Allowed

Punjab and Sind Bank v. M/S Madan Lal Kuldeep Kumar

DRT23 Jul 2025TA/66/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's original application for recovery of dues against the principal borrower and guarantors, rejecting defences regarding blank documents, limitation, and parallel proceedings, and ordered payment of the claimed amount with interest.

What did the court decide?

Directed Defendants 1, 2, 5, and 6 to pay Rs.3,38,34,981.32 with pendentelite and future interest @15.50% p.a. within 30 days.

Punjab and Sind Bank versus M/S Madan Lal Kuldeep Kumar — Money Laundering | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 66 of 2022

¶2

Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi 4th floor, Jeevan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi
Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sharma
T.A. No. 66 of 2022
Punjab & Sind Bank Fatehpuri, Delhi-110006 Applicant Versus
1.M/s Madan Lal Kuldeep Kumar Proprietorship concern of Sh.Jagdish Chander 159-161, Katra Baryan, Fatehpuri Delhi-110006
Also at: BC-10, Shalimar Bagh West Delhi
2.Sh.Jagdish Chander Proprietor of Madan Lal Kuldeep Kumar 159-161, Katra Baryan, Fatehpuri Delhi-110006
3.Sh.Bhagwan Dass (Deleted) BC-10, Shalimar Bagh West Delhi
Also at: Shop / Godown No.30, New Model Mandl, Hissar, Haryana
4.Sh.Sham. Dass (Deleted) BC-10, Shalimar Bagh West Delhi
Also at: Shop / Godown No.30, New Model Mandi, Hissar, Haryana
5.Sh.Harish Bhasin s/o late Sh.S.R.Bhasin T-1, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.

¶3

¶4

T.A. No. 66 of 2022 6.Smt. Jyoti Bhasin w/o Sh.Harish Bhasin T-1, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi
7.Shri Randhir Sood (Deleted) House No.11, Nangali Sakrawati Ranaji Enclave, Najafgarh, New Delhi Defendants
Present: Ms. Seema Gupta, Counsel for Applicant Bank Mr. Amit Dhall, for Defendant no.5 & 6 Date of Institution: 14.06.2004 Date of Pronouncement: 23.07.2025 FINAL ORDER This original application was filed by the Applicant Bank
before DRT-III, Delhi on 14.06.2004 and then transferred to
DRT-I, Delhi through their authorized representative Shri
Rajinder Kumar Goel under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts
Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 against the
defendant no.1 to 7 for recovery of Rs.3,38,34,981.32/-
(Rupees Three Crores Thirty Eight Lacs Thirty Four Thousand
Nine Hundred Eighty One and paisa Thirty Two only) as on
25.05.2004 together with pendentelite and future interest
@15.50% per annum quarterly rests and penal interest @ 2% per annum from the date of filing of the original application till its realization of its dues. Further, the name of Sh.R.S.Saini was substituted as authorized representative in place of Sh.Rajinder
Kumar Goel, erstwhile AR for the applicant bank.

¶5

¶6

T.A. No. 66 of 2022

¶7

The brief facts of the case are that defendant no. 1 being proprietorship concern of defendant no.2 in the business of wholesale oil cakes, wheat, rice and food grains etc. availed Cash Credit (Hypothecation) facility of Rs.9.00 lacs and Bill Purchase limit of Rs.3.00 lacs on 07.06.1995. On the request of defendant no.1 through its proprietor, the applicant bank sanctioned Cash Credit (Hyp.) limit of Rs.9.00 lacs, FOBLC limit

¶8

of Rs.300.00 lacs, Bank Guarantee of Rs.200.00 lacs and Bill Purchase limit of Rs.3.00 lacs on 25.07.1998. The defendant no.3 to 6 stood as guarantors/mortgagors for the credit

¶9

facilities sanctioned in favour of defendant no.1 by the applicant bank. These limits were sanctioned against

¶10

hypothecation of stocks of oil cakes, wheat rice and food grain etc. as well equitable mortgages of immovable properties as

¶11

under:

¶12

i) Property being Shop / Godown No.29, New Model Mandi, Hissar, Haryana jointly owned by defendant no.3 and 4;

¶13

ii) Plot No.1, Block T, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-27 owned by defendant no.5;

¶14

iii) Plot No.B-648, Shushant Lok, Phase I, Gurgaon, Haryana owned by defendant no.6;

¶15

iv) Property measuring 1 Bigha 14 Biswas comprised in Mustatil No.34, Killa No.21, situated within Revenue Estate of Village Nangali Sakrawati, Delhi owned by defendant no.7.

