Allowed

Punjab National Bank v. Asadul Mondal

DRT7 Aug 2026OA/34/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for a recovery certificate, rejecting the defendant's plea of illegal interest capitalization. The court adjudicated the outstanding dues at Rs. 31,29,198.94 based on the statement of account balance and sanctioned the charge against the defendant's hypothecated and mortgaged assets.

What did the court decide?

Confirmation of debt to Rs. 31,29,198.94 plus interest; issuance of recovery certificate; debarment of transferring charged properties; direction to recover dues within thirty days.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, SILIGURI

¶2

Case No.	ORDERSHEET
OA/34/2024	Punjab National Bank -VS- Asadul Mondal
Date of the order.	Order with signature	Office action with date and dated signature of parties when necessary.
07.08.2026	Present :- Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. S. Sanyal. Counsel for the Defendant : None.
	The order is dictated and corrected by the undersigned and pronounced in the open Tribunal under my signature on this 07^thday of August, 2026. Let the Certificate of Recovery be drawn up by the Learned Registrar forthwith in terms of judgment for issuance of the same against the defendants in favour of Applicant Bank under Sub-Section 7 and 22 of Section – 19 of The Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 and put up the same for signature for issuance. Copy of the judgment/final order be given/sent to the parties. (Rakesh Pati Tiwari) Presiding Officer DRT-Siliguri RAKESH PATI TIWARI Digitally signed by RAKESH PATI TIWARI Date: 2026.08.10 19:35:28 +05'30'

¶3

¶4

THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, SILIGURI

¶5

O.A. No. 34/2024

¶6

Punjab National Bank, Daulatabad Branch, Situated at Vill and Post Office, Daulatabad, Police Station Daulatabad, District Murshidabad, West Bengal, Pin742302 under CIRCLE SASTRA, Murshidabad Circle Office, 26/11, S.S. Sen Road, P.O. & P.S. Berhampore, District- Murshidabad, Pin-742101.

¶7

…………………….Applicant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

MR. ASADUL MONDAL, Son of Sapatulla Mondal, having its business place at Fashtala, Vill, Post Office & Police Station Daulatabad, District Murshidabad, Pin742302.

¶10

……..……………Defendants

¶11

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. S. Sanyal Counsel for the defendants : Mr. Amanul Islam and Mr. S. Deb.

¶12

PRESIDING OFFICER: RAKESH PATI TIWARI Date of Judgment - 07.08.2026

¶13

J U D G M E N T

¶14

This is an application under section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, filed by the applicant bank against the defendants seeking issuance of Certificate of Recovery for realization of a sum of Rs. 40,89,021.94p (Rupees Forty Lakhs Eighty Nine Thousand Twenty One and Ninety four paisa) only out of which a sum of Rs.34,84,837.94p (Rupees Thirty Four Paisa Eighty Four Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Seven and Ninety Four paisa) only in the Cash Credit Loan Account and a sum of Rs. 6,04,184/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Four Thousand One Hundred Eighty Four) only with interest calculated upto 31.10.2023 and future interest thereon from 01.11.2023 @ 13.00% per annum with monthly rests in respect of the Cash Credit Account, @ 9.25% per annum with monthly rests in respect of the GECL Account respectively till realization of the entire amount along with injunction restraining the defendants from disposing of and/or alienating and/or encumbering the personal charged and uncharged assets and also costs.

¶15

The facts in brief, giving rise to the present application as pleaded are that considering the application of the defendant, the applicant bank sanctioned one Cash Credit facility upto the limit of Rs. 24,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs) only to and in

¶16

(Contd…)

¶17

RAKESH Digitally signed by RAKESH PATI PATI TIWARI Date: 2026.08.10 TIWARI 19:35:40 +05'30'

