Allowed

Yes Bank Ltd. v. M/S Vohra Trading Company and Others

DRT2 Jul 2026OA/383/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte hearing, the Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's recovery application against four respondents for a loan default totaling Rs. 3.73 crores, declaring them jointly liable and ordering recovery from mortgaged and hypothecated assets at 8% p.a. interest.

What did the court decide?

Order for recovery of Rs. 3,73,84,004.49 plus costs and simple interest at 8.00% p.a.; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Yes Bank Ltd. versus M/S Vohra Trading Company and Others — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 383/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 06.03.2026

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 02.07.2026

¶6

Yes Bank Ltd., Registered Office at Yes Bank House, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz (E), Mumbai- 400055, Northern Regional Corporate Office at SCO 129-130, Madhya Marg, Sector 9C, Chandigarh and having its Branch Office at Ludhiana, Punjab through its Attorney Holder, Sh. Aashiv Bhayana

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/S Vohra Trading Company through its Proprietor, Sh. Rattan Lal Vohra, R/o Vikas Nagar, Channi Mill Road, Manid, Gobindgarh, Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab- 147301

¶10

Sh. Rattan Lal Vohra, S/o Sh. Amar Nath, R/o House no. 120, Sector 21C, Gobindgarh (R), Mandigobindgarh, Fatehgarh Sahib, Amloh (P), Punjab- 147301

¶11

Smt. Rita Vohra, W/o Sh. Rattan Lal Vohra, R/o House no. 255, Vikas Nagar, Sector 1B, Mandi Gobindgarh, Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab- 147301

¶12

Sh. Rahul Vohra, S/o Sh. Rattan Lal Vohra, R /o House no. 255, Vikas Nagar, Sector 1B, Mandi Gobindgarh, Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab- 147301

¶13

…..Defendants

¶14

Advocates:

¶15

Argued by Sh. Amit Rishi, Advocate for applicant (through VC) None for defendants (already ex-parte vide order dated 29.06.2026)

¶16

FINAL ORDER

¶17

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. 3,73,84,004.49 (Rupees Three Crores Seventy Three Lacs Eighty Four Thousand Four and Paise Forty Nine Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Aashiv

¶18

2 OA NO. 383/2026 YES BANK VS. M/S VOHRA TRADING COMPANY AND OTHERS

¶19

Bhayana, Attorney Holder of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 28.03.2025, which is Annexure A1 to this OA. 2. The brief facts of the OA are that defendant no. 1 through its Proprietor defendant no. 2 approached the applicant for grant of CC Limit of Rs. 285.00 Lacs and Term Loan of Rs. 5.00 Lacs vide Application Form dated 27.01.2023, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. Thereafter, defendant no. 1 through its Proprietor defendant no. 2 approached the applicant for enhancement of CC Limit to Rs. 310.00 Lacs and Term Loan to Rs. 50.00 Lacs. 3. The applicant sanctioned CC Limit of Rs. 285.00 Lacs and Term Loan of Rs. 5.00 Lacs vide Sanction Letter dated 24.01.2023, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. Thereafter, the applicant sanctioned enhancement of CC Limit to Rs. 310.00 Lacs and Term Loan of Rs. 50.00 Lacs vide Addendum to the Facility Letter dated 30.01.2024, which is Annexure A4 to this OA. Defendant nos. 3 and 4 stood as guarantors. 4. Defendant no. 3 mortgaged her immovable properties which are: i. Land measuring 01 Bigha 07 Biswa situated at Village Ghanour, Tehsil Rajpur, District Patiala, Punjab vide Sale Deed dated 28.06.2001 and Transfer Deed dated 28.04.2023, which are Annexure A28 and A29 to this OA; ii. Land measuring 00 Bigha 03 Biswa 00 Biswansi situated at Village Nasrali, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab vide Sale Deed bearing vasika no. 1594 dated 23.02.2016, which is Annexure A31 to this OA. Defendant no. 1 through its Proprietor defendant no. 2 hypothecated their current and movable fixed assets both present and future vide Deed of Hypothecation dated 23.10.2023, which is Annexure A7 to this OA. Documents executed: Master Facility Agreement, Term Loan Agreement, DP Notes, Letters of Continuity, Letter of Debit Authorization, Sole Proprietor Declaration and Letter of Continuing

