Allowed

Punjab National Bank v. M/S Earl Exim Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

DRT11 Sept 2025TA/839/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by Punjab National Bank for recovery of dues from M/s Earl Exim Pvt. Ltd. and its guarantors. The Tribunal found the defendants' case rebutted and fixed interest at 12% per annum, allowing the recovery of the principal sum plus costs.

What did the court decide?

Directed defendants to pay Rs.2,07,33,147.51 with interest @12% p.a. from 08.10.2021 and costs within 30 days; recovery certificate issued to Recovery Officer; sale of hypothecated and mortgaged properties in case of shortfall.

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Earl Exim Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 839 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.839 of 2022

¶5

Punjab National Bank

¶6

Circle Sastra Centre, East Delhi, CSC, Pocket E, Mayur Vihar Phase II Delhi-110091 Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s Earl Exim Pvt. Ltd. Through its Director

¶9

Sh. Hitesh Chopra

¶10

T-7, 3rd floor, Shanti Niketan Building, 3834/11, Pataudi House Road, Darya Ganj Delhi-110006

¶11

Also at:

¶12

202, Building no.2502 Plot no.304, Block-M, Gali no.8 Naiwala Estate, Beadanpura Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005

¶13

Also at:

¶14

Shop no.4, 3rd floor, Property no.2215 Hardhian Singh Road Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005

¶15

Mr. Hitesh Chopra s/o Sh. Chetan Chopra Director of M/s Earl Exim Private Ltd. H.No.383/8-A, First floor Street no.16, East Azad Nagar Krishna Nagar (East), Delhi-110051

¶16

M/s Ranjan Saini s/o Deepak Saini Director of M/s Earl Exim Private Ltd. H.No.D-163, Gali no.3, Mitha Pani Agar Nagar, Prem Nagar-3 Kirari Suleman Nagar, Delhi-110086

¶17

54-

¶18

T.A. No. 839 of 2022

¶19

Sh.Rahul Anil Ahuja s/o Sh. Anil Ahuja 1111, Ground Floor, DLF Phase-4 Opp. Hamilton Court-122002

¶20

Also at:

¶21

Sh.Rahul Anil Ahuja s/o Sh. Anil Ahuja C-11, 2nd floor, Greater Kailash-I New Delhi-110048 Defendants

¶22

Present: Shri Ajay Shankar, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶23

Date of Institution: 27.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 11.09.2025

¶24

FINAL ORDER

¶25

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 27.12.2021 before DRT-III, Delhi and then transferred to DRT-1, Delhi through Sh. Akhouri Binay, authorized representative 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.2,07,33,147.51 (Rupees Two Crores Seven Lacs Thirty Three Thousand One Hundred Forty Seven and paisa Fifty One only) as on 07.10.2021 along with pendentelite and future interest @1335% per annum from 08.10.2021 till the date of realization along with costs.

¶26

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the defendant no.1 through its directors vide loan application dated 07.12.2012, the applicant bank sanctioned for a sum of Rs.200.00 lacs on 17.12.2012 which was enhanced to Rs.400.00 lacs on 13.05.2013 ©14.75% interest per annum against hypothecation of goods and book debts and mortgage

Sd-

T.A. No. 839 of 2022

of properties. Further, on the request of the defendant no.1, the applicant bank renewed the Cash Credit limit facility on 26.12.2018 for Rs.165.00 lacs. The limits were approved by Board Resolution of Defendant no.1 on various dates for enhancement / reduction of limits and authorizing defendant no.2 and 4 to execute the security documents with the applicant bank. The defendant no.2 to 4 stood as guarantors for the credit facilities sanctioned by applicant bank in favour of defendant no.1.

¶31

In order to avail the loan facility, the defendant no.1 through its directors / guarantors submitted loan applications and executed Hypothecation of Goods and Book Debts to Secure Cash Credit, Hypothecation of Moveable Assets Forming part of Fixed / Block Assets and Hypothecation of Current Assets, Master Undertaking and Request for purchase / collect discount of Bills, Declarations on 26.12.2012 and 21.05.2013. The defendant no.2 to 4 executed Agreement of Guarantees, Undertaking with the applicant bank on 26.12.2012 along with other guarantors namely Mrs.Narinder Kaur, Mrs.Taran Kaur, Dhawan Creative Prints Pvt.Ltd., Mrs.Savita Gupta who were later discharged.

¶32

That in order to secure the cash credit facility, the defendants mortgaged the following properties:

¶33

i) H. No.1512, Sector-21, Urban estate, Gurgaon, Haryana in the name of defendant no.4;

¶34

ii) Four Storied building bearing no.B-55, Block-B, New Krishna Park, Najafgarh, New Delhi in the name of M/s Dhawan creative Pvt. Ltd. — released on 11.03.2014;

¶35

¶36

T.A. No. 839 of 2022

¶37

iii) G-131, Vikas Puri, New Delhi in the name of Smt. Narinder Kaur and Smt. Taran Kaur — released on 11.03.2014;

¶38

iv) WZ-14A, Village Budela, Vikas Puri, Delhi owned by M<rs Savita Gupta; — released on 11.06.2014;

¶39

The Defendant no.1 through defendant no.4 executed Balance & Security Confirmation letter for Rs.3,08,28,140/- on 04.06.2014 @14.75% interest per annum as on 31.03.2014 and Rs.1,64,96,350.65 on 22.06.2016 and on 01.05.2019 for a sum of Rs.1,68,68,305.67.

¶40

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 maintain financial discipline for regularization of the account with the applicant bank. Ultimately, the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 01.09.2019 as per RBI guidelines, after which defendant no.1 made certain payments and the account was upgraded to standard on 30.10.2019. As the defendants failed to maintain financial discipline and the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 31.03.2021 and issued recall notice dated 03.04.2021 to the defendants but defendants failed to regularize the account, Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of its dues.

¶41

Notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 dated 03.09.2019 and second notice dated 05.04:2021 was issued to the defendants, but they failed to regularize the account.

54-

T.A. No. 839 of 2022

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 05.04.2024, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared before the Tribunal and even written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have not been filed by the defendants.

¶46

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of Affidavit of Sh. Akhouri Binay, authorized representative of the applicant bank, who has proved the documents as General Power of Attorney, Loan Application Forms, Sanction Letters, Board Resolutions, Hypothecation of Goods and Book Debts, Current Assets, Master Undertaking Forms, Agreement of Guarantees, Undertakings, Interview cum Appraisal Forms, Letters of Continuity, Release Letters, Proposal Letters, Acknowledgement of Debts, Balance and Security Confirmation Letters, Recall Notices, Notices u/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, Certified Statement of Account under Bankers Books of Evidence Act as Ex.AW1/A to Ex.AW1/NN.

¶47

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.

¶48

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.

¶49

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, Sd-

¶50

¶51

T.A. No. 839 of 2022

¶52

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 10% p.a. is awarded.

¶53

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

¶54

ORDER

¶55

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.2,07,33,147.51 (Rupees Two Crores Seven Lacs Thirty three Thousand One Hundred Forty Seven and paisa Fifty One only) together with pendentelite and future interest @12% per annum with monthly rests from 08.10.2021 till the date of realization and costs; failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stocks, book debts etc. and mortgaged property being H.No.1512, Sector-21, Urban Estate, Gurgaon, Haryana in the name of defendant no.4. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶56

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

Sci

T.A. No. 839 of 2022

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

¶61

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

¶62