Allowed

Bank of India v. M/s Opus Polysel Technologies Private Limited

DRT22 Jan 2026OA/494/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the application filed by Bank of India to recover a loan of approx. Rs. 61.75 lakhs along with interest and costs from the respondents who were borrowers and guarantors, and passed an order for attachment of mortgaged assets.

What did the court decide?

Determined debt of Rs. 61,75,651.20 with future interest @10% p.a. to be recovered jointly and severally from respondents; issuance of recovery certificate under s.19(22) and attachment of assets.

Bank of India versus M/s Opus Polysel Technologies Private… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

OA 494 of 2022 1 Jl

¶2

DRT, PATN A

¶3

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna

¶4

Karpuri Thakur Sadan, Aashiana Digha Road Patna-800025

¶5

Presiding Officer : Shri Kaushalendra Yadav

¶6

OA Case No. 494 of 2022

¶7

Bank of India, branch at Station Road, Samastipur, (Bihar)

¶8

. . . . . . .Applicant

¶9

¶10

M/s Opus Polysel Technologies Private Limited, Near Veer Hanuman Dharamkanta. Harpur Allouth, Town and District- Samastipur (Bihar), PAN No.AABC09796R

¶11

Saurabh Anand, S/o Mr. Manindra Prasad, Director and Guarantor of M/s Opus Polysel Technologies Private Limited, 59/B, Gaurishankar Nagar, Doranda, Town & District- Ranchi (Jharkhand) 834002

¶12

Krishna Kumar. S/o Mr. Awadhesh Narayan Ray, Director and Guarantor of M/s Opus Polysel Technologies Private Limited, Harpur Allouth, Town and District- Samastipur (Bihar) 848101

¶13

Naveen Bihani, S/o Mr. Kailash Bihani, Director and Guarantor of M/s Opus Polysel Technologies Private Limited, 7, Kali Krishna Tagore Street, Kolkata Municipal Corporation, Kolkata (West Bengal) 700007

¶14

Anup Kumar Mukharjee, S/o Mr. Prabhat Kumar Mukharjee, Director and Guarantor of M/s Opus Polysel Technologies Private Limited, 6 Kha, Bangali Tola, Town & District- Samastipur (Bihar) 848101

¶15

Veena Devi, W/o Mr. Awadhesh Narayan Ray, Director and Guarantor of M/s Opus Polysel Technologies Private Limited, Harpur Allouth, Town and District- Samastipur (Bihar) 848101

¶16

. . . . . . . Defendants

¶17

Present:

¶18

For the Applicant : Dr. Binod Bihari Sinha, Advocate For the Defendant no.3&6 : Shri Arbind Kr. Jha, Advocate

¶19

Dated: 22.01.2026

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The Applicant bank has made this application u/s 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (here-in-after referred to as Act) on13.09.2022against the defendants to recover its debts from defendants of

gal\

OA 494 of 2022 1 Jl

DRT1 PATN A

Rs.61,75,651.20 as on 31.08.2022 along with pendente-lite and future interest at the contractual rate from 01.09.2022with costs till realization.

¶27

The application has been filed with the contention that the applicant bank, is a body corporate, carries on the business and is competent to file the suit through various branches including the applicant.

¶28

3 . Defendant no.2 itself and on behalf of the defendant no.I approached the applicant bank for sanction of Term Loan and Cash Credit facilities, vide loan application dated25.03.2015 and after due consideration, the applicant bank has sanctioned Term Loan of Rs.65 Lakh and Cash Credit of Rs.30 Lakh on 27.03.2015 on various terms and conditions, as stipulated in the sanction letter, which were duly accepted by the defendants. To secure the loan facilities defendants have executed various loan and security documents and also created mortgage in favour of the applicant bank, details of which are given in OA. The properties mortgaged with the bank were duly registered with the CERSAI. The defendant no.3 & 6 also accepted the dues of the bank and signed the acknowledgement of debt on 12.03.2021. At the request of the defendants, the applicant bank has also sanctioned FITL in the shape of Term Loan of rs.8.35 Lakh on 26.02.2021.

¶29

After availing the sanctioned credit facilities,the defendants became irregular in repayment of their dues as per agreed terms and failed to adhere to the financial norms of the bank and avoiding the repayment of its dues to the bank, in spite of several assurances given by it to the applicant bank resulting in the account turning as NPA on28.05.2022.