¶20

3 OA NO. 383/2026 YES BANK VS. M/S VOHRA TRADING COMPANY AND OTHERS

¶21

Guarantee, all dated 27.01.2023, which are Annexure A5, A6, A8 to A11, A13, A14 and A26 to this OA; Undertaking cum Indemnity and Affidavits, all dated 20.02.2023, which are Annexure A12, A30 and A32 to this OA; Declarations cum Indemnity dated 17.04.2023 and 05.07.2023, which are Annexure A15 and A16 to this OA; Supplemental Master Facility Agreement, Term Loan Agreement, Supplemental Deed of Hypothecation, Indemnity and Supplemental Deed of Guarantee, all dated 03.02.2024, which are Annexure A17 to A20 and A27 to this OA; Undertaking cum Indemnity dated 20.02.2024, which is Annexure A21 to this OA; Letter of Debit Authorization dated 30.01.2024, which is Annexure A22 to this OA; Self Proprietor Declaration dated 03.02.2024, which is Annexure A23 to this OA; Declaration cum Indemnity dated 05.02.2024, which is Annexure A24 to this OA; Letter of Debit Authorization dated 21.03.2024, which is Annexure A25 to this OA; Memorandums of Entry for Creation of Mortgage dated 17.04.2023, 05.07.2023 and 05.02.2024, which are Annexure A33 to A35 to this OA; CERSAIs dated 06.02.2026, which are Annexure A36 and A37 to this OA; Demand Notice dated 19.01.2026 along with postal receipts, which is Annexure A38 to this OA and Statement of Accounts, which are Annexure A39 and A40 to this OA.

¶22

The loan accounts became irregular and were classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan accounts there was a debit of Rs. 3,73,84,004.49, 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.

¶23

The defendants were served summons to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 29.06.2026. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Aashiv Bhayana, Attorney Holder, Yes Bank Limited has been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record. 9. It was argued by learned counsel (through VC) that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant bank had proved its case.

¶24

4 OA NO. 383/2026 YES BANK VS. M/S VOHRA TRADING COMPANY AND OTHERS

¶25

From the perusal of all the Annexure A1 to A40 to this OA, it is proved that defendant no. 1 through its Proprietor defendant no. 2 approached applicant for availing of the loan facilities which were granted to them. Defendant nos. 3 and 4 stood as guarantors. Defendants had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. 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 bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 3,73,84,004.49 (Rupees Three Crores Seventy Three Lacs Eighty Four Thousand Four and Paise Forty Nine 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.

¶26

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @8.75%p.a. in CC Limit Account and @11.20% p.a. in Term Loan Account with half yearly rests from the date of filing of the application till the realization.

¶27

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/mortgaged properties, 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 simple interest @8.00% p.a. in both 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.

¶28

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.3,73,84,004.49 (Rupees Three Crores Seventy Three Lacs Eighty Four Thousand Four and Paise Forty Nine Only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00% p.a. in both the loan accounts from the date of filing of OA till the date of realization of

¶29

¶30

OA NO. 383/2026 YES BANK VS. M/S VOHRA TRADING COMPANY AND OTHERS

¶31

the amount. Accordingly, the applicant shall be entitled to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of hypothecated assets of defendant nos. 1 and 2 and mortgaged property of defendant no. 3 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.

¶32

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of .

¶33

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 17.07.2026. 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.

¶34

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 02.07.2026

¶35

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Yes Bank Ltd. v. M/S Vohra Trading Company and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yes Bank Ltd. v. M/S Vohra Trading Company and Others

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

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Deep Garments and Another

Union Bank of India versus Smt. Renu Sharma and Others

Axis Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Gurjot Singh

Hdfc Bank Limited versus M/S Home Need Department Store and Others

Idfc Bank Limited versus Naib Singh and Another

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Sunil Kumar and Another