¶16

It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant bank

¶17

that in order to avail the above mentioned credit facilities, the

¶18

5d—

¶19

¶20

T.A. No. 66 of 2022

¶21

defendant No.2 as sole proprietor of defendant no.1 submitted affidavit of proprietorship concern and executed various security documents i.e. Form No.14 Promissory Note, Form No.106, Form No.122, Form No.126 (authorize Bank to recall loan), Form No.291 (Undertaking for penal Interest), Form No.412 (Undertaking), Form No.192(LDS) Hypothecation of Goods to Secure Demand Cash Credit and Loan Component, Form No.159 (Letter of Continuity), Form No.191 (Revised) - Letter of Continuity on 07.06.1995 and 25.07.1998 with the applicant bank. It has further been submitted that the defendant no.3 to 7 stood as guarantors for credit facilities availed by defendant no.1 and executed Form No.255 (Revised) Personal Guarantee Bonds dated 07.06.1995 and 25.07.1998 in favour of applicant bank and the defendant no.2 also executed Form No. Exp 37/96 - Agreement for Hypothecation of Debts and Assets on 25.07.1998 in favour of

¶22

applicant bank.

¶23

It has further been submitted on behalf of the applicant bank that in order to secure the credit facilities availed by defendant no.1, the following properties were equitable mortgaged by defendant no.3 to 7 on 16.03.1998 and 17.02.1998 by depositing original sale deeds of the properties and executed Form No.84AA on 25.07.1998 and the defendant SW-

¶24

¶25

T.A. No. 66 of 2022

¶26

no.3 to 7 also submitted affidavits declaring exclusive owners of their respective property and is free from all encumbrances not been alienated prior thereto:

¶27

i) Property being Shop / Godown No.29, New Model Mandi, Hissar, Haryana jointly owned by defendant no.3 and 4;

¶28

ii) Plot No.1, Block T, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-27 owned by defendant no.5;

¶29

iii) Plot No.B-648, Shushant Lok, Phase I, Gurgaon, Haryana owned by defendant no.6;

¶30

iv) Property measuring 1 Bigha 14 Biswas comprised in Mustatil No.34, Killa No.21, situated within the Revenue Estate of Village Nangali Sakrawati, Delhi owned by defendant no.7.

¶31

1. It has also been submitted that the mortgaged properties were extended by the defendant no.3 to 7 on various dates at the time of renewal/enhancement of credit facilities by the applicant bank and the defendant no.1 through its proprietor being defendant no.2 along with defendant no.3, 4 also executed revival letters and acknowledged the debit balance in Cash Credit (Hyp.), Bank Guarantee and Bills Purchase credit facilities towards applicant bank on 25.09.1998 and 16.06.2001.

¶32

It has been submitted by the applicant bank/FI that after availing the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendant no.1 failed to maintain financial discipline and failed to service interest in Cash Credit account, Bank Guarantee was invoked on

¶33

¶34

T.A. No. 66 of 2022 31.08.2001 and bills purchased were unrealized, resulting the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 31.03.2002 as per RBI guidelines. Thereafter, the applicant bank issued recall notices to adjust the dues vide letters dated 08.12.2001, 13.12.2001 but despite assurances, the defendants failed to liquidate the dues and adjust the accounts. It has further been submitted that the defendant no.1 submitted OTS for BG and CC account which was accepted on 03.02.2003 but did not comply with the terms and conditions of OTS sanction and hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶35

Notice under Section 13 (2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 dated 17.08.2002 for Rs.2,42,97,093.32 as on 31.07.2002 was issued to the defendants calling upon them to pay the entire outstanding dues to the applicant bank but the defendants did not clear the dues and thereafter the applicant bank taken the symbolic possession of property at Rajouri Garden, Delhi on 02.04.2005 and defendant no.5 and 6 moved application under Section 19 and 22 of DRT Act read with order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC for restraining bank from proceedings under SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶36

¶37

T.A. No. 66 of 2022

¶38

The defendant no.5 and 6 in their written statement submitted that CC limit of Rs.9.00 lacs and Bill purchased limit of Rs.3.00 lacs sanctioned on 07.06.1995 became time barred by 06.06.1998 and limit of Rs.200.00 lacs was sanctioned with FD of Rs.50 lacs thus Rs.150.00 lacs was given, no Statement of account filed prior to 03.01.1999, FOBLC limit of Rs.20.00