¶30

Since, the defendants failed and neglected in spite of several reminders to make payment of the dues recoverable to the bank, hence this application has been filed by the bank.

¶31

The total liability in the loan account is Rs.61,75,651.20 as on 31.08.2022 with pendente-lite and future interest contractual rate from 01.09.2022 till the realization.

¶32

This Tribunal issued summons/notices copies of application & paper book to the defendants by registered/speed post on 07.10.2022, requiring them to show-cause within 30 days of the service U/s 19 (4) of the Act & Rule of the DRT [Procedure] Rules, 1993. In response t/o the notice, the defendant no.3

¶33

tO,I

¶34

Presiding Oficel, Debts Recovery Tribun4) PATNA

OA 494 of 2022 1 Jl

DRT, PATN A

and 6 have appeared by filing vakalatnama on 03.11.2022 but the rest of the defendants no. 1, 2, 4 and 5 have not appeared, hence, the Registry of this Tribunal has ordered to publish the notice in newspaper and subsequently, substituted service by publication of notice by way of advertisement in newspaper was also made against them on 06.12.2022 in “Hindustan’ newspaper.

¶39

Despite the registered summons/notices and publication of notice in newspaper. the defendants no. 1, 2, 4 and 5 have not appeared before this Tribunal to contest the case. The sufficient time has been given to them to defend their case, but they failed to appear and to file WS, hence, the Tribunal has passed an order to proceed ex-parte against the defendants no. 1, 2, 4 and 5 on 20.02.2023 .

¶40

The defendant no.3 and 6 have filed their written statement admitting therein that the applicant bank has sanctioned CC of Rs.30 Lakh and Term Loan of Rs.65 Lakh and the business transaction in the account started from 08.04.2015 and CGTMSE fees were also debited in the Company account. It has further been stated that since a huge financial loss was caused to the Company by all three absconding directors and one Director Mr. Krishna Kumar filed complaint case no. 1818 of 2016 before the Id. CJM, Samastipur. On the advice of the Chief Manager of the bank, both the remaining directors continued to pay installments and interest and upto 27.05.2022, total Rs.1,10,16,728/- has been paid to the bank. It has further been stated that nowhere in the OA, it is mentioned that the debt is guaranteed by CGTMSE Scheme and 75% of the same has been adjusted in the year 2016 and requested to dismiss the OA.

¶41

To prove its case, the applicant Bank has referred various certified photocopies of documents before this Tribunal. The applicant bank has also given evidence on affidavit by way of affidavit by Shri Ashok Kumar, Chief Manager of the applicant bank. The details of documents are as follows:

¶42

SI.No	Description Documents Photocopies of	1Date of Execution	1Amount n Lakh)	ISignature Executants of	1Ex./ Ann No
	LoanaDDlication	25.03.2015		Def.no.2
	Sanctionletter	27.03.2015		Bank accepted defendant

¶43

p...IdfhIfi.., Debts Recovel:7 Tdbwto PATNA

OA 494 of 2022 IJ I

DRT, PATNA

3	Hypothecationcum loanagreement	27.03.2015	65.00	1 Def.no.1&2	13
	Letter ofcontinl	27.03.2015	e		4
	PDR	27.03.2015	e		5&6
	D Pnote	27.03.2015	e
	L435	27.03.2015	e
	Hypothecation loanagreement	27.03.2015	e
	e	27.03.2015	e		10
12	PDR	27.03.2015	e		11&12
	L434&435	27.03.2015	30.00	Def.no.1&2
	Balance confirmationletter	20.03.2018		Def.no.1&2
	DPnote	26.02.2021		Def.no.1&2
	Deedofguarantee	27.03.2015		Defendants
10 20	t )hotoCODyofdeeds				17 to 20
21	acknowledgement of debt and security	12.03.2021		Def.no.3&6	21
	Agreementof FITL	26.02.2021		Def.no.3&6
	a	16.08.2022		Bankadv.
& 25	a accounts			Bank	24&25

¶48

Heard arguments and perused the case record.During the course of arguments. there is no any specific denial on behalf of the defendant no.3&6 with regards to the sanction of loan facilities and its utilization and further there is no any specific denial with regards to the execution of loan and security documents in favour of the applicant bank.

