Allowed

Punjab National Bank v. Pankaj

DRT15 Jun 2026OA/159/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application by Punjab National Bank against Sh. Pankaj Kumar for recovery of Rs. 28,04,143.27 outstanding under a cash credit facility. The bank proved its case documentarily; the defendant, having failed to appear or reply, was proceeded against ex-parte.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate directed against defendant jointly and severally for Rs. 28,04,143.27 plus interest at 14.40% p.a. and costs, recoverable from sale of hypothecated stocks, book debts, and other p

Punjab National Bank versus Pankaj — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

O.A. No. 159 of 2024

¶2

Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi 4th Floor, Jeevan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi

¶3

Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sharma

¶4

O.A. No. 159 of 2024

¶5

Punjab National Bank

¶6

(e-Oriental Bank of Commerce) Circle Sastra Centre, East Delhi Pocket E, Mayur Vihar,Phase Delhi-110091

¶7

Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh.Pankaj Kumar s/o Ladu Lal Jain Sole Proprietor of M/s Lalita Trading Co. Shop No.70, Second Floor, Gandhi Gali Fatehpuri, Delhi-110006

¶10

Also at:

¶11

Sh.Pankaj Kumar s/o Ladu Lal Jain 3/1040, Gandhi Gali, Behind Novelty Cinema Tilak Bazar, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006

¶12

Also at:

¶13

Sh.Pankaj Kumar sib Ladu Lal Jain 1053B, Second Floor, Krishna Gali Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110052

¶14

Also at:

¶15

Sh.Pankaj Kumar s/o Ladu Lal Jain 1040, First Floor, Sai Market, Shop No.36A, Ghandi Gali Tilak Bazar, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006

¶16

Also at:

¶17

Tilak Bazar, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 1071 & 1072, Second Floor Gandhi Gali, Fatehpuri, Delhi-110006

¶18

Defendant

¶19

Present: Sh.Sunav Rastogi, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶20

Date of Reserve: 14.08.2025

¶21

Date of Pronouncement: 15.06.2026

¶22

O.A. No. 159 of 2024

¶23

FINAL ORDER

¶24

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 19.02.2024 through Shri Abhishek Verma, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.28,04,143.27 (Rupees Twenty Eight lacs Four Thousand One Hundred Forty Three and paisa Twenty Seven only) as on 31.01.2024 together with pendentelite and future interest @14.40% per annum with monthly rests along with @2% penal interest till the date of actual and final realization and costs.

¶25

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant as sole proprietor of M/s Lalita Trading Co. engaged in the business of trading of dry fruits and spices etc. vide loan application dated 15.12.2019, the applicant bank sanctioned Cash Credit (Hypothecation) limit of Rs.25,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Lacs only) on 21.12.2019 @8.70% interest per annum PSBONLINE .59 Minutes Tatkal Scheme against hypothecation of stocks of raw material stock in process and receivables etc. covered under CGTMSE scheme which was renewed on 13.08.2021 and again on 13.12.2022 @13.85% interest. The defendant agreed to pay penal interest @2% over and above normal rate of interest in case of default or irregularity in repayment of interest.

¶26

That in order to avail the credit facility, the defendant submitted loan applications and executed Sanction Letters dated 17.12.2019, 13.08.2021 and 13.12.2022, Common Agreement, Agreement of Hypothecation of assets, Sole

¶27

O.A. No. 159 of 2024

¶28

Proprietor Letter and 27.12.2019 and Undertaking dated 17.02.2020.

¶29

The defendant acknowledged the liability vide Balance and Security Confirmation Letter dated 10.12.2022 towards the applicant bank.

¶30

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the loan facility, the defendant miserably failed and neglected to pay the interest in the account and failed to maintain financial discipline as per sanction terms. The defendant also failed to route the sale transaction from the account and violated the terms of sanction letters. The applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 26.09.2023 as per RBI guidelines but defendant not responded to clear the dues, hence, the applicant bank has approached this tribunal for recovery of its dues.

¶31

Notice under section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 dated 16.12.2023 was issued but the defendant neglected to regularize and repay the dues of the applicant bank.

¶32

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendant and despite proper service, the defendant has chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 14.08.2025, the defendant has been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared before the Tribunal nor written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have been filed.

¶33

¶34

O.A. No. 159 of 2024

¶35

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Abhishek Verma, authorized representative of the applicant who has proved the documents such as Authority Letter Exhibit AW-1/1, Loan Application Exhibit AW-1/2, Sanction Letter Exhibit AW-1/3, Common Agreement, Agreement of Hypothecation of Assets, Sole Proprietor Letter, Undertaking Exhibit AW-1/4(Colly), Sanction Letter dated 13.08.2021 Exhibit AW-1/51 Balance and Security Confirmation Letter Exhibit AW-1/6, Sanction Letter dated 13.12.2022 Exhibit AW-1/7, Recall Notice Exhibit AW-1/8„ Notice u/s 13(2) dated 16.12.2023 Exhibit AW-1/9„ Statement of Accounts Exhibit AW-1/10, Certificate u/s 2A of Bankers' Books Evidence Act Exhibit AW-1/11 and Certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act marked as Exhibit AW-1/12.

¶36

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.

¶37

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.

¶38

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

¶39

ORDER

¶40

allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank, jointly or severally, within 30 days, a sum of Rs.28,04,143.27 (Rupees Twenty Eight lacs Four Thousand

¶41

O.A. No. 159 of 2024

¶42

One Hundred Forty Three and paisa Twenty Seven only) as on 31.01.2024 together with pendentelite and future interest @14.40% per annum with monthly rests from 01.02.2024 till the date of realization along with costs failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stocks and book debts etc. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendant.

¶43

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

¶44

(III) Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 17.08.2026.

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 15.06.2026

Punjab National Bank v. Pankaj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. Pankaj

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

Icici Bank Limited versus Tanaya Mukherjee and Anr.

State Bank of India versus Shivdayal

Canara Bank versus Sri M.K Prakash Prop of M/S Garuda Infotech

Bank of Baroda versus Al Faiz

Bank of Baroda versus Sadhna

Nayan Tara Mondal versus Icici Home Finance Company Limited