security Letters, Undertakings, Guarantee Agreements, Revival Letters, Publication published in two Newspapers; Letter by Defendant no.2, Six Cheques, Letter dated 02.04.2014 by Defendant no.2,

¶25

¶26

T.A. No.359 of 2023

¶27

Letter / Proposal dated 08.04.2014, 05.11.2014 & 28.11.2014 for settling the account.

¶28

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.

¶29

The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and there is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant bank and applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts.

¶30

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.

¶31

In the light of the above discussions and documents on record, the Original Application deserves to be allowed.

¶32

ORDER

¶33

I, allow this OA and direct the defendant no.1 and 2 to pay to the applicant bank within 30 days, jointly or severally, a

¶34

T.A. No.359 of 2023

¶35

sum of Rs.1,78,83,753.45 (Rupees One Crore Seventy Eight Lacs Eighty Three Thousand Two Hundred One and Paisa Fifty Nine only) as on 01.10.2016 along with pendentelite and future interest @12.00% per annum with monthly rest from 01.10.2016 with costs, failing which, failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stocks, Life Policy of IDBI Fortis and mortgaged property i.e. All those piece and parcel of land measuring 1.64 acres, Khewat No.178, Khatoni No.226, Mustatil No.21, Kila No.11/2(6-10), 20/1(6-11)1 Tehsil & District Faridabad, Haryana owned by defendant no.2 which is also mortgaged in the account of M/s Jet Communcation, another concern of defendant no.2. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable assets of the defendants.

¶36

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

¶37

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 27.02.2026.

¶38

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

¶39

(GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI (Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 29.12.2025

Idbi Bank v. F.T.Communication

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idbi Bank v. F.T.Communication

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

Jitendra Natthuji Chavhan versus Arvind Sahakari Bank Limited

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Pristine Facility and Management Services Pvt. Lts

Rare Asset Reconstruction Private Limited versus Ms Narayana Processed Food Pvt. Ltd.

Hdfc Bank versus Pradeep Kumar

Central Bank of India versus Dinesh Chand Alias Dinesh Kumar

Bank of India versus Komal Sharma