¶49

So far as the claim under CGTMSE scheme, if any, received by the applicant bank, is concerned, in this respect, the receipt of guaranteed amount from the CGTMSE will not absolve the defendant from its liability and the recovery proceeding will continue till the amount involved is recovered from them to be refunded to CGTMSE after adjustment of dues as entitled. The defendants are not entitled to claim any set off against CGTMSE guaranteed amount.

¶50

Ld, Counsel of applicant bank submitted that the defendants have taken the loan and utilized the same and also executed the various loan documents to secure the loan. Further, submitted that the claim of the bank has been proved by documentary evidence. All the transactions were entered in the ledger of the loan accounts in the name of the defendant duly maintained by the applicant bank in its usual course of business. The interest /compound interest has been

¶51

t::44\ ;7" PP 1,qi ding Ofice? Debts Recovery TlibwbRb PATHA

OA 494 of 2022 IJI

DRT1 PATNA

charged at such rates, and capitalized at such periodical rests as are permitted by and do not run counter to the directives of Reserve Bank of India.

¶56

It is further submitted by Id. Counsel of applicant bank that there is no stay granted by any Higher Court, in respect of the proceedings of the present OA and requested to issue recovery certificate, as claimed for, in OA.

¶57

It has been established that defendants are living and carrying on their business in the state of Bihar. Cause of action also arose in the State of Bihar. The said claim on the date of filing of application exceeded Rs.20 lacs. The applicant bank is functioning within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Therefore, this Tribunal has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present application.

¶58

On the issue of Limitation, to prove it, the applicant bank has submitted that the applicant bank has declared the account as NPA on 28.05.2022, whereas the present application has been filed on 13.09.2022. Even, it is counted for the purpose of Limitation, then it is established that the applicant bank has filed the case within the limitation period. As such, it is established that the present application has been filed well within the period of limitation.

¶59

Shri Ashok Kumar, Chief Manager of the applicant bank has filed the affidavit in support of contents of application and the documents as evidence and proved on oath the pleadings and documents of the applicant bank as stated above.

¶60

Section 19(3) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 provides that the application u/s S.19 (1) shall be accompanied with true copies of all the documents relied on in support of the claim.

¶61

The rule 12 (10) of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993. provides that if the defendant denies his liability to pay the claim made by the applicant, the tribunal may act upon the affidavit of the applicant who is acquainted with the facts of the case or who has on verification of the record sworn the affidavit in respect of the contents of the application and the documents as evidence.

¶62

The rule 12 (11) of the aforesaid Rules, provides that the provisions contained in section 4 of the Banker’s Books evidence that Act, 1891 (18 of 1891) shall apply to a certified copy of an entry in a Banker’s Books furnished along with application filed under sub section 1 of section 19 by the applicant.

¶63

Section 4 of Banker’s Books evidence Act, 1891 runs as under-

¶64

%\ pteqjdinR OOcer _ Debts ReiTTUTdbuad

OA 494 of 2022 1 Jl

DRT, PATNA

S.4. Mode of proof of entries in bankers’ books.–Subject to the provisions of this Act. a certifIed copy of any entry in a banker’s book shall in all legal proceedings be received as prima facie evidence of the existence of such entry, and shall be admitted as evidence of the matters, transactions and accounts therein recorded in every case where. and to the same extent as, the original entry itself is now by la\v admissible, but not further or otherwise.

¶69

As such the certified true copies of the documents are admissible in evidence. The statement of account maintained in the ordinary course of business is not only admissible but shall be taken as the correct statement of account, more so since the entries in the statement of account have not been challenged.

¶70

On perusal of the application, documents, affidavit and on consideration of the arguments, it is proved that the defendants have applied for loan and the bank had sanctioned the loan and to secure the loan and for repayment of loan amount with interests etc., the defendants have executed various loan documents, as stated in the application and proved by aforesaid evidence. Defendants have neither denied the utilization of funds advanced by applicant bank nor have pointed out any specific error and discrepancy in the Statement of Account.

¶71

The evidence discussed above goes to establish that the amount of loan as mentioned in the O. A., was availed by the borrower under the agreed terms and conditions for repayment with interest. The balance amount till 31.08.2022has been proved to be Rs.61,75,651.20 only by way of statement of accounts. There is nothing to prove the amount more than that disclosed in the aforementioned statement. As such this amount is recoverable till full and final realization of the claim.

