Allowed

Axis Bank v. Divinity International and Anr.

DRT10 Sept 2025TA/828/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application for recovery of Rs.25.59 lakhs plus interest and penal interest against two defendants who absented themselves. The court relied on the bank's documented evidence and directed payment within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Directed defendants to pay Rs.25,59,671/- plus interest and penalties within 30 days; directed issuance of recovery certificate.

Axis Bank versus Divinity International and Anr. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 828 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. 828 of 2022

¶5

Axis Bank Ltd. Axis House, Jaypee Greens Wish Town 1-14, Tower 2, Sector-128 Noida Expressway, Noida, UP Applicant Versus 1. M/s Divinity International Through its partners Site No.IV, May Field Garden Sector-57, Gurugram Haryana-122001 Also at: E-43, 1st Floor, Lajpat Nagar-I, New Delhi-110024 2. Sh.Vipin Chander Marwah s/o Rajender Prasad Marwah Partner of Divinity International R/o H.No.27, 2nd Floor, Block 49 East Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008 Defendants Present: Ms Anjali Bahl, Counsel for the applicant bank Date of Institution: 23.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 10.09.2025 ORDER

¶6

This original application has been filed by the applicant n 23.06.2022 filed before DRT-III Delhi and then transferred o DRT-I, Delhi through Shri Abhinav Kumar Pandey, uthorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 5d

¶7

T.A. No. 828 of 2022

¶8

19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.25,59,671/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Fifty Nine Thousand Six Hundred Seventy One only) as on 25.11.2021 plus interest @9.25% per annum along with @24% penal interest from 25.11.2021 along with costs. Further, the name of Sh.Gyanendra Kumar was substituted as authorized representative in place of Sh.Abhinav Kumar Pandey, erstwhile AR for the applicant bank.

¶9

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of defendant no. 1, partnership concern of through defendant no.2 partner, the applicant bank sanctioned Business Loan facility of Rs.20.00 lacs on 26.06.2019 to be repayable in 36 Equated Monthly Installment of Rs.72,306/- @18.00% interest per annum which was extended to 38 EMI under moratorium facility. On the request of defendant no.1 through its partners, he applicant bank sanctioned ECLGS facility of Rs.3,54,000/under GECL scheme on 26.10.2020 @9.25% interest per nnum as per Govt. of India guidelines on account of Covid-19 • uidelines.

¶10

In order to avail the said loan facilities, the defendants ubmitted Business Loan Application with KYC documents and xecuted Loan Agreements, Demand Promissory Note, DP Note elivery cum Waiver Letter, ECLGS Application, Link Document urn Amendment Agreement on 26.09.2019 and 26.10.2020

¶11

It has been submitted by the applicant that after availing he aforesaid loan facility, the defendants failed to comply with he terms and conditions and despite of several requests and eminders, the defendants failed to regularize the account with pplicant Bank. The applicant bank classified the accounts as

s r-

T.A. No. 828 of 2022

NPA on 19.02.2021 and issued loan recall notice on 26.11.2021 calling upon the defendants to pay the entire outstanding dues to the applicant bank but the defendants did not clear the dues of the applicant bank.

¶16

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite proper service including publication in newspaper, the defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 28.04.2025, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as they have not appeared before the Tribunal nor written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have been filed.

¶17

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Abhinav Kumar Pandey, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as Power of Attorney Ex.AW1/1, Loan greement Exh.AW1/2(Colly), ECLGS Scheme Ex.AW1/3, DP Link Document cum Amendment Agreement under ECLGS x.AW1/4, Loan Recall Notice Ex.AW1/5, Certified Statement •f Account under Bankers' Book of Evidence Act x.AW1/6(Colly), Affidavit Ex.AW1/A.

¶18

The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments ade in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the pplicant bank is based on the documents and the same have een duly approved.

¶19

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

¶20

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

T.A. No. 828 of 2022

FINAL ORDER

(I) 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.25,59,671/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Fifty Nine Thousand Six Hundred Seventy One only) as on 25.11.2021 along with pendentelite future interest @9.25% interest per annum from 25.11.2021 till the date of realization with costs failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from sale of the moveable and immovable properties of defendants.

¶25

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

¶26

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 10.11.2025.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

Dictated and pronounced in open court) ated: 10.09.2025

¶30

Axis Bank v. Divinity International and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Axis Bank v. Divinity International and Anr.

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

Bank of India versus Vishesh Enterprises

Bank of India versus J P Apparels

Canara Bank versus M/S R B Builders and Ors.

Anil versus State Bank of India

Maharaj Singh Sindhu versus Iifl Home Finance Limited

Hdfc Bank versus Ms Neeraj Electronics