¶18

¶19

favour of the sole defendant for the aforesaid business, vide Sanction Letter dated 13.06.2018. The defendant on 13.06.2018 executed Demand Promissory Note of Rs. 24,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs) only, Letter of Lien, Letter of Continuity, Hypothecation of Goods, Declaration of Sole Proprietorship, Text of Consent Clause, Letter of set-off, Link Letter. In order to secure the repayment of the aforesaid credit facility on 13.06.2018 the defendant created extension of equitable mortgage of his landed property as described in schedule “Y” and executed one extension of equitable mortgage as well as one specimen of acknowledgement letter relating to deposit of title deed by borrower. The defendant duly hypothecated the entire hypothecated assets including all tangible movable properties, goods, book, debts, assets and all products stock in trade and all goods of defendant, stock of raw materials, stock-in-process, finished goods in favour of the applicant bank. Thereafter on 16.11.2019 for the said enhanced cash credit facility the defendant executed fresh set of Demand Promissory Note of Rs. 24,00,000/(Rupees Twenty Four Lacs) only, Letter of Lien, Letter of Continuity, Hypothecation Agreement. Thereafter again considering the application of the defendant dated 25.06.2020, the Applicant Bank vide Sanction Letter dated 25.06.2020 sanctioned the Additional Working Capital Term Loan facility under (GECL) of Rs.4,90,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs and Ninety thousand) only to and in favour of the defendant. Thereafter considering the said sanction the defendant on 25.06.2020 executed one Undertaking by Borrower. the defendant on 29.03.2021 executed one Balance and Security Confirmation Letter. After availing the loan, the defendants failed to repay the dues of the loan account and as such the account was classified as N.P.A. on 10.05.2021 as per guidelines of RBI. The applicant bank issued statutory demand notice under Section 13(2) of The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 dated 03.09.2021 upon the defendant but the defendant did not comply with the said notice. The Applicant bank assessed the value of the secured property through the approved valuer of the bank. As per the said valuation report dated 11.03.2023 the Fair market value of the property is Rs. 28,21,000/- and the Realizable value of the property is Rs. 25,38,000/-. After giving credits for all sums of moneys paid by and/or realized on behalf of the defendants a sum of Rs. 40,89,021.94p (Rupees Forty Lakhs Eighty Nine Thousand Twenty One and Ninety four paisa) only inclusive of interest

¶20

RAKESH Digitally signed by RAKESH PATI PATI TIWARI Date: 2026.08.10 TIWARI 19:35:51 +05'30'

¶21

(Contd…)

¶22

¶23

calculated upto 31.10.2023 was due against the defendants in the loan account No. 0783250034007 (CC), 0783306721530(GECL).

¶24

The sole defendant appeared through his counsel and filed his written statement stating therein that the claim of the applicant bank is illegal, arbitrary and based on wrongful capitalization of interest upon interest and other charges contrary to law. It is further pleaded that the claim is barred by limitation, the loan documents having been executed on 13.06.2018. The defendant also disputed the quantum of the claim, submitting that while the statement of account reflected outstanding dues of Rs. 25,25,014/- as on 31.10.2023, the bank has claimed Rs. 40,89,021/- without any lawful basis. The defendant stated that he had been carrying on a wheat cleaning business since 2015 and had regularly serviced the loan until he developed severe cardiac ailments, culminating in open-heart surgery in December 2021, due to which he became incapable of continuing the business. According to the defendant, the applicant bank was informed of the closure of the business and was requested to recover its dues by disposing of the hypothecated machinery, goods and stock, but the bank failed to do so and instead continued to levy interest and charges. It is further pleaded that due to the unforeseen medical condition, the loan agreement became incapable of performance and, therefore, void. The defendant denied the correctness of the bank's accounts, the enforceability of the security, and the maintainability of the application, alleging negligence on the part of the bank in not realizing the hypothecated assets before seeking enforcement against his residential property. On these grounds, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the Original Application with costs.

¶25

The Applicant Bank in support of its case has filed evidence by way of affidavit as affirmed by Sri Himanshu Kumar Saha, the Chief Manager of the applicant Bank and also relied upon the following documents:-

¶26

Sl. No.	Name of the documents	Exhibits No.
1.	Sanction Letter dated 13.06.2018	1
2.	Demand Promissory Note of Rs. 24,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs) Only dated 13.06.2018.	2
3.	Letter of Lien dated 13.06.2018	3
4.	Letter of Continuity dated 13.06.2018	4
5.	Hypothecation of Goods dated 13.06.2018	5
6.	Declaration of Sole Proprietorship	6

¶27

(Contd…)

¶28

RAKESH Digitally signed by RAKESH PATI PATI TIWARI Date: 2026.08.10 TIWARI 19:36:05 +05'30'

¶29

¶30

7.	Text of Consent Clause dated 13.06.2018	7
8.	Letter of Set off dated 13.06.2018	8
9.	Link Letter dated 13.06.2018	9
10.	Deed Being No. 10991/1993 & Bearing No. 2438/2013.	10 & 11
11.	Extension of Equitable Mortgage dated 13.06.2018	12
12.	Specimen entry in title deed register relating to mortgage by deposit of title deeds by a borrower dated 13.06.2018	13
13.	Demand Promissory Note of Rs. 24,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs) Only dated 16.11.2019.	14
14.	Letter of Continuity dated 16.11.2019	15
15.	Letter of Lien dated 16.11.2019	16
16.	Hypothecation Agreement dated 16.11.2019	17
17.	Application dated 25.06.2020	18
18.	Sanction Letter dated 25.06.2020	19
19.	Undertaking by borrower dated 25.06.2020	20
20.	Balance & Security Confirmation Letter dated 29.03.2021	21
21.	Demand Notices dated 03.09.2021 under registered post with A/D under the provision of Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.	22
22.	Statement of Accounts	23 & 24
23.	Valuation Report dated 11.03.2023	25
5. docume filed by argume	I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant bank and p nts and evidence adduced by the applicant bank as well as the writte the defendant. Although the defendant filed her written statement nt has been made inspite of liberty granted to the defendant to argue th	erused the n statement but no oral e matter on
any wor	king day before the date of passing of order.

