Allowed

Indian Overseas Bank v. Naresh Kumar

DRT20 Jun 2026TA/1197/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of Rs.51.35 lakhs as dues from a closed loan account. The defendant, having failed to appear, was proceeded against ex-parte. The order directed recovery of the principal and interest from hypothecated assets or defendant's properties.

What did the court decide?

Directed recovery of Rs.51,35,873/- along with interest from hypothecated assets or defendant's moveable and immovable properties.

Indian Overseas Bank versus Naresh Kumar — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

T.A. No.1197 of 2022

¶2

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

¶3

Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sharma

¶4

T.A. no. 1197 of 2022

¶5

Indian Overseas Bank A-1/14, Ground Floor, Prashant Vihar Delhi-110085 Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Shri Naresh Kumar s/o Sole Proprietor of M/s Bunty Enterprises House No.235, Sanjay Colony Gali No.10, Narela, Delhi-110040

¶8

Also at:

¶9

Shri Naresh Kumar 75/12 (New No.132/10), Street No.6 Durga Mandir Area South of Brahamanwas Jhulana, Dist. Jind-126101 Haryana

¶10

Also at:

¶11

Shri Naresh Kumar Factory at H.No.380, Khasra No.1182 Block B, Near Kataria Road, Prem Nagar Nangloi, Delhi-110041

¶12

Defendant

¶13

Present: Shri Pramod Kumar, Counsel for the applicant bank Date of Reserve: 26.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 20.06.2026

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 04.02.2020 before DRT-III Delhi and then transferred to DRT-I Delhi under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to

¶16

T.A. No.1197 of 2022

¶17

Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.51,35,873/- (Rupees Fifty One Lacs Thirty Five Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Three only) as on 31.01.2020 along with interest @13.15% per annum in Cash Credit account and @12.90% interest per annum in Term Loan account with monthly rests from filing of this application till the date of its realization and costs.

¶18

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant as proprietor of M/s Bunty Enterprises, engaged in the business of manufacturing of auto control cables speedometers etc., the applicant bank sanctioned Cash Credit limit of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen lacs only) for working capital and Term Loan facility of Rs.24,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs only) @8.90% interest rate to be repaid in 84 EMIs of Rs.40,968/- on 29.10.2020 for purchase of machinery against hypothecation of stocks and book debts as prime security along with hydraulic machine, Power Press Machine, dyes etc. covered under CGTMSE scheme. The applicant bank on the request of defendant enhanced the Cash Credit facility to Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five lacs only) and reviewed term loan for Rs.21.78 lacs on 28.09.2018.

¶19

That in order to avail the loan facilities, the defendant submitted loan request letter and executed Sanction Letters, Demand Promissory Notes, Form F-161^{Undertaking Letters,} Forms F110E Agreement of Hypothecation, Form 107A Hypothecation of Book Debts, Letter of Hypothecation Form F- 110A and CAL C dated 28.07.2017 along with Form F110C Term Loan Agreement, F378 Letter of Undertaking for Repayment of Installments for Term Loan, Supplemental Deed

¶20

T.A. No.1197 of 2022

¶21

of Hypothecation and Release Letter dated 30.06.2017 and 28.09.2018 in favour of applicant bank.

¶22

The defendant executed Balance Confirmation Letter on 01.10.2018 and again on 02.04.2019 in favour of applicant bank.

¶23

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing both the loan facilities, the defendant failed to comply with the terms and conditions to repay the interest and installments in the account and not routed their business sale proceeds in the account due to which the applicant bank classified the account of defendant as NPA on 31.07.2019 and issued recall notice on 01.08.2019. The defendant promised to clear the dues but no efforts made, hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶24

Notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 dated 14.08.2019 was issued to the defendant to clear the outstanding dues but neglected to clear the dues.

¶25

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendant and despite of proper service the defendant have chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 12.12.2024, the defendant has been proceeded ex-parte as they have not appeared before the Tribunal nor written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have been filed.

¶26

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Sh.Binod Kumar, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the

¶27

sd-

¶28

T.A. No.1197 of 2022

¶29

documents such as Power of Attorney, Credit Sanction Advice, Demand Promissory Note, Form F-16, Undertakings, Form F110E Letter of Hypothecation, Form 107A Hypothecation of Book Debts, Letter of Hypothecation Form F110A, CAL A, Acceptance Letter, Form F14A, F378 Letter of Undertaking, Form-110C Agreement of Term Loan, Form-110-E, CAL Consent, Release Letter, Supplemental Deed of Hypothecation, Balance Confirmation Letters, Recall Notice, Demand Notice dated 14.08.2019, Certified Statement of Accounts as per Banker's Book of Evidence Act marked as EX.PW1/1 to EX.PW1/28.

¶30

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.

¶31

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.

¶32

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

¶33

ORDER

¶34

I, allow this OA and direct the defendant to pay to the applicant bank within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.51,35,873/- (Rupees Fifty One Lacs Thirty Five Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Three only) as on 31.01.2020 along pendentelite and future interest ©13.00°/0 per annum with monthly rest from 01.02.2020 till the date of realization, failing

¶35

s d

¶36

T.A. No.1197 of 2022

¶37

which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of the hypothecated stocks, book debts and machinery purchased out of bank's finance. In case of default, the same shall be recovered from sale of the moveable and immovable properties of defendant.

¶38

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

¶39

(III) Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 19.08.2026.

¶40

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

¶41

(GOVIND BALLABH \SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶42

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 20.06.2026

Indian Overseas Bank v. Naresh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Overseas Bank v. Naresh Kumar

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

Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank) versus Ms Dolphin Electronics

Hitesh So Jaswant Gaupale versus Sitaara Housing Finance Limited Earlier Known as Sewa Grih Rin Limited

Mr Shivaraj Badigar and Another versus Jana Small Finance Bank Ltd.

Bank of Baroda versus Garvit

Bank of Baroda versus Shine Packaging

Hdfc Bank versus Ajay Pratap and Anr.