Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Mohammad Shabhaz Alam

DRT27 Jan 2026OA/237/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi, allowed the original application filed by Bank of Baroda against Mr. Mohammad Shabhaz Alam for recovery of a loan facility summing to approximately Rs. 42.97 lacs with interest and costs, proceeding ex-parte as the defendant did not appear.

What did the court decide?

Directed the defendant to pay Rs. 42,96,789.33 plus interest and costs within 30 days; recovery to be effected via sale of assets if payment is not made; recovery certificate issued.

Bank of Baroda versus Mohammad Shabhaz Alam — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

O.A. No.237 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. 237 of 2024

¶5

Bank of Baroda

¶6

L-10, Vijay Chowk Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092

¶7

Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Mr. Mohammad Shabhaz Alam Proprietor of M/s Rafflesia Toplis & Raffle Toss R-175/4, Street no.9, Ramesh Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092

¶10

Also at:

¶11

Mr. Mohammad Shabhaz Alam Suite no.L!M CS-1A, Upper Mazzanine Floor Ansal Plaza Mall, Vaishali, Sector-01 Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201010

¶12

Also at:

¶13

Mr. Mohammad Shabhaz Alam R-243, Street no.11, Ramesh Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092

¶14

Defendant

¶15

Present: Ms. Sudha Shukla, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶16

Date of Reserve: 08.01.2026

¶17

Date of Pronouncement: 27.01.2026

¶18

FINAL ORDER

¶19

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 01.04.2024 through Sh.Saurabh, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debt Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act,

¶20

¶21

O.A. No.237 of 2024

¶22

1993 against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.42,96,789.33 (Rupees Forty Two Lacs Ninety Six Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty Nine and paisa Thirty Three only) as on 29.03.2024 along with pendentelite and future interest @12.40% per annum along with @2% penal interest with monthly rests from date of filing of this application till the date of realization and costs.

¶23

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant being proprietor of M/s Rafflesia Toplis & Raffle Toss vide loan application dated 24.06.2022, the applicant bank sanctioned Cash Credit facility for a sum of Rs.40,00,000/(Rupees Forty Lacs only) as working capital for expansion of manufacturing of wearing apparels garments on 24.06.2022 against hypothecation of stocks and book debts covered under CGTMSE scheme.

¶24

That in order to avail the loan facility, the defendant submitted loan application and executed Letter of Sole Proprietorship LDOC-38, Demand Promissory Note, Letter of Continuity, Composite Hypothecation Agreement LDOC-17B and Letter of Undertaking for Book Debts LDOC-51 on 24.06.2022 in favour of applicant bank.

¶25

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the loan facility, the defendant miserably failed to repay the loan amount and failed to maintain financial discipline as per terms and conditions despite various notices and reminders. The applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 29.11.2023 as per extant RBI guidelines and issued legal notice dated 11.03.2024 but defendant neglected the same. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this tribunal for recovery of its dues from the defendant.

¶26

¶27

O.A. No.237 of 2024

¶28

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendant and despite proper service through publication in newspapers, the defendant has chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 14.10.2025, the defendant has been proceeded ex-parte as they have not appeared before the Tribunal and even no written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have been filed by the defendant.

¶29

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Sh.Saurabh, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents such as Authorization Letter, Loan Application, Sanction Letter, Letter of Sole Proprietorship, D.P. Note, Letter of Continuity, Composite Hypothecation Agreement, Undertaking for Book Debts, Legal Notice and Postal Receipts, Statement of Account as Ex.AW-1/1 to Ex.AW-1/11.

¶30

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.

¶31

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.

¶32

In the light of the above discussions and documents on record, the Original Application deserves to be allowed.

¶33

ORDER

¶34

I, allow this OA and direct the defendant to pay to the applicant bank within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.42,96,789.33 (Rupees Forty Two Lacs Ninety Six Thousand

¶35

¶36

O.A. No.237 of 2024

¶37

Seven Hundred Eighty Nine and Paisa Thirty Three only) as on 29.03.2024 along with pendentelite and future interest @12.40% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing of this application till the date of realization along with costs failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from sale of hypothecated stocks, book debts, etc. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable assets of the defendant.

¶38

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

¶39

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 01.04.2026.

¶40

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

¶41

cd-

¶42

(GOVIND BALLABFI'SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶43

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 27.01.2026

¶44

Bank of Baroda v. Mohammad Shabhaz Alam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Mohammad Shabhaz Alam

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

Paramjit Singh versus Union Bank of India

Kiranjeet Kaur versus Uco Bank

Excellon Software Private Limited through Director Vinodkumar Laxminarayan Tambi versus Bank of Maharashtra

Mr Abhishek Anand versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

Punjab National Bank versus Anup

Bank of India versus Salasar Garments