Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. M/S Vivan Steel Industries and Another

DRT15 Jun 2026OA/498/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Bank of Baroda for recovery of Rs.28.81 lakh against a steel industry and its proprietor. The court issued a recovery certificate and ordered the defendants to pay interest at 8% p.a. noting market rates had fallen.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued. Defendants liable to pay principal with simple interest at 8% p.a. and costs. Applicant at liberty to enforce claim.

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Vivan Steel Industries and Another — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 498/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 11.04.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 15.06.2026

¶6

Bank of Baroda, a Public Sector Banking and Financial Services Company having its Head office at Suraj Plaza 1, Sayajigunj, Baroda -390005 and a branch office among others at Bank of Baroda, Clock Tower Branch, Ludhiana, through its Authorized Officer, Sh. Atul Kumar Dwivedi presently posted as Chief Manager Cum Branch Head at Clock Tower Branch, Ludhiana.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/S Vivan Steel Industries, B-15/971/183, B-192, Industrial Estate, Near Sandhu Motors, Ludhiana-141001.

¶10

Sh. Happy Kumar S/o Sh. Bholla Ram, House No.12573, Street No.1, Iqbal Nagar, Tajpur Road, Ludhiana-141008.

¶11

2nd Address: House No. XXIX-1706/175-B, Street No.5, Preet Nagar, Chirrni Road, Shimlapuri, Ludhiana-141004.

¶12

…….Defendants

¶13

Advocates:

¶14

Argued by Sh. R.K. Bansal, Advocate proxy for Sh. S.K. Dhir, Advocate for Applicant.

¶15

None for Defendants (already ex-parte vide order dated 11.06.2026)

¶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.28,81,869.32 (Rupees Twenty Eight Lacs Eighty One Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty Nine and Paise Thirty Two Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Atul Kumar Dwivedi , Chief Manager, of the Applicant, who is competent to

¶18

¶19

OA/498/2025 BANK OF BARODA VS. M/S VIVAN STEEL INDUSTRIES AND ANOTHER

¶20

institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 18.11.2016, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶21

The brief facts of the OA are that the Defendant no.1, through its proprietor defendant no.2, approached the applicant for grant of CC Limit of Rs.25.00 lacs vide Application Form dated 07.03.2023, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶22

The applicant sanctioned the CC Limit of Rs.25.00 lacs, vide Sanction Letter dated 24.03.2023, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶23

Defendant no.1, through its proprietor defendant no.2, hypothecated its stocks and book debts vide Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement, which is Annexure A6 to this OA.

¶24

Documents executed: Demand Promissory Note dated 28.03.2019, which is Annexure A4 to this OA; Letter of Continuity, which is Annexure A5 to this OA; Letter of Undertaking dated 24.03.2023, which is Annexure A7 to this OA; Letter of Sole Proprietorship, which is Annexure A8 to this OA; Declaration-cum-Undertaking, which is Annexure A9 to this OA; Draft Undertaking, which is Annexure A10 to this OA; Loan Agreement dated 24.03.2023, which is Annexure A11 to this OA; CERSAI, which is Annexure A12 to this OA; Demand Notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, which is Annexure A13 to this OA; Statement of Account, which is Annexure A14 to this OA; Bankers Certificate, which is Annexure A15 to this OA.

¶25

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.28,81,869.32 (Rupees Twenty Eight Lacs Eighty One Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty Nine and Paise Thirty Two Only), which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notices but they did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant

¶26

¶27

OA/498/2025 BANK OF BARODA VS. M/S VIVAN STEEL INDUSTRIES AND ANOTHER

¶28

requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶29

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 11.06.2026.

¶30

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Atul Kumar Dwivedi , Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda, has been filed.

¶31

Heard arguments and perused record.

¶32

It was argued by learned proxy counsel that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case.

¶33

From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A15 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. They 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.28,81,869.32 (Rupees Twenty Eight Lacs Eighty One Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty Nine and Paise Thirty Two 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.

¶34

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @11.75% p.a. with monthly rests from 17.03.2025 till the realization.

¶35

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

¶36

¶37

OA/498/2025 BANK OF BARODA VS. M/S VIVAN STEEL INDUSTRIES AND ANOTHER

¶38

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

¶39

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.28,81,869.32 (Rupees Twenty Eight Lacs Eighty One Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty Nine and Paise Thirty Two 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.

¶40

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶41

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶42

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 30.06.2026

¶43

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.

¶44

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal .

¶45

Dated: 15.06.2026.

¶46

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶47

Presiding Officer,

¶48

DRT-III, Chandigarh

Bank of Baroda v. M/S Vivan Steel Industries and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. M/S Vivan Steel 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

State Bank of India versus M/S S M Enterprises and Another

Axis Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Harnek Singh and Ors.

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Jagir Singh And others

State Bank of India versus Sh. Varinder Singh

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Sh. Jaj Singh Alias Judge Singh through His Legal Heirs

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Laxman Prasad Mandal