Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Dharamveer Singh

DRT17 Jan 2026OA/589/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tribility allowed an original application filed under Section 19 of the RDBIF Act 1993 by Bank of Baroda against a sole proprietor. The applicant proved the loan details and default unrebuttedly. The court directed the defendant to pay the principal, interest, and costs or face recovery from hypothecated and other assets.

What did the court decide?

Directed the defendant to pay the sum of Rs. 26,08,187.73 along with pendentelite and future interest @11.90% per annum, penal interest @2%, and costs. Directed recovery of shortfall from sale of hypo

Bank of Baroda versus Dharamveer Singh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

O.A. No.589 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. 589 of 2024

¶5

Bank of Baroda

¶6

Gandhi Nagar Branch BA-912, Main Road, Kailash Nagar, Delhi-110031

¶7

Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Dharamveer Singh s/o Sh. Babu Ram Proprietor of M/s Nigam Enterprises 3274, Gali no.3, Raghubarpura No.2 Gandhi Nagar, East Delhi-110031

¶10

Also at:

¶11

Sh. Dharamveer Singh s/o Sh. Babu Ram 3198 First floor, Gali No.4

¶12

Raghubarpura No.2 Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031

¶13

Also at:

¶14

Sh. Dharamveer Singh s/o Sh. Babu Ram 3292, Gali no.3, Raghubarpura No.2 Gandhi Nagar, East Delhi-110031

¶15

Also at:

¶16

Sh. Dharamveer Singh s/o Sh. Babu Ram H.No 152-A/2, Upper Ground Floor Gali No.8, Block A, West Azad Nagar, Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051

¶17

Defendant

¶18

Present: Sh.Sudha Shukla, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶19

Date of Reserve: 23.12.2025

¶20

Date of Pronouncement: 17.01.2026

¶21

O.A. No.589 of 2024

¶22

FINAL ORDER

¶23

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 08.08.2024 through Sh.Manoj Kumar, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 against the defendant for recovery of Rs.26,08,187.73 (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs Eight Thousand One Hundred Eighty Seven and paisa Seventy Three only) as on 07.07.2024 along with pendentelite and future interest @11.90% per annum along with @2% penal interest with monthly rests from date of filing of this application till the date of realization along with costs.

¶24

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant being proprietor of M/s Nigam Enterprises vide loan application dated 24.11.2021, the applicant bank sanctioned Cash Credit Facility for a sum of Rs.25.00 Lacs (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs only) on 28.12.2021 against hypothecation of stock and book debts covered under CGTMSE facility for business expansion.

¶25

That in order to avail the loan facility, the defendant submitted loan application and executed Letter of Sole Proprietorship (LDOC-38), Demand Promissory Note, Letter of Continuity, Composite Hypothecation Agreement (LDOC-17B), Letter of Undertaking for Book Debts (LDOC-51), Power of Attorney (LDOC-86), General Undertaking and Undertaking for CGTMSE on 28.12.2021 in favour of the applicant bank.

¶26

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing credit facility, the defendant miserably failed to repay sd-

¶27

¶28

O.A. No.589 of 2024

¶29

the loan amount and failed to maintain financial discipline as per terms and conditions despite various requests and reminders. The applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 17.06.2024 as per extant RBI guidelines and issued legal recall notice dated 19.062024 but defendant neglected the same. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this tribunal for recovery of its dues from the defendant.

¶30

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendant and despite proper service through publication in newspapers, the defendant has chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 22.07.2025, the defendant has been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared before the Tribunal and even no written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have been filed by the defendant.

¶31

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Manoj Kumar, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents such as Power of Attorney, Loan Application, Sanction Letter, Letter of Sole Proprietorship, Demand Promissory Note, Letter of Continuity, Composite Hypothecation agreement, Undertaking for Book Debts, Power of Attorney, General Undertaking, Undertaking for CGTMSE, Legal Notice, Postal Receipts, Statement of Account marked as Ex.AW-1/1 to Ex.AW-1/12.

¶32

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 proved.

SlAr

O.A. No.589 of 2024

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.

¶37

In the light of the above discussions and documents on record, the Original Application deserves to be allowed.

¶38

ORDER

¶39

I, allow this OA and direct the defendant to pay to the applicant bank within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.26,08,187.73 (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs Eight Thousand One Hundred Eighty Seven and paisa Seventy Three only) along with pendentelite and future interest @11.90% per annum with monthly rests from date of filing of this application till the date of realization along with costs, failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from sale of hypothecated stock and book debts. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable assets of the defendant.

¶40

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

¶41

(III)^{Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery} Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 18.03.2026.

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 17.01.2026

¶45

Bank of Baroda v. Dharamveer Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Dharamveer Singh

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

Punjab National Bank versus Tarsem Singh

State Bank of India versus M/s Thirumala Rice Industries

Punjab National Bank versus Fayaz Ahamed

State Bank of India versus M/S Agro Food Beverages

Icici Bank Limited versus Jitender Kumar

Icici Bank Limited versus Yatender Singh