¶39

lacs sanctioned on 25.04.1998 become time barred as there is

¶40

no revival letter. It has further been submitted on behalf of

¶41

these defendants no.5 and 6 that the defendant no.5 and 6 served notice dated 09.09.2000 for revocation when the account was normal and within limit showing credit balance,

¶42

nothing payable by the defendants. It has further been

¶43

submitted on behalf of the defendants no.5 and 6 that the

¶44

applicant bank submitted account statement which is not in consonance with ledger maintained and fictitious and exaggerated figures arrived in violation of Section 2 (8) of

¶45

Bankers' Book of Evidence Act and Section 76 of Indian

¶46

Evidence Act and the applicant bank clubbed different claims in order to bring matter within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

¶47

It has further been submitted that defendant no.5 and 6 were

¶48

promised for partnership with defendant no.2 and 3 for running

¶49

export business on edible oils, seeds etc. and induced to deliver

¶50

title deeds of their properties and they have filed criminal complaint against principal borrower and others with the Police sd-

¶51

¶52

T.A. No. 66 of 2022 for wrong caused and the applicant bank replied on 18.09.2000 refused the revocation apparently no amounts were due and payable. It has further been submitted that that defendants were called upon bank to deliver title deeds of their properties but they failed to provide any details of amount due as on 09.09.2000 instead bank constantly receiving credits into the account which ought to have been adjusted against demand as per Clayton's Law. It has further been submitted that the applicant bank vide letter dated 25.03.2003 apprised that notice u/s 13 (2) dated 17.08.2002 issued to respondent no.1 as they failed for settlement but no notice received. It has further been submitted that on 05.02.2004, defendant no.5 and 6 filed Civil Writ Petition being WP (C) 1754/04 before Hon'ble Delhi High Court which was disposed of in terms of judgement of Mardia Chemicals Vs Union of India and the applicant bank in terms of OTS dated 16.08.2012 with defendant no.3, 4 and 7 for Rs.205.00 lacs released the defendants and their properties vide order dated 11.12.2012. It has further been submitted that the defendant no.5 and 6 filed IA No.31/2013 praying for paying balance amount claimed in OA after adjustment of Rs.205 lacs and also offering OTS to settle the entire dues at Rs.275.00 lacs which was accepted by applicant bank and Rs.50.00 lacs was deposited in pursuance of OTS, however, the applicant bank rejected the OTS and Sc/—

¶53

¶54

T.A. No. 66 of 2022

¶55

asked the defendants to pay the amount in terms of OA, whereas guarantee of defendant no.5 and 6 stands novated and discharged from their liabilities in view of OTS entered with defendant no.3, 4 and 7. It has further been submitted that as per Section 141 of Indian Contract Act 1872, position of guarantor is co-extensive and in case initial agreement of loan whereof guarantee is amended, the surety is automatically discharged. It has further been submitted that the applicant bank not sought any prior permission while settling the claim of defendants from the Tribunal as per provision of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882. It has further been submitted that the applicant bank has not taken any action for recovery against principal borrower having positive net worth and settle with defendant no.3,4 and 7 being father and close blood relations. It has further been submitted that this OA has not been filed by the authorized officer of the applicant bank. It has further been submitted that the applicant bank has not filed the complete statement of account and the applicant bank has charged the exorbitant rate of interest. It has further been submitted that the claim of the applicant bank is barred by time as the Defendants No.5 and 6 have revoked all their guaranties, indemnities, undertakings, etc. on 9.9.2000 and had also given a Notice to the Bank, which was served upon and duly

¶56

acknowledged by the Bank and in the said notice, answering

¶57

¶58

T.A. No. 66 of 2022 Defendants have even called upon the Bank to inform as to the
total liability due/outstanding as on 9.9.2000 so that the
property can be redeemed. It has further been submitted that
any amount received by the Bank after 9.9.2000 from the
principal borrower, has to be first adjusted towards the
outstanding amount, but no details of the amounts which have
been received after 9.9.2000, have been given in the O.A. filed
by the Bank. 9. It has further been submitted on behalf of the defendants no.5 and 6 that the Defendants, in fact, were introduced to one
Mr. Jagdish Chander, Proprietor of M/s. Madan Lal Kuldip
Kumar and his father, Mr. Bhagwan Dass to a common friend
and the said persons represented that they are running the
business of export of edible oils, oilseeds, oil cakes and other
allied products and they are looking for a partner and
approached to the answering Defendants for becoming a
partner in the said business and believing said representations
of the said gentleman to be true, correct and honest, answering
Defendants delivered the title Deeds of the properties to them and also signed various blank documents as presented to them.
It has further been submitted that the Defendants no.5 and 6
did not visit the Branch even and when answering defendants
came to know of the fraud having been played upon them, they
filed a criminal complaint against the Principal Borrower and se/