¶31

The applicant bank has adduced documentary evidences which are marked as Exhibits- ‘1’ to ‘21’. The sanction of loan has been proved by producing Sanction Letters dated 13.06.2018 & 25.06.2020 (Exhibit - ‘1’ & ‘19’). The execution of required documents like Demand Promissory Note, Letter of Lien, Letter of Continuity, Hypothecation of Goods, Declaration of Sole Proprietorship, Text of Consent Clause, Letter of Set off, Link Letter, Title Deeds, Extension of Equitable Mortgage, Specimen entry in title deed register relating to mortgage by deposit of title deeds by a borrower, Hypothecation Agreement, Undertaking by borrower, Balance & Security Confirmation Letter etc. have been proved by exhibiting the same at ‘2’ to ‘17’, ‘20’ & ‘21’ respectively. By filing the Statement of Account (Exhibit - ’23 & 24’), the applicant bank has claimed the total outstanding dues

¶32

RAKESH Digitally signed by RAKESH PATI PATI TIWARI Date: 2026.08.10 TIWARI 19:36:18 +05'30'

¶33

(Contd…)

¶34

¶35

along with interest upto 31.10.2023 to the tune of Rs. 40,89,021.94p (Rupees Forty Lakhs Eighty Nine Thousand Twenty One and Ninety four paisa) only against the defendant.

¶36

In his W.S. apart from formal objections advancement of financial assistance by the bank has been admitted and the reason of nonpayment as assigned in it is the heart disease of the defendant. But main grievance of the defendant in his W.S. is that as per the statement of account dues amount as on dated 31.10.2023 was Rs.25,25,014/- then how it has becomes Rs. 40,89,021.94/- within one year.

¶37

From perusal of the OA case it transpires that CC loan of Rs. 24,00,000/- was sanctioned to the defendant on dated 13.06.2018 and later on additional term loan facility under GECL was sanctioned to the defendant on dated 25.06.2020 for Rs. 4,90,000/-. 9. Thus two loan were sanctioned to the defendant under two loan account bearing no. 0783250034007 and 0783306721530 and for both the loan accounts instant OA case has been filed by the applicant bank for the recovery of Rs. 40,89,021.94/-. 10. Now question arises that whether total dues of both the loan accounts would be Rs. 40,89,021.94p? It is pertinent to mention that statement of account of both the loan accounts is annexed with the evidence on affidavit and from perusal of the statement of account (Exhibit no. 23 & 24) it transpires that balance of CC loan account No. 0783250034007 is Rs. 25,25,014.94 as on dated 31.10.2023 but closing balance as shown in it (Exhibit no. 23, running page no. 128 of the OA) is Rs. 34,84,837.94 but nowhere it is clarified that if balance of the loan account as on 31.10.2023 was Rs. 25,25,014.94 then how the closing balance has become Rs. 34,84,837.94. It is pertinent to mention that there is such discrepancy with respect to the GECL loan account bearing account no. 0783306721530 (Exhibit No. 24 running page no. 134 of the OA) wherein balance amount as on 31.10.2023 is also the closing balance i.e. Rs. 6,04,184.00.

¶38

In its entire OA case applicant bank has not explained that how the balance amount of loan account no. 0783250034007 Rs. 25,25,014.94 has become Rs. 34,84,837.94/-. It is pertinent to mention that the applicant bank has filed the OA case for recovery of dues amount of Rs. 40,89,021.94p as on 31.10.2023 and any calculation sheet has not been filed by the bank. 12. In this view of the matter the applicant bank entitled to recover the dues amount of Rs. 25,25,014.94 as on 31.10.2023 with respect to the CC loan account no. 0783250034007 + Rs. 6,04,184/- of GECL account bearing no. 0783306721530 = Rs.

¶39

(Contd…)

¶40

RAKESH Digitally signed by RAKESH PATI PATI TIWARI Date: 2026.08.10 TIWARI 19:36:31 +05'30'

¶41

¶42

31,29,198.94 (Rupees Thirty One Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand One Hundred Ninety Eight and ninety four paisa only) as on 31.10.2023 with further interest thereon from 01.11.2023 @9.25% per annum.

