Dismissed

Virender Aggarwal v. Central Bank of India

DRT10 Feb 2026SA/50/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this securitization application, the applicant sought to restrain the respondent bank from taking possession of secured assets and to deposit overdue amounts. The single judge held that since the bank alleged forgery by the applicant and his associates, leading to a registered criminal investigation, the applicant was not entitled to any relief.

What did the court decide?

Applicant restrained from depositing amounts as encumbered by criminal forgery allegations; Bank entitled to recover entire amount.

Virender Aggarwal versus Central Bank of India — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

SA No.50/2026

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶3

SA/50/2026 VIRENDER AGGARWAL Vs CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

¶4

10.02.2026 Item No.30

¶5

Present: Mr. Shubham Pabbi, Counsel for the Applicant. Mr. R.K. Jindal, Counsel for respondent Bank.

¶6

Virender Aggarwal (Applicant) has . filed this Securitization Application under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARF AESI Act), against the Central Bank of India (Respondent).

¶7

Admittedly, in the year 2012, Central Bank of India had sanctioned a C.C. limit of Rs.50.00 lacs to Mis GYM Engineers, a proprietorship firm owned by Neeta Aggarwal, wife of Virender Aggarwal. In the year 2019, the limit was enhanced to Rs.1.00 crore. Applicant is the husband ofNeeta Aggarwal, who had guaranteed this loan and had also created a security interest in respect of the properties fully detailed in para No.3 of the application. It is stated that Mis GVM Engineers is an MSME unit. The account has come under stress. However, contrary to RBI guidelines, the Bank did not place the matter before the designated committee. On 31.03.2025, the Bank declared the account NPA and on 04.04.2025 served the notice under Section 13(2) upon the Applicant. The notice was also sent by registered post. The Applicant filed objections, which were replied by the Bank on 05.05.2025. On 19.06.2025, Bank issued the notice under Section 13(4).

¶8

Bank has filed reply to the S.A.

¶9

¶10

SA No.50/2026

¶11

Mr. Pabbi, counsel for the Applicant, argued that the Applicant is ready to deposit the overdue amount. He submitted that as per the Bank, the overdue amount is Rs.8.40 lacs. He further submitted that the Bank has not rebutted any contention raised by the Applicant. The possession of the secured assets, which is open land and a flat situated at Solan, has been fixed for 12.02.2026 and 13.02.2026. He further stated that the Applicant is also ready to deposit more amount, provided the Bank is restrained from taking possession.

¶12

Per contra, Mr. Jindal, counsel for the Bank, argued that in this case Jatinder Aggarwal, brother of Virender Aggarwal, was also one of the guarantors who had created a security interest in respect of one of the properties in favour of the Bank, to secure the loan. However, in the year 2019, Ja tinder Aggarwal, in connivance with Virender Aggarwal and N eeta Aggarwal, forged a letter dated 27 .09.2019 and, on the basis of the same, got the Bank charge removed from the revenue record. Jatinder Aggarwal also cancelled the lease deed which had been executed by Bhupender in his favour. Bhupender executed a lease deed in favour of Virender Aggarwal, who, by forging documents, obtained a loan of Rs.4.00 crores from SBI on the basis of forged documents. The Bank has reported the matter to the police and FIR No.167 dated 31.07.2025 has been registered at Police Station Solan Sadar. The matter is under investigation. Since Jatinder Aggarwal, along with the Applicant, has committed forgery, the question of accepting any overdue amount does not arise, and the Bank is entitled to recover the entire amount due.

¶13

I have considered the rival contentions.

¶14

The Bank has pointed out that one of the guarantors, Jatinder Aggarwal, who is the brother of Virender Aggarwal, had prepared a forged

¶15

¶16

SA No.50/2026

¶17

NOC of Central Bank of India and, on the basis of the same, in connivance with the Revenue Officer, got the charge of Central Bank of India removed from the revenue records. Thereafter, on the basis of a leassvdeed, Applicant obtained a loan of Rs. 4.00 crore from SBI, on the basis of forged documents. From the material, it is apparent that the Applicant, along with others, has forged the documents. Accordingly, the Applicant is not entitled to any relief, SA stands dismissed. All the pending IAs, if any, are also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶18

Registrar is directed to send a copy of this order to all the parties, as

¶19

per rule. File be consigned to record room after due complianbe.

¶20

O DRT-I, Chandigarh

¶21

Pronounced in open court Dated: 10.02.2026 PANKAJ

¶22

Virender Aggarwal v. Central Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virender Aggarwal v. Central Bank of India

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

Sidheeq Muthiripparamban versus Manjeri Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd.

Hdfc Bank versus Bks Enterprise and Ors.

Aditya Construction versus Hdfc Bank

Punjab National Bank versus Smt. Jasbir Kaur

Ms Gsr Health Sciences versus Canara Bank

State Bank of India versus Sri.Shivakumara. G. N