¶72

In my view, facts of the case stand proved by evidence of the applicant bank. Accordingly, the applicant bank is entitled to recover from defendants jointly and severally of Rs.61,75,651.20 along with pendente-lite and Rrture interest @10% p.a. simplefrom 13.09.2022 (The date of filing of this OA) till realization. So the final order may be passed accordingly, to meet the ends of JustIce.

¶73

ORDER

¶74

In the result, the application of the applicant bank is allowed and debt is determined with costs against the defendants. The defendants are hereby jointly and severally, ordered to pay the applicant bank its debt amounting

o„.,::,U@Su.

OA 494 of 2022 IJ I

DRT, PATN A

toRs.61,75,651.20 along with pendente-lite and future interest @ 10% p.a. simple from 13.09.2022 (the date of filing of this OA) till realization of the entire sum due and recoverable with costs.

¶80

It is made clear that any amount deposited by the defendants, be deducted in the claim amount, if not deducted.

¶81

Defendants are debarred from transferring, alienating encumbering or otherwise dealing with or disposing of the mortgaged or hypothecated or any other properties and assets without paying the aforesaid adjudicated dues to the applicant bank to secure the ends of justice. The mortgaged or hypothecated assets to secure the loan in question are hereby attached and shall be subject to the final order under the recovery proceedings in pursuance of the Recovery certificate issued under Section 19(22) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993. The applicant may submit the certified copy of this Judgment and the Recovery Certificate before the Registrar/Sub- Registrar to endorse the charge over the secured assets.

¶82

Let a certificate of recovery be drawn up forthwith and put up for signatures in terms of provisions contained in Section 19(22) of the Act to be issued, on the basis of the order of the Tribunal to the Recovery Officer. The Recovery Officer shall realize the amount as per the certificate in the manner and mode prescribed under the Act from the defendants, by sale of mortgaged/ hypothecated assets as well as other personal movable/immovable assets of the defendants. The Recovery Officer will issue demand notice to the Certificate debtors only after the proof of compliance under rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules 1993, is submitted. The copy of this judgment be uploaded in the website of the Tribunal.

¶83

Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT, Patna on 26.02.2026. The order be communicated accordingly.

¶84

Judgmcnt signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open court on 22ND day of January, 2026.

¶85

Dictated &corrected by me.

¶86

[Kaushalendra Yadav] Presiding Officer D“““:=%„I'bW*P“"' Debts Recove IY TdIMP1 PATNA

¶87

n2RBLNL!

¶88

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL PATNA

¶89

[See Regulation 24( 1 )]

¶90

2nd Floory (A. B & F Wing) Karpuri Thakur Sadan, Kendriya Kar3mchad Parisu (GPOA), Ashiana Digha Road, Patna-800025,

¶91

RECOVERy CERTIFICATE UNDER SECTION !!(D READ WITH $ECTIQN IP(a) OF THE RECQVERY QF DEBTS & BANKRUPTCY ACTtJ22IllS AMENEWERQNL11aLiaiiMb

RC Not 71/2026 IN

Case No: OA/494/2022

In the Matter of:

(CH. 1) BANK OF INDIA BRANCH AT STATION ROAD. SAMASTIPUR ,BIHAR .848101

Applicant(s)

-–- Versus -–-

(Cb 1) M/S OPUS POLYSEL TECHNOLOGIES PRrVATE

¶100

LIMITED

¶101

Near Veer Hanuman Dharamkanta, ,Harpur Allouth, Town and District.

¶102

Samastipur ,BIHAR

¶103

(Cb 2) SAURABH ANAND S/0 MR. MANINDRA PRASAD DIRECTOR AND GUARANTOR OF M/S OPUS POLYSEL TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED 59/B. GAURISHANKAR NAGAR DORANDA, TOWN AND DISTRICt- RANCHI (JHARKHAND) 834002

¶104

(Cb 3) KRISHNA KUMAR S/0 MR. AWADHESH NARAYAN RAY, DiRECrOR AND GUARANTOR OF M/S OPUS POLYSEL TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED HARPUR ALLOUTH, TOWN AND DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR (BIHAR) 848101

¶105

Defendant(,s)

¶106

(Cb 4) NAVEEN BIUANI

¶107

S/0 MR. KAIL ASH BItIANI. DIRECTOR AND GUARANTOR OF M/S OPUS POLYSEL TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED. 7. KALI KRISHNA TAGORE STREET, KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, KOLKATA (WEST BENGAL) 700007

