Allowed

Punjab National Bank v. Smt. Mamta

DRT16 Jan 2026OA/548/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Punjab National Bank against Smt. Mamta for recovery of outstanding dues including principal, interest, and costs via hypothecated assets following ex-parte proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Recovered Rs. 29,05,773/- including principal and interest, directed to be paid within 30 days. Recovery certificate issued for enforcement through sale of assets.

Punjab National Bank versus Smt. Mamta — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

O.A. No. 548 of 2024

¶2

Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi 4th floor, Jeevan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi

¶3

Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sharma

¶4

O.A. No.548 of 2024

¶5

Punjab National Bank Circle Sastra Centre West Delhi 2nd Floor, Vikrant Tower, Rajendra Place, New Delhi-110008 Applicant Versus

¶6

Smt. Mamta w/o Sh. Sudhir Kumar Proprietor of M/s Unique Industries SF 6308, Block no.6B, Dev Nagar Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 Also at: Smt. Mamta w/o Sh. Sudhir Kumar 14-6/17, Second Floor D.B. Gupta Road, Dev Nagar Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 Defendant Present: Sh.Kailash C Sharma, Counsel for the applicant bank Date of Reserve: 06.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 16.01.2026

¶7

FINAL ORDER

¶8

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 11.06.2024 through Mr. Ranjit Kumar Tiwari, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.29,05,773/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lacs Five Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Three only) as on 31.05.2024, out of which Rs.27,25,428/-

¶9

¶10

O.A. No. 548 of 2024

¶11

@12.45% per annum in Cash Credit account and Rs.1,80,345/@9.25% per annum in Working Capital Term Loan from the date of filing of this application till the date of realization alongwith costs.

¶12

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the defendant as proprietor of M/s Unique Industries vide loan application dated 15.10.2018, the applicant bank sanctioned Cash Credit facility for a sum of Rs.35.00 lacs (Rupees Thirty Five lacs only) on 18.10.2018 under Stand Up India Scheme for trading / manufacturing of jeans, shirts, trousers etc. against hypothecation of goods, book debts and current assets etc. The applicant review and modified the Cash Credit limit on 20.01.2020 and reduced the limit from Rs.35.00 lacs to Rs.25.00 lacs on 02.08.2021 and sanctioned Working Capital Term Loan for Rs.6,97,000/- under GECL scheme and renewed the same on 30.03.2023.

¶13

That in order to avail the credit facilities, the defendant executed Hypothecation of Goods and Book Debts to secure Cash Credit facility, Authority Letters, Undertakings, A greements for Hypothecation of Current Assets, Hypothecation of Moveable Assets forming part of Fixed/block Assets, Agreements for WCTL, Master Agreements, Demand Promissory Notes with the applicant bank on 18.10.2018, 10.07.2020.

¶14

That in order to secure the credit facilities, the defendant hypothecated the stock of raw material, semi finished and finished stock in trade and consumable spares and all current assets etc. in favour of applicant bank.

¶15

¶16

O.A. No. 548 of 2024

¶17

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid credit facilities, the defendant failed to comply with the terms and conditions of sanction and failed to maintain financial discipline, failed to pay interest due and installments to regularize the accounts with the applicant bank. Ultimately, the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 11.01.2024 as per RBI guidelines but the defendant failed to regularize the account. Hence, the applicant bank approached this tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶18

The Defendant also acknowledged their liability by executing Balance & Security Confirmation dated 30.01.2020 towards the applicant bank.

¶19

Notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 dated 17.01.2024 was issued to the defendant calling upon them to pay the entire outstanding dues with the applicant bank to which a reply dated 23.01.2024 was sent by the defendant wherein it was requested to grant a period of 90 days. As the defendant failed to regularize the account, the applicant bank issued another demand notice dated 24.04.2024 but defendant failed to regularize the accounts. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Hon'ble Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶20

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendant and despite of proper service, the defendant has chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 16.10.2025, the defendant has been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared before the Tribunal and even written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have not been filed by the defendant.

¶21

¶22

O.A. No. 548 of 2024

¶23

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Sh.Ranjit Kumar Tiwari, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents such as General Power of Attorney, Loan Applications, Sanction Letters, Hypothecation of Goods and Book Debts, Letters, Undertakings, Agreement for Hypothecation of Current Assets, Hypothecation of Moveable Assets, Balance & Security Confirmations, Agreement for WCTL, Master Agreements, Loan Recall notice alongwith Postal Receipts, Demand Notice, Statement of Account marked as Ex.AW-1/1 to Ex.AW-1/23.

¶24

The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments made in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the applicant bank is based on the documents and the same have been duly approved.

¶25

The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and there is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant bank and the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts.

¶26

In the light of the above discussions, the Original Application deserves to be allowed.

¶27

ORDER

¶28

I, allow this OA and direct the defendant to pay to the

¶29

applicant bank, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.29,05,773/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lacs Five Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Three only) as on 31.03.2024 out of which:

¶30

¶31

O.A. No. 548 of 2024

¶32

Rs.27,25,428/- @12.45% interest per annum with monthly rests;

¶33

Rs.1,80,345/- @9.25% interest per annum with monthly rests

¶34

from the date of filing of this application till the date of realization alongwith costs, failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stocks and book debts etc. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendant.

¶35

(II) The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi.

¶36

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 20.03.2026.

¶37

(IV) Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be sent to all concerned free of cost.

¶38

(GOVIND B = H SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶39

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 16.01.2026

¶40

Punjab National Bank v. Smt. Mamta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. Smt. Mamta

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

Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank) versus Rajender Kumar @Chintu

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Sarandeep Singh

Assadullah Lone versus Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited

Mohd Ikramuddin versus Jm Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

MD Ikramuddin versus Piramal Capital Housing Finance Limited

Punjab National Bank versus Baljinder Singh