Allowed

Central Bank of India v. M/S Deepa Auto Industries Pvt. Ltd.

DRT19 Mar 2026TA/1039/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the original application filed by Central Bank of India for recovery of dues against defaulted borrowers. Proceeding exparte against absent defendants, the Tribunal found the bank's case established and directed payment of the principal sum, interest, and costs within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

The respondents are directed to jointly and severally pay Rs. 4,66,56,225 with cost, expenses, and interest to the applicant within 30 days; default to lead to sale of hypothecated/mortgaged assets an

Central Bank of India versus M/S Deepa Auto… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

Before SUSHIL KUMAR RASIOGI, prcsiding Officer Debts Recovely Tribunal_tl, Delhi

¶2

TA No.tO39 OF 2022 CENTRAT BANK OF II{DIA VS M/S DEEPA AUTO INDUSTRIES PI'T tTD & ORS

¶3

Reseryed on ; 09.02.2026 Pronouned on : 19.03.2O2G

¶4

Central Bank of India -Applicant bank Vs.

¶5

M/s Deepa Auto Industries A/t Ltd

¶6

Deepa Batra

¶7

Mrs. GurdayallGur - Defendants

¶8

Present: Shri. S.A. Khan, Counsel appears for applicant bank. Defendants are exparte since 22.07.2025.

¶9

FINAT ORDER

¶10

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 24.Ot.ZOtg through Sh. V.K Chauhan, Chief Manager of the applicant bank, under Section 19 ofthe RDB Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,66,56,2251_ at the prevailing rate @13.600/o p.d. in CC account and @14.85o/o in term loan accoun! together cost, charges and pendentellite and future interest from date of filing of this O.A. till the realization in full.

¶11

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of the defendant no.l through defendant nos.2 & 3, the applicant bank sanctioned Fund Based Limited (Cash Credit) of Rs.250.00 Lakhs and Term Loan Facility of Rs.33,00 Lakhs as per sanction letter dated g.r

¶12

¶13

TANO. t039of2022 24.07.2014.

¶14

24.07.2014. The defendants executed all necessary loaning documents on 25.06.2014 and 24.07.2014.It is submifted that the defendants have also availed the adhoc facility of Rs.25.00 lakhs in their account no.336059172 and the equitable mortgage was also charges on this facility on 09.03.2015. The above-mentioned credit facilities were secured by the defendant i.e., (1). Hypothecation of current assets comprising stock and boof debts. (2). property No.91, Khasra No. 676lL,Intikal No.674, measuring 240 q. yds. situated at Sawan park, Wazirpur, Delhi-110052 vide sale deed dated LO.Og.2Ol2 in the name of defendant no.2. (3). personal guarantee of defendant nos.2 & 3.

¶15

It is further submitted that the defendants enjoyed and utilized the Loan facilities, but failed to maintain the financial discipline and failed to repay the due amounts. The applicant bank requested the defendants to regularize the loan account by visits and letters, but there was no response from the defendants, hence the account was classified as NpA on 29.03.2015. The applicant bank served a demand notice dated 19.05.2016 to the defendants but faited to recover the same. Thus, the present O.A.fl-.A. is preferred by the applicant bank to re@ver its dues.

¶16

On notice by this Tribunat, defendants put appearance through counsel but failed to fite written statement. Thereafter, the defendanb failed to put appearance in the matter, despite issuance of default notice. Accordingly, the defendants were proceeded against expafte on 22.072025.

¶17

S"\

¶18

TANO. 1039of2022 3

¶19

The applicant bank has filed evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Hans Raj Haritas, Senior Manager of the applicant bank as AWl/1 to AW Ll23,which have gone unchallenged and un-rebutted. Hence, the case ofthe applicant bank stands fully established against the defendants with respect to nonpayment of outstanding amount.

¶20

After perusing the records, this Tribunal is of the view that the applicant bank has proved its ctrse beyond reasonable doubts. The evidence and documents filed by the appticant bank not rebutted by the defendants by not ptacing any evidence and there is no question of disbelieving the evidence and documents filed by the applicant bank based upon the written/printed documenb.

¶21

In the light of the above discussions, the present T.A. deserves to be allowed.

¶22

ORDER

¶23

I hereby allow this T.A. of the Appticant bank and direct the defendant nos. 1 to 3 to pay joinUy and severally to the applicant within 30 days from today, a sum of Rs.4,66,56,2251- alongwith cost, expenses and interest @13.25olo in term loan facility and @13.00o/o in cash credit facitity from the date of filing of this O.A. which has become T.A till the date of realization.

¶24

In case of failure to deposit the above amount within the stipulated period, the same shalt be recovered from the sale of hypothecated assets and the sale of mortgage property i.e., propefi No.91, Khasra

¶25

9J.

¶26

TANO. 1039of2022 4

¶27

No. 676ll,Intikal No.674, measuring 240 q. yds. situated at Sawan park, Wazirpur, Delhi_110052. In case of short fall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of personal movable and immovable assets of the defendant nos. 1to 3.

¶28

Recovery Certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal_Il, Delhi.

¶29

The registry of this Tribunal is hereby directed to issue free copy of the order and send the same to both the parties.

¶30

Parties are directed to appear before the Ld. Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhion 19.05.2026. pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

¶31

File be consigned to records.

¶32

Date : 19.03.2026

¶33

se (susHrl KUMAR"riAiioGr ) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

¶34

This judgement has been signed, dated and

¶35

pronounced in open court.

¶36

Date : 19.03.2026

¶37

SA (susHrL rurq-nn nxi*idcr) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

Central Bank of India v. M/S Deepa Auto Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Central Bank of India v. M/S Deepa Auto Industries Pvt. Ltd.

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