Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. M/S Vilagichb (Opc) Private Limited and Another

DRT30 Apr 2026OA/684/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte hearing, the Tribunal allowed the Bank of Baroda's application under the RDB Act for recovery of a loan of approx. Rs. 33.52 Lacs. The Tribunal reduced the claimed interest rate from 13.90% to 8% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Recovery granted jointly and severally for Rs. 33,52,613.36 with simple interest @08.00% p.a. Execution directed via hypothecated and personal assets.

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Vilagichb (Opc) Private Limited and… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.684/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 28.05.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 30.04.2026

¶6

Bank of Baroda, a Body Corporate with perpetual succession constitued under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its Registered Office at Mandvi at Baroda and one of its Branch at Mehta Tower, Opposite Hotel Venice, Dhangu Road, Pathankot, Punjab- 145001 through Sh. Ashok Kumar, Senior Manager/Authorized Signatory

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/S VILAGICHB (OPC) Private Limited having its Registered Office C/o Sh. Tejinder Kumar, Sunder Nagar, Near Satyam Hardware, Dhangu Road, Pathankot, Punjab- 145001 through its Director, Sh. Aseem Barthwal

¶10

Sh. Aseem Barthwal, S/o Sh. Girish Chandra Barthwal, Director M/S VILAGICHB (OPC) Private Limited having its Registered Office C/o Sh. Tejinder Kumar, Sunder Nagar, near Satyam Hardware, Dhangu Road, Pathankot, Punjab- 145001

¶11

2^nd Address: Vijay Laxmi Garh Niwas, House no. B14/97, Bank Colony, Sunder Nagar, Dhangu Road, Near Durga Mata Mandir, Pathankot, Punjab- 145001

¶12

….……Defendants

¶13

Advocates:

¶14

Argued by Sh. Kamal Dev Sharma, Advocate proxy for Sh. C.S. Pasricha, Advocate for applicant

¶15

None for defendants (already ex-parte vide order dated 24.04.2026)

¶16

FINAL ORDER

¶17

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 33,52,613.36 (Rupees Thirty Three Lacs Fifty Two Thousand Six Hundred Thirteen and Paise Thirty Six only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh.

¶18

2 OA NO.684/2025 BANK OF BARODA VS. M/S VILAGICHB (OPC) PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER

¶19

Ashok Kumar, Senior Manager of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 09.02.2017, which is Annexure A1 to this OA. 2. The brief facts of the OA are that defendant no. 1 through its Director defendant no. 2 approached the applicant for grant of Term Loan of Rs. 33.65 Lacs vide Loan Application dated 07.07.2023, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. 3. The applicant sanctioned the Term Loan of Rs. 33.64 Lacs vide Sanction Letter dated 20.07.2023, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. 4. Defendant no. 1 through its Director defendant no. 2 hypothecated their stocks, book debts and all the machinery vide Composite Hypothecation Agreement dated 19.08.2023, which is Annexure A7 to this OA. Documents executed: Attestation Memo, DP Note, Letter of Continuing Security, Draft Undertaking, Letter of Undertaking, Letter of Installment and General Form of Guarantee, all dated 19.08.2023, which are Annexure A4 to A6, A8 to A10 and A12 to this OA; Letter of Authority dated 24.08.2023, which is Annexure A11 to this OA; Notice u/s 13 (2), SARFAESI Act, 2002 dated 21.01.2025 along with postal receipts, which is Annexure A13 to this OA; Statement of Account and Memoranda Statement, which are Annexure A14 and A15 to this OA. 5. The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan account there was a debit of Rs. 33,52,613.36 (Rupees Thirty Three Lacs Fifty Two Thousand Six Hundred Thirteen and Paise Thirty Six only) which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notice but they did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 6. The defendants were served summons to appear before this Tribunal. The defendants filed WS on 22.07.2025 vide diary no. 204. The matter was listed twice for admission or denial of original documents but defendants were absent on both dates. Thereafter, defendants were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 24.04.2026.

¶20

3 OA NO.684/2025 BANK OF BARODA VS. M/S VILAGICHB (OPC) PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER

¶21

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Ashok Kumar, Senior Manager, Bank of Baroda, h as been filed.

¶22

Heard ex-parte arguments of learned proxy counsel for applicant. None appeared on behalf of defendants. Perused record. 9. It was argued by learned proxy counsel that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record, the applicant had proved its case.

¶23

In the WS by defendant no. 2, it was admitted that credit facilities were availed off and defendants defaulted in payment. In the whole WS, there is no reply to OA but it was stated that SARFAESI proceedings were illegal.

¶24

From the perusal of all the Annexure A1 to A15 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant for availing of the loan facility which was granted to them and for that 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.33,52,613.36 (Rupees Thirty Three Lacs Fifty Two Thousand Six Hundred Thirteen and Paise Thirty Six 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. 10. In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant has claimed interest in relief clause @13.90%p.a. with monthly rests w.e.f. 24.04.2025 till the realization. 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 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

¶25

4 OA NO.684/2025 BANK OF BARODA VS. M/S VILAGICHB (OPC) PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER

¶26

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

¶27

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.33,52,613.36 (Rupees Thirty Three Lacs Fifty Two Thousand Six Hundred Thirteen and Paise Thirty Six 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 defendants 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. 12. Any other application pending stands disposed of. 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 21.05.2026. 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. Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 30.04.2026

¶28

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

Bank of Baroda v. M/S Vilagichb (Opc) Private Limited and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. M/S Vilagichb (Opc) Private Limited 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

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Ranjeet Singh

Union Bank of India versus Sh. chamkaur singh

State Bank of India versus M/S Nawab Resturant and Another

Savita Prabhakar versus Punjab National Bank and Others

Idfc First Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Brij Pal and Another

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Parveen Kumar and Others