¶59

¶60

T.A. No. 66 of 2022

¶61

other persons with the Police for the wrong caused to them and these persons, in fact, defrauded the Bank as well as these defendants. It has further been submitted that the answering defendants even issued a Notice dated 9th of September, 2002 to the Bank and revoked all the undertakings/ guarantees which were obtained from them by inducement and misrepresentation and not only that, Bank was also called upon to deliver the title deeds of their properties and also agreed to redeem the mortgage, but the applicant bank sent a reply and refused revocation of the guarantees/undertakings. However, it is evident from the said reply that no amount was due and payable either by the Principal Borrower or by the answering Defendants. Thereafter, on 14th of May, 2001, answering Defendants called upon the Bank to furnish the details of the outstanding as on 9.9.2000 and also for redeeming the mortgage, but the Applicant bank, however, failed to provide the details of the amounts which may be due and payable. It has further been submitted that on 25.3.2003, Applicant bank informed the answering Defendants, vide their letter of the said date that the settlement which was arrived at, has not been implemented in its letter and spirit and, therefore, they shall be issuing a Notice under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act of 2002 and vide letter dated 28th of March, 2003,

¶62

¶63

T.A. No. 66 of 2022 answering Defendants conveyed to the Bank that as the
settlement has been arrived at between the Bank and the
Principal Borrower, they stand discharged/absolved from the
liability, if any, but the Applicant bank has not at all dealt with
the said letter and accordingly the property, in question, was
not at all mortgaged with the Bank and simply because the
Bank is in possession of the Title Deed, which was handed over
by the Respondent No.1 to the Bank, the same would not
create any right over the said property as the answering
Defendants never expressed any intention to create a
mortgage over the said property. It has further been submitted that no notice u/s. 13 (2) of the "Securitisation Act' was ever
served upon them and this was brought to their notice vide
letter dated 28th of March, 2003 and in fact, Bank cannot be
permitted to invoke two remedies under two different Acts, i.e.
one by way of a Petition under Section 19 of the Recovery of
Debts Due to Banks & FIs Act of 1993 and another under the
Securitization Act' and the applicant bank has already filed their
case and this Tribunal has to adjudicate the amount, if any,
due and payable by the Defendants and which of the
Defendants are liable to pay the amount, if any. It has further
been submitted that at the time of sanctioning the loan by the
applicant bank, the documents were got signed from the
Defendants/answering Defendants, the same were blank and

¶64

¶65

T.A. No. 66 of 2022 the documents have now been manipulated and presented
before this Tribunal. Accordingly, it has been prayed for
dismissal of the present original application.
10.The rejoinder to the written statement of the defendants
no.5 and 6 and reiterated all the averments as stated in the
O.A.

¶66

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Rajinder Kumar Goel and Shri R.S. Saini, authorized representatives of the applicant who has proved the documents as Power of Attorneys, Various Security Documents at the time of Sanction and Enhancement of Limits, Certified Copies of Statement of Accounts under Bankers' Books Evidence Act, Sanction Letters, Documents for Bill Purchased, Personal Guarantee Agreements, Balance and Security Confirmation Slip, Revival Letters, Letters and Notices to Defendants, Various Cheques, Letter by Defendant no.5, Letter to Defendant no.2, 5, Acceptance of Liability by defendant no.5 etc. and they have exhibited the documents as AW-1/1 to AW-1/4 and AW-2/1 to AW-2/239. The applicant bank has also filed another affidavit of Evidence of Sh.Kultar Singh, Authorized Representative who proved the documents such as Application Form No.30B, Affidavits by Defendant no.3 to 7, Letter of sole proprietor, Affidavits of Defendant no.5 to

¶67

¶68

T.A. No. 66 of 2022

¶69

7, Sanction Letters, Security documents, Copies of Sale Deeds of Mortgaged Properties and Form 84AA by defendant no.3 to

¶70

7 etc. and exhibited the documents as AW-3/3 to AW-3/55.

