Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. M/S Abhiraj Industries and Another

DRT16 Mar 2026OA/265/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the Bank of Baroda's application for recovery of dues from M/s Abhiraj Industries and the proprietor. The court granted a uniform simple interest rate of 8% per annum and directed the issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.1,46,19,885.63 with simple interest @8.00%p.a.; Recovery Certificate issued; Parties directed to appear on 06.04.2026.

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Abhiraj Industries and… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.265/2023

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 24.02.2023

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 16.03.2026

¶6

Bank of Baroda, (erstwhile Vijay Bank), a body corporate, constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970, having its Head Office at Mandvi, Baroda and one of its Branch situated at Clock Tower, Ludhiana Punjab, through its Constituted Attorney Sh. Jagroop Singh, Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Clock Tower Branch, Ludhiana, who is also the Principal Officer of the Applicant

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s Abhiraj Industries through its Sole Proprietor Sh. Parveen Jain S/o Sh. Pishori Lal Jain, B-24, 3676/6/2A, Street No.4, New Madhopuri, Ludhiana.

¶10

Sh. Parveen Jain S/o Sh. Pishori Lal Jain, Sole Proprietor M/s Abhiraj Industries, B-24, 3676/6/2A, Street No.4, New Madhuri, Ludhiana.

¶11

..……Defendants

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

Argued by Sh. Ashok Kumar Verma, Advocate for Applicant

¶14

Defendants already ex parte vide order dated 07.02.2026

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.1,46,19,885.63 (Rupees One Crore Forty Six Lacs Nineteen Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Five and Paise Sixty Three Only). The Original Application has been filed throug h Sh. Jagroop Singh, Branch Manager of the applicant, who is

¶17

2 OA NO.265/2023

¶18

BANK OF BARODA VS. M/S ABHIRAJ INDUSTRIES AND ANOTHER

¶19

competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 20.09.2017, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶20

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant no.1 through its proprietor defendant no.2 approached the applicant for grant of Cash Credit Limit of Rs.1.00 Crore and Term Loan of Rs.25.00 Lacs vide Loan Application dated 15.03.2017. Thereafter, the defendant no.1 through its proprietor defendant no.2 approached the applicant for renewal of Working Capital Limit of Rs.1.00 Crore vide Loan Application dated 26.07.2018. Thereafter, the defendant no.1 through its proprietor defendant no.2 approached the applicant for grant of Working Capital Term Loan (WCTL) of Rs.23.00 Lacs under GECL vide Loan Application dated 16.07.2020. Thereafter, the defendant no.1 through its proprietor defendant no.2 again approached the applicant for grant of Working Capital Term Loan (WCTL) of Rs.13.00 Lacs under GECL 1.0 extension.

¶21

The applicant sanctioned Cash Credit Limit of Rs.1.00 Crore and Term Loan of Rs.25.00 Lacs vide Sanctioned Letter dated 27.03.2017, which is Annexure A4 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. Thereafter, the limit was renewed by the applicant vide sanction letter dated 18.08.2018, which is Annexure A8 to this OA. Thereafter, the applicant sanctioned Working Capital Term Loan (WCTL) Rs.23.00 Lacs under GECL vide Sanction Letter dated 18.07.2020, which is Annexure A12 to this OA. Thereafter, the applicant sanctioned Working Capital Term Loan (WCTL) Rs.13.00 Lacs under GECL 1.0 extension vide Sanction Letter dated 07.12.2021, which is Annexure A17 to this OA.

¶22

Defendant no.1 through its proprietor defendant no.2 hypothecated stock, book debts, plant and machinery (single needle lockstitch machines, button hole sewing machine, Bartack machine, power operated 4 thread overlock machine, power operated 5 thread overlock machine, 2 needle chainstich feed of arm machine, steam

¶23

3 OA NO.265/2023

¶24

BANK OF BARODA VS. M/S ABHIRAJ INDUSTRIES AND ANOTHER

¶25

press machine, 20” hydroSS sheet 16 Gage 304 Motor, circular linking machine) vide loan agreements cum hypothecation deed dated 28.03.2017, 18.08.2018, which are Annexure A5, A7, A9 to this OA; Loan cum hypothecation agreement dated 18.07.2020 and 07.12.2021, which is Annexure A15 and A21 to this OA.

¶26

Documents executed: Gazette Notification dated 02.01.2019 regarding amalgamation, which is Annexure A1 to this OA; Certificate of Loan paper obtained dated 28.03.2017, which is Annexure A3 to this OA; Letter of access dated 27.03.2017, which is Annexure A6 to this OA; Undertaking letter dated 18.08.2018, which is Annexure A10 to this OA; Acknowledgment of liability dated 28.03.2019, which is Annexure A11 to this OA; D.P. Note, letter of installment with acceleration clause, both dated 18.07.2020, which are Annexures A13 and 14 to this OA; Letter of acknowledgment of debt dated 08.03.2021, which is Annexure A16 to this OA; D.P. Note, letter of installment with acceleration clause, Letter of sole proprietorship, Undertaking from borrower, all dated 07.12.2021, which are Annexures A18 to A20 and A22 to this OA; Statement of account, which are Annexures A23 to A26 to this OA.

¶27

The loan accounts became irregular and were classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan accounts there was a debit Rs.1,46,19,885.63, which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notices but they did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 6. The defendants were served notices to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 07.02.2026. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Jagroop Singh, Branch Manager bank of Baroda h as been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶28

4 OA NO.265/2023

¶29

BANK OF BARODA VS. M/S ABHIRAJ INDUSTRIES AND ANOTHER

¶30

It was argued by learned counsel for applicant that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case. From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A26 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant for availing of the loan facilities which were granted to them and for that they had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the applicant. The defendants failed to pay back the loans as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, accounts of the defendants were classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.1,46,19,885.63 (Rupees One Crore Forty Six Lacs Nineteen Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Five and Paise Sixty Three Only), along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the accounts.

¶31

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed [email protected]%p.a. with 2% penal interest and monthly rests from 14.02.203 till the realization.

¶32

The Tribunal is of the considered opinion that sometimes in appropriate cases the prerogative of mercy is the brightest jewel in the crown of the Judge. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case including nature of the hypothecated assets, undertaking of the defendants, quantum of loans and prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yester years, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @8.00%p.a. in all the loan accounts from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶33

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of

¶34

5 OA NO.265/2023

¶35

BANK OF BARODA VS. M/S ABHIRAJ INDUSTRIES AND ANOTHER

¶36

Rs.1,46,19,885.63 (Rupees One Crore Forty Six Lacs Nineteen Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Five and Paise Sixty Three Only), jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00%p.a. in all the loan accounts from the date of filing of OA till the date of realization of the amount. Accordingly, the applicant shall be entitled to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of hypothecated assets of the defendants in execution proceedings if not sold earlier under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. If the dues of the applicant still remain unsatisfied, it shall be entitled to recover the same by attachment and sale of personal assets of the defendants. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶37

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of. 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 06.04.2026. 15. Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant and be sent to defendants through registered/speed post and this order be also uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal and record be consigned. Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 16.03.2026. (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Bank of Baroda v. M/S Abhiraj Industries and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. M/S Abhiraj Industries and Another

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

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Sarbjit Singh and Others

Varinderpal Singh and Another versus the Tarn Taran Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Another

Varinder Verma and Another versus Hindu Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Shinda Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Kuldeep Singh and Others

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Sukhwinder Singh through His Legal Heir