Allowed

Punjab and Sind Bank v. M/s Namrata Enterprises

DRT18 Sept 2025TA/920/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the bank applicant's claim for recovery of dues amounting to Rs. 77,59,166/- along with interest at 12% per annum against defaulting borrowers and guarantors in an equitable mortgage case.

What did the court decide?

Order allowing OA and directing defendants to pay Rs. 77,59,166/- with 12% interest; to be recoverable from sale of hypothecated stock, book debts, and mortgaged property.

Punjab and Sind Bank versus M/s Namrata Enterprises — Money Laundering | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 920 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. 920 of 2022

Punjab & Sind Bank

21, Bank House

Rajendra Place

New Delhi-110008 Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

M/s Namrata Enterprises H-16/919, Bapa Nagar Pyare Lal Road, Karol Bagh New Delhi-110005

¶11

Sh. Ashok Kumar s/o Sh. Partap Singh H-16/919, Bapa Nagar Pyare Lal Road, Karol Bagh New Delhi-110005

¶12

Smt. Suresh Rani w/o Sh. Ashok Kumar H-16/919, Bapa Nagar

¶13

Pyare Lal Road, Karol Bagh New Delhi-110005

¶14

Also at:

¶15

Shafia Memorial Sr. Secondary School Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi-110006

¶16

Central Bank of India Anand Parvat, New Delhi

¶17

Ramgarhia Cooperative Bank Dr. D.B. Gupta Road Paharganj, New Delhi-110094

¶18

Defendants

¶19

Present: Shri B.K. Mishra, Counsel for the applicant bank Sh. Subodh Kr. Singh, Ld. counsel for Defendant no.4

¶20

Date of Institution: 19.01.2016

¶21

Date of Pronouncement: 18.09.2025

56/--

T.A. No. 920 of 2022

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank before DRT-III, Delhi on 19.01.2016 and then transferred to DRT-I Delhi through Sh.Mukesh Kumar Khurana & Sh.Sanjeev Kumar Gupta, 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.77,59,166/- (Rupees Seventy Seven Lacs Fifty Nine Thousand One Hundred Sixty Six only) along with pendentelite and future interest @16% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing this application till the date of realization along with costs. Further, the name of Sh.R.S.Mishra was substituted as authorized representative in place of erstwhile ARs for the applicant bank.

¶27

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the defendant no.2 as proprietor of defendant no.1, the applicant bank sanctioned an Overdraft facility for Rs.40,00,000/(Rupees Forty Lacs only) @13.5% interest per annum against hypothecation of fixed/current assets and mortgage of property owned by defendant no.2 on 19.04.2010. The defendants agreed to pay penal interest @2.5% per annum in case of default. Defendant no.3 stood as guarantor for the Overdraft facility sanctioned in favour of defendant no.1. The defendant no.4 & 5 have been made Proforma parties claiming the mortgaged property and no relief has been sought.

¶28

That in order to avail the overdraft loan facility, the defendant no.2 as proprietor of defendant no.1 submitted loan application and executed Demand Promissory Note, Bank's Form No. 103, Form No.291, Form No.412, Form No.106 for

¶29

¶30

T.A. No. 920 of 2022

¶31

Letter of Waiver, Hypothecation of Goods to secure Demand Cash Credit Form No.192, Agreement for Hypothecation of Book Debts Form No.193, Form no.122, Form No.126, Letter of Continuity Form No.159, Request Letter Form no.200, Form No.216, Form No.199 Undertaking and CIBIL Form all dated 23.04.2010 with the applicant bank. The defendant no.3 executed Guarantee Deed Form No.255(R) dated 23.04.2010.

¶32

That in order to secure the loan facility, the defendant no.2 created equitable mortgage of property No.H-16/919, land measuring 100 sq. yd. approx. out of Khasra No.670/365, village Sadhora Khurd, Delhi abadi known as Bapa Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 - by executing Form No.84A by depositing title deeds on 27.04.2010. Further, defendant no.4 & 5 have also claimed on the said mortgaged property.

¶33

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facility, the defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions of sanction and failed to regularize the account with the applicant bank. Ultimately, the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 31.03.2013 as per RBI guidelines but the defendants failed to regularize the account and hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶34

Notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 dated 01.05.2013 was issued to the defendants calling upon them to pay the entire outstanding dues and Defendant no.2 moved an application under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act against recovery proceedings of the

5 d

T.A. No. 920 of 2022

applicant bank. The defendant no.2 moved SA before this Tribunal and vide order dated 25.04.2014, the Hon'ble Tribunal directed the defendant no.2 to pay Rs.15,00,000/- in three equal monthly installments but not paid. The applicant bank moved application under Section 14 for possession of mortgaged property and vide order dated 13.05.2015, the Court Receiver taken the physical possession of the property but defendant no.2 removed hypothecated goods from the mortgaged property.

¶39

The defendant no.4 submitted that defendant no.1 through defendant no.2 availed OD limit of Rs.15.00 lacs on 02.08.2010 guaranteed by Sh.Jai Singh Shekhawat by executing loan documents against equitable mortgage of property no.16/919-H, measuring 100 sq.yds, Bapa Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi by depositing title deeds and due to default in repayment, account was classified as NPA on 10.12.2011. The defendant no.4 issued notice u/s 13(2) on 25.04.2012 for Rs.16,49,092/- and obtained orders from Ld.CMM for taking possession through Court Receiver but possession was stayed by this Tribunal which is pending.

¶40

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 21.03.2018, the defendants no.1 to 3 & 5 have been proceeded ex-parte as they have not appeared before the Tribunal and no affidavit, evidence have been filed.

¶41

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of Affidavit of Mr. Aashish Ranjan, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the

¶42

¶43

T.A. No. 920 of 2022

¶44

documents as Power of Attorney , Loan application, Sanction letter, Demand Promissory note, Form no.103, Form no.291, Form no.412, Form no.106, Form no.192, Form no.193, Form no.122, Form no.126, Form no.159, Form no.200, Form no.216, Title Documents, Affidavit, Guarantee Deed, Undertaking for Disclosure in CIBIL, NPA Certificate, Notice u/s 13(2), Order dated 25.04.2014, Certified copy of Statement of Accounts as Ex.AW-1/1 to Ex.AW-1/25.

¶45

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.

¶46

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.

¶47

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.

¶48

¶49

T.A. No. 920 of 2022

¶50

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

¶51

ORDER

¶52

I, allow this OA and direct the defendant no.1 to 3 to pay to the applicant bank, jointly or severally, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.77,59,166/- (Rupees Seventy Seven Lacs Fifty Nine Thousand One Hundred Sixty Six only) together with pendentelite and future 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 stock, book debts and mortgaged built up property No.H-16/919, land measuring 100 sq. yd. approx. out of Khasra No.670/365, situated in the area of village Sadhora Khurd, Delhi abadi known as Bapa Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶53

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

¶54

(III)^{Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery} Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 17.11.2025.

¶55

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

¶56

‘ ,0`) .'laxf-(GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶57

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 18.09.2025

¶58