¶71

The defendants no.5 and 6 have also filed their evidence

¶72

and exhibited the documents such as photocopy of unauthorized debit, photocopy of notice dated 09.09.2000, photocopy of notice dated 14.05.2001, letter dated 07.08.2001 as 'X', D-1, D-3, D-4 and D-5.

¶73

Heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties and perused the records thoroughly.

¶74

In the present matter, the borrowers/guarantors/ mortgagors have availed the loan facilities from the applicant bank against the mortgage of the property in question.

¶75

Apparently, during the pendency of this OA proceedings, the

¶76

defendant no.3, 4 and 7 as guarantor / mortgagors offered to

¶77

pay Rs.2.05 crores plus interest for delayed period and Ld. DRT-III, Delhi vide its order dated 11.12.2012 released their

¶78

guarantee as well as the documents of properties situated at:

¶79

a) Property being Shop / Godown No.29, New Model Mandl, Hissar, Haryana jointly owned by defendant no.3 and 4;

¶80

b) Property measuring 1 Bigha 14 Biswas comprised_in Mustatil No.34, Killa No.21, situated within the Revenue Estate of Village Nangali Sakrawati, Delhi owned by defendant no.7.

34-

T.A. No. 66 of 2022

Further, during the pendency of this OA the defendants no.5 and 6 have also filed an application being IA no.31/2013 praying therein to allow the defendants no.5 and 6 to pay the OA amount alongwith 6% interest on reducing balance after giving the dues adjustment of Rs.205 lacs received by the applicant bank from the defendants no.1 to 4 within a period of 60 days, however, the applicant bank has opposed for granting the interest @ 6% simple to the defendants no.5 and 6. That the said application was disposed of by the Ld. DRTIII, Delhi vide order dated 31.01.2013 thereby directing these defendants to clear the balance dues of the applicant bank (less the amount already received by the applicant bank from the defendants no.3, 4 & 7) alongwith future interest @ 10% simple within a period of 60 days, however, these defendants have failed to pay the said sum within 60 days and thereafter on an application of the applicant bank the Ld. DRT-III Delhi vide order dated 05.09.2014 directed to issue the recovery certificate for a sum of Rs.3,38,34,981.32 (less the amount already deposited by the defendants) alongwith future interest @ 10% simple to be charged from the date of filling of this OA till the date of realization against the defendants no.1, 2, 5 and 6 as per the order dated 31.01.2013 passed the said DRT. Thereafter, feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 05.09.2014 these defendants no.5 and 6 have approached the

¶85

¶86

T.A. No. 66 of 2022

¶87

Hon'ble DRAT, Delhi and the Hon'ble DRAT vide order dated 21.08.2018 (Appeal no.109/2017) remanded back the matter to the DRT for disposal of the Bank's OA qua the appellants (defendants no.5 and 6) and feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 21.08.2018 of Hon'ble DRAT, the applicant bank has approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by filling the writ petition (C) 12001/2018, however, the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 30.04.2025 dismissed the said writ petition and directed this Tribunal to decide the present OA within three months from 30.04.2025.

¶88

Apparently, the defendants no.5 and 6 have raised the objection that the applicant bank has got signed the blank documents from them 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)

¶89

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

¶90

documents is not maintainable after filing of the suit and the same is rejected. cd-

¶91

¶92

T.A. No. 66 of 2022

¶93

The defendants no.5 and 6 have also raised the objection that the present original application has not been filed by the authorized officer, but on perusal of the records it is observed that the present O.A. was filed by Shri Rajinder Kumar Goel and thereafter his name was substituted with Shri Randhir Singh Saini, Authorized Officer of the bank and these Officers have been authorized to institute the case on behalf of the applicant bank vide Power of Attorney dated 29.03.1978 and 08.12.1977 and the same are exhibited as AW-1/1 and AW1/2, respectively. Hence, the plea is not maintainable and the same is rejected.

¶94

The defendants no.5 and 6 have further raised the objection that the present O.A. is barred by limitation but on perusal of the records it is observed that the defendants no.3 to 7 have created the equitable mortgage in favor of the applicant bank; defendants have executed the Revival Letter and Balance & Security Confirmation Slip on 16.06.2001; the notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was issued on 17.08.2002, whereas the present O.A. has been filed on 14.06.2004. Therefore, the present original application has been within the stipulated period of three years. Thus, the plea is also not maintainable and hence the same is rejected.