¶43

The applicant bank has filed this case against the defendant within three years from the execution of loan documents on 29.03.2021 and as such the claim of the applicant bank is within limitation.

¶44

The applicant bank has got valid cause of action to file this case as after taking the loan the defendants failed to make payment as per the terms and conditions of the sanction letter agreed by the defendant.

¶45

There is nothing available on the record to contradict the version of the applicant bank and thus the applicant bank has sufficiently proved its case by exhibiting all relevant documents.

¶46

In the above circumstances, following order is passed ;

¶47

O R D E R

¶48

(i) O.A. No. 34/2024 filed by the applicant bank is allowed against the sole defendant with costs and it is hereby ordered that the applicant bank is entitled to recover the total dues debt amount of Rs. 31,29,198.94 (Rupees Thirty One Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand One Hundred Ninety Eight and ninety four paisa) only with interest calculated upto 31.10.2023 and further interest thereon @9.25% p.a. with monthly rests from 01.11.2023 till realization of entire balance from the defendant along with cost amount.

¶49

(ii) Amount, if any, paid by the defendant in the loan account or amount recovered by the applicant bank, if any, made towards the loan accounts after filing of the O.A be taken into account while arriving at the exact amount of outstanding payable by the defendant.

¶50

(iii) All that the hypothecated stocks-in-trade, movable equipments, tools, furniture and fixture and all other movable goods and materials including book debts of the business of the defendant at Fashitala, Vill, Post Office & Police Station Daulatabad, DistrctMurshidabad, Pin-742302, as mentioned in Schedule ‘X’ annexed to the original application, and mortgaged property being All that piece or parcel of land and building situated at Mouza- Daulatabad, J.L. No. 129, recorded in R.S. & L.R. Plot/Dag No. 424, L.R. Khatian No. 2584 & 2585, areas measuring 1.50 dec+ 1.50 dec in total of 3.00 decimal, under Daulatabad GP, Police Station Daulatarabad, District Mushidabad, West Bengal, which is butted and bounded by North : Property of Sahajan Sk, South: Property

¶51

(Contd…)

¶52

RAKESH Digitally signed by RAKESH PATI PATI TIWARI Date: 2026.08.10 TIWARI 19:36:45 +05'30'

¶53

¶54

of Rohul Amin, East: Fasitala Panchayet Road, West: Property of Destar Ali(Comprised in Book No. I, Volume No. 107, at pages 35 to 39 bearing no. 10991 for the year 1993 registered at ADSR Sadar Murshidabad and Book No. I, Volume No. 7, at pages 875 to 886 bearing no. 2438 for the year 2013 registered at ADSR, Berhampore, Murshidabad as mentioned in Schedule ‘Y’ annexed to the original application, shall remain charged to the applicant bank and the applicant bank shall have paramount charge thereon.

¶55

(iv) The defendant is debarred from transferring; alienating, encumbering or disposing of the hypothecated/mortgaged properties or any other property and assets belonging to the defendant till the aforesaid adjudicated debt amount is recovered from the defendant. (v) The defendant is given a time of thirty days from the date of this judgment for repayment of the above decreed debt amount with interest failing which the applicant bank is entitled to recover its dues by sale of the hypothecated/mortgaged property as aforesaid and is also entitled to proceed against the sole defendant personally and/or personal properties to recover the dues in accordance with law.

¶56

(vi) Let the certificate of Recovery be drawn up by the Learned Registrar forthwith in terms of judgment for issuance of the same against the defendant in favour of applicant bank under Sub-Section 22 of Section-19 of The Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 and put up the same for signature and issuance.

¶57

(vii) Learned Recovery Officer is directed to realize the dues amount from the defendant as per the recovery certificate in accordance with law.

¶58

(viii) Let this judgment be uploaded on website of the tribunal and the Registry is directed to serve/send copy of this judgment to the parties free of cost. (ix) Record is consigned to the record room along with the judgment.

¶59

The judgment is signed and pronounced in the open Tribunal on 7^th day of

¶60

August, 2026.

¶61

RAKESH Digitally signed by RAKESH PATI PATI TIWARI Date: 2026.08.10 TIWARI 19:37:10 +05'30' (RAKESH PATI TIWARI) Presiding Officer DRT, Siliguri.

¶62

(Contd…)

Punjab National Bank v. Asadul Mondal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. Asadul Mondal

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 versus Kulavindar Singh

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S Khazin Rafi

Sh. Shyam Lal versus Punjab National Bank

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Karwar Motors

State Bank of India versus Ms Garg Dall and Besan Mills and Ors.

Axis Bank versus Shree Shani Enterprises