Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. M/S Gurudev Marketing and Another

DRT30 Jul 2026OA/285/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an Original Application under RDB Act 1993, Bank of Baroda sought recovery of Rs. 43,98,464.14 from M/s Gurudev Marketing and proprietor Jagsir Singh. The Tribunal allowed the application, determining an 8% p.a. interest rate and ordering the sale of hypothecated or personal assets for recovery.

What did the court decide?

Debt of Rs. 43,98,464.14 with 8% p.a. interest granted; recovery via sale of hypothecated or personal assets; Recovery Certificate issued; pending applications disposed of.

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Gurudev Marketing and Another — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 285/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 12.03.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 30.07.2026

¶6

Bank of Baroda, a Body Corporate with Perpetual Succession constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, V of 1970, having its Registered Office at Mandvi in Baroda, Gujarat and one of its Branch at Shop No. 16, Patiala Road, Zirakpur, Punjab140603, through its Attorney Holder, Smt. Nivedita Sharma.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s Gurudev Marketing, a Proprietorship Concern, having its Registered Office at Symphony Limited, Ground Floor, Near Nirankari Bhawan, Bhupinder Chawla Complex, Bhabhat Road Godown Area, Zirakpur, Punjab, through its Proprietor, Sh. Jagsir Singh.

¶10

Sh. Jagsir Singh S/o Sh. Natha Singh, R/o Flat No. 1250, Ground Floor, Block D1, Penta Homes, VIP Road, Zirakpur, Punjab-140603.

¶11

…….Defendants

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

Argued by Sh. Rajan Puri, Advocate for Applicant (through VC)

¶14

None for Defendants (already ex-parte vide order dated 24.07.2026)

¶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.43,98,464.14 (Rupees Forty Three Lac Ninety Eight Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Four and Paise Fourteen Only). The Original Application has been filed through Smt. Nivedita Sharm a, Chief Manager, of the Applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 17.09.2024, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶17

2 OA/285/2025

¶18

BANK OF BARODA VS. M/S GURDEV MARKETING AND ANOTHER

¶19

The brief facts of the OA are that the Defendant no.1, through its proprietor defendant no.2, approached the applicant for sanction of CC Limit of Rs.42.00 lacs. 3. The applicant sanctioned the CC Limit of Rs.42.00 lacs vide Sanction Letter dated 24.03.2023, which is Annexure A2 to this OA and terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. 4. Defendant no.1, through its proprietor defendant no.2, hypothecated its stock and book debts vide Loan Agreement dated 27.03.2023, which is Annexure A6 to this OA; Documents executed: D.P. Note dated 27.03.2023, which is Annexure A3 to this OA; Letter of Undertaking dated 27.03.2023, which is Annexure A4 to this OA; Declaration dated 27.03.2023, which is Annexure A5 to this OA; Demand Notice dated 16.10.2024, which is Annexure A7 to this OA; Account Statement dated 18.01.2023, which is Annexure A8 to this OA. 5. The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account, there was a debit of Rs.43,98,464.14 (Rupees Forty Three Lac Ninety Eight Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Four and Paise Fourteen Only), 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 summons to appear before this Tribunal and after the service of summons, Sh. Jagsir Singh, Defendant no.2 appeared in person on behalf of defendants on 23.06.2025. Ms. Navita, Advocate appeared on behalf of defendants and filed her Memo of Appearance on 14.11.2025. Thereafter, neither any Power of Attorney was filed and none appeared on behalf of defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 24.07.2026. Thereafter, arguments were heard on 27.07.2026 and case was posted for final order. Later on, Sh. Vikas Sharma, Advocate filed an IA no. 1405/2026 for recalling of order dated 24.07.2026. Sh. Vikas Sharma, Advocate

¶20

3 OA/285/2025

¶21

BANK OF BARODA VS. M/S GURDEV MARKETING AND ANOTHER

¶22

appeared on behalf of defendants. The above IA was heard and vide separate order, the IA was dismissed.

¶23

In support of the OA, affidavit of Smt. Nivedita Sharma , Chief Manager, B ank of Baroda, has been filed. 8. Heard arguments and perused record. 9. It was argued by learned counsel, through video conferencing, 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 A8 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant no.1, through its proprietor defendant no.2, approached the applicant for availing of the loan facility, which was granted to them. Defendants had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. The defendants failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, account of the defendants was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.43,98,464.14 (Rupees Forty Three Lac Ninety Eight Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Four and Paise Fourteen Only), along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the amount. 10. In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @12.40% p.a. plus 2.00% p.a. penal interest with monthly rests from 17.02.2025 till the realization.

¶24

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 loan 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 simple interest @08.00% p.a. in the loan account

¶25

¶26

OA/285/2025

¶27

BANK OF BARODA VS. M/S GURDEV MARKETING AND ANOTHER

¶28

from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount, ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶29

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.43,98,464.14 (Rupees Forty Three Lac Ninety Eight Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Four and Paise Fourteen Only), jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00%p.a. in the loan account 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 defendant no.1 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.

¶30

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶31

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶32

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 14.08.2026

¶33

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 .

¶34

Dated: 30.07.2026.

¶35

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶36

Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Bank of Baroda v. M/S Gurudev Marketing and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. M/S Gurudev Marketing 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

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Gurcharan Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Sohan Singh and Others

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Sahyog International and Others

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Balwinder Singh

Hdfc Bank Limited versus M/S Vinod Cement and Building Material Store and Others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S Knight Detective Security Service Pvt. Ltd. and Others