¶108

(CD. 5) ANUP KUMAR MUKHARJEE

¶109

S/0 MR PRABHAT KUMAR MUKFIARJEE DIRECTOR AND GUARANTOR OF M/S OPUS POLYSEL TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED, 6 KFIA, BANGALI TOL4 TOWN AND DisTRicr. SAMASTIPUR (BIHAR) 848101

¶110

(CD 6) VEENA DEVI

¶111

W/0 MR. AWADHESH NARAYAN RAY. DiRECrOR AND GUARANTOR OF M/S OPUS POLYSEL TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED. HARPUR ALLOUTH. TOWN AND

¶112

DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR (BIHAR) 848101

¶113

RKovgrY Cwtjflgat€ for Rf 617 SeSll211 1 RuBen $1xtv CPnt LPkh; StwnN FIve TbQHiHnd$ SIx Hgndred FIlly Onf And Pajie W€ntyMy]

¶114

In terms of final order dated 22/01/2026 passed by this Tribunal in the above mentioned case, it is ordered that the Applicant Certificate Holder Bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 6175651.20 along with cost, expenses and interest from the 13/09/2022 i.e. date of filing / with effective date of the OA/494/2022 and future interest from order date till the date of realisation in full, jointly or severally from the Certificate Debtors, hereinafter referred to as:-

¶115

CD Name
w h; ; ::1 Hi: i: a :1 y : 1 S ;i:jf i: eD)n A m o :1:n: ( B e ) Re mark
liiTEMs #WE
OLOGIES PRIVATE 10
W nFI
,URABH ANAND
[6 1 7 Umn 6 5 1 a 2
.k::::b=1,.„„
IN A KUMAR l1 7565 1.2
OW
bVEEN BIHANI b 17565 1 .2
KUMAR MUKHARIEE
Ar n mrF7=T:
rA DEVI 17565 1 .20 Her Dateon 75651.2

¶116

In case of failure to pay the aforementioned adjudicated amount within 30 days, same shall be recovered from the sale of the mortgaged/hypothecatcd assets as well as other personal movable/ Immovable assets of the certificate debtors.

¶117

The mongaged or hYpothecated assets to secure the loan in question are hereby attached and shall be subject to the final order under the recoverY proceeding in pursuance of the Recovery certificate issued under Section 19(22) of Recovery of Debts and Bmkruptcy Act 1993. P3Res arc dinaH to apm before ASHISH KUMAR , Recovery Officer, DEBTS RECOVERY TR]BUNALPATNA on 26/02n026.

¶118

The Recovery oaicer shall realize the amount as per dHs Certificate in the manner and mode prescribed under Sections 25 to 28 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial InstitutIons Act, 1993 (as amended from time to time) from the above named Certificati ebtors

¶119

This Certificate has been issued under my signature and seal of the Tribulal on this (M/02/2026

¶120

C{11111b

¶121

PRESIDING OFFICER
DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL PATNA

¶122

Presiding Oficer Oobt3 Recovery Tribud P AT N A

¶123

FORM NO. 10 [See Regulation 24(2)]

¶124

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL PATNA

¶125

2nd Floor> (A. B & F WhO Karpuri Thakur Sadan, Kendriya Karamchari Parisar (GPOA),

¶126

Ashiana Digha Road, Patna-800025.

¶127

SCHEDULE TO RECOVERY CERTIFICATE MEMO OF COSTS

¶128

RC No. 71/2026 IN

¶129

Case No: OA/494/2022

¶130

Applicant(s): BANK OF INDIA Versus

¶131

Defendant(s): M/S OPUS POLYSEL TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED

¶132

	ItemofCosts	lountinRs
	'eeonthe application	m6
	r m	ro
!	dvocateFees	@
	r	@
5	S	ro
	o	m6

Place: PATNA

PRESIDIN8' OFFICER

Date: 04/02/2026

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL PATNA

¶137

Note: Strike out whichever is not applicable

¶138

Bank of India v. M/s Opus Polysel Technologies Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. M/s Opus Polysel Technologies Private Limited

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

Central Bank of India versus MD Rafikul Islam and Anr.

Punjab National Bank versus Oly Pramanik

Bank of Baroda versus M/s S.K. Enterprises

Indian Bank versus Mrs Sonal Rathi Proprietor of M/S Rathi Commodities and Ors.

Idbi Bank versus M/s Rahul Electric

Bank of India versus M/s Humara Pump Ram Janki