¶95

The defendants have also challenged the statement of

¶96

account of the bank but this Tribunal is of the view that

5d-

T.A. No. 66 of 2022

statement of account is duly certified under Section 4 of the Bankers Books of Evidences Act and the same cannot be challenged unless specific wrong entries are otherwise pointed by the defendants. Hence, the said objection is not maintainable and the same is hereby rejected. Even otherwise, these defendants no.5 and 6 have also admitted their liability by filling an application praying to allow the defendants no.5 and 6 to pay the OA amount alongwith 6% interest on reducing balance after giving the due adjustment of Rs.205 lakhs received by the applicant bank from the defendants no.3, 4 & 7 within a period of 60 days.

¶101

The defendants no.5 and 6 have also raised the objection that the defendants no.5 and 6 have issued a Notice dated 9th of September, 2002 to the Bank and revoked all the undertakings/guarantees which were obtained from them by inducement and misrepresentation and not only that, Bank was also called upon to deliver the title deeds of their properties and also agreed to redeem the mortgage. However, on perusal of the records it is observed by this Tribunal that the

¶102

defendants no.5 to 6 have failed to file any documentary evidence to prove that the applicant bank has agreed to revoke

¶103

all the undertakings/guarantees and even otherwise the said

¶104

guarantees were continuing and the defendants were liable to pay the dues of the applicant bank. Further, merely issuing the

¶105

¶106

T.A. No. 66 of 2022

¶107

letter/notice dated 09.09.2002 by the defendants the guarantees cannot be revoked without the permission of the applicant bank. Further, during the pendency of this OA, the defendants no.5 and 6 has also filed an application praying therein to allow the defendants no.5 and 6 to pay the OA amount alongwith 6% interest on reducing balance after giving the due adjustment of Rs.205 lakhs received by the applicant bank from the defendants no.3, 4 & 7 within a period of 60 days meaning thereby these defendants no.5 and 6 have admitted their liability and these defendants cannot run away by raising such objections. Thus, the said objection is not maintainable and the same is hereby rejected.

¶108

Further, the defendants no.5 and 6 have also raised the objection that the parallel proceedings under the RDDBFI Act, 1993 and SARFAESI Act, 2002 cannot be carried out together. However, in this regard the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Transcore vs Union of India & Anr. AIR 2007 SC 712 & (2008) 1 SCC 15 held that the SARFAESI proceeding may be initiated by the secured creditor even if the recovery proceeding under the RDDBFI Act is pending. Thus, in view of the said judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court the said objection is not maintainable and the same is hereby rejected.

¶109

The witness of the applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments made in this O.A. The evidence lead by the

Sa'"-

T.A. No. 66 of 2022

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 cogent evidence/ documents 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. 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.

¶114

In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Tribunal is of the view that the defendants no.1, 2, 5 and 6 have failed to convince this Tribunal and this Tribunal do not find any merit and reject the contentions of these defendants as baseless. I hereby allow this O.A. as the applicant bank has proved its claim beyond reasonable doubt against the defendants no.1, 2, 5 and 6.

¶115

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

¶116

ORDER

¶117

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants no.1, 2, 5 and 6,

¶118

jointly or severally, to pay to the applicant bank, within a period 5e/

¶119

¶120

T.A. No. 66 of 2022

¶121

of 30 days, a sum of Rs.3,38,34,981.32 together with costs, pendentelite and future interest @15.50% per annum quarterly rests from the date of filing of this application (less amount paid during the pendency of this 0.A.) failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated current assets and following mortgaged properties of Defendants:

¶122

a) Plot No.1, Block T, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-27 owned by defendant no.5;

¶123

b) Plot No.B-648, Shushant Lok, Phase I, Gurgaon, Haryana owned by defendant no.6;

¶124

In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of defendant no.1, 2, 5

¶125

and 6.

¶126

II) The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi. III) Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 20.09.2025.

¶127

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

¶128

Final Order signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open court on this 23rd July, 2025.

¶129

5d-

¶130

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

Punjab and Sind Bank v. M/S Madan Lal Kuldeep Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab and Sind Bank v. M/S Madan Lal Kuldeep Kumar

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

Manik Roy and another versus Union Bank of India

Hdfc Bank versus Balvir Singh

Uco Bank versus M/S Aloft Trucking Pvt. Ltd.

Mr Tushar Kanti Das versus Murshidabad District Central Co-Operative Bank

Ms Remission Diagnostic and Poly Clinic Center and Anr. versus Punjab National Bank (United Bank of India)

Rina Rai and Others versus Idbi Bank