Allowed

Idbi Bank Ltd. v. M/s Core Organics Ltd.

DRT26 Feb 2026TA/178/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the original application sought by IDBI Bank Ltd. against Core Organics Ltd. and other defendants for recovery of outstanding dues. The tribunal rejected the defendants' contentions regarding blank documents and fabricated accounts, holding that the bank proved its claim beyond reasonable doubt through documentary evidence.

What did the court decide?

Allowed OA and directed defendants no.1 and 2 to pay Rs.44,01,319/- with pendente lite and future interest at 18.50% per annum along with costs.

Idbi Bank Ltd. versus M/s Core Organics Ltd. — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

T.A. No. 178 of 2023

¶2

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

¶3

Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sharma

¶4

T.A. No.178 of 2023

¶5

IDBI Bank Ltd. (--United Western Bank Ltd.) 046, Gurudwara Road, arol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 Applicant
ersus
M/s Core Organics Ltd. hrough its official liquidator igh Court of Delhi urzon road Barracks, K.G. Marg ew Delhi-110001
HDFC Bank Ltd. arlier known as Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd.) CO-405-406 ector 35-C, Chandigarh
M/s CG Worldwide Impex Pvt. Ltd. 02, Shakuntala Apartments 9, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019
Iso at: /s CG Worldwide Impex Pvt. Ltd. 08, Chiranjiv Tower, 43, Nehru Place ew Delhi-110019 Defendants
resent: Shri S.K. Garg, Counsel for the applicant bank Mr. Dharam Dev, Counsel for defendant no.2
Date of Reserve: 19.01.2026
Date of Pronouncement: 26.02.2026

T.A. No. 178 of 2023

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant ank on 12.08.2002 before DRT-III, Delhi and then transferred t• DRT-1, Delhi under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to anks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 against the efendant no.1 & 2 for recovery of Rs.44,01,319/- (Rupees orty Four Lacs One Thousand Three Hundred Nineteen only) .long with pendentelite and future interest @18.50% per nnum with quarterly rests from 12.08.2002 till the date of alization along with costs. The defendant no.3 has been ade performs party as separate OA has been filed against •efendant no.3.

¶10

The brief facts of the case are that 0.A was initially filed •y United Western Bank Ltd. through Sh. Madan Narhar ambekar, AGM. Subsequently, the United Western Bank Ltd. as merged with IDBI Bank Ltd. and IDBI Bank Ltd. was malgamated with Industrial Development Bank of India and t e name has been changed to IDBI Bank Ltd.

¶11

It has been submitted that Inland Bills Discounting facility nder LC limit of Rs.500 lacs on 10.08.1998 in favour of efendant no.3 being procurement agent/supplier for supply of arious types of chemicals etc. The applicant bank negotiated purchase / discounted various Usance Bills of Exchange / undis of different dates drawn under Inland Irrecoverable evolving LC opened by defendant no.2 in favour of defendant o.3 and duly accepted by defendant no.1, out of which 12 ere returned back.

¶12

In order to avail the loan facility, the defendant no.3 xecuted Demand Promissory Note, Agreement to collect,

¶13

_Id -

¶14

T.A. No. 178 of 2023

¶15

urchase and/or discount bills/Hundies, Agreement of ypothecation of Inventories of Book Debts, Agreement to ollect, Purchase and/or Discount bills/Hundies etc., Letter of cknowledgement in respect of bill discounting under letters of redit facility with the applicant bank on 16.10.1998.

¶16

It has further been submitted that various Bills of :xchange/Hundies drawn by various parties were also ishonored, so the applicant bank filed O.A. titled 'The United estern Bank Limited v. M/s CG Worldwide Impex Private mited & ors. for aggregate claim of Rs.2,29,98,783/- and no r lief is prayed against defendant no.3 in the present OA.

¶17

It has been submitted that defendant no.2 failed to honor ommitments made under Inland Irrevocable revolving letters f Credit and defendant no.1 under Bills of Exchange/Hundies hich were dishonored. The applicant bank sent various letters questing defendant no.2 to honor the commitments and r -turn original Hundies but the defendants neglected the same nd account remained out of order along with interest at greed rates. Ultimately, the applicant bank issued recall notice ated 08.07.2002 calling upon defendants to pay outstanding mount but the defendants failed to clear the dues.

¶18

It has been submitted that defendant no.2 have filed t eir written statement before this Hon'ble tribunal have raised t e objection that the application is based on false, fabricated nd manufactured documents and no cause of action arise pon such documents. The applicant bank got the signature of t e defendants on blank documents while granting the loan f cilities to the defendants. This Tribunal has gone through the ocuments which are duly filled and executed by the

¶19

¶20

T.A. No. 178 of 2023

¶21

•^{efendants and this Tribunal is of the view that plea of blank} ocuments is no plea in the eyes of law as has been held by t e Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of "Indian Bank Vs. heese Wafers (India) Pvt. Ltd. It was held if the defendants ave not filed any complaint before higher authorities of the ank or filed any complaint before police authorities ". Thus, t e plea of blank documents is not maintainable after filing of t e suit and the same is rejected.

¶22

The defendants have also challenged the statement of ccount of the bank stating as fabricated and manufactured. urther, LC number and Hundi number are contrary to the rovision of banking guidelines and alleged claim is without any asis. This Tribunal is of the view that statement of account is uly certified under Section 4 of the Bankers Books of vidences Act ana the same cannot be challenged unless pecific entry is pointed by the defendants. Hence, the said bjection is not maintainable and the same is hereby rejected.

¶23

It has been submitted that defendant no.3 has also filed ritten statement and submitted that liability of the defendant 0.2 is beyond question and he cannot plead any defense to r -fuse to pay the amounts. It has also been submitted that efendant no.3 also filed a complaint against defendant no.2 efore National Commission for Redressal of disputes.

¶24

The defendant no.1 through official liquidator submitted t at vide order dated 10.08.2004, the Hon'ble Court wound up t e company and appointed as official liquidator and as per r -cords, Sn.Yogesh Kumar Goel, Sh.D.B.S.Gill, Sh.Ashok Kumar harma, Sh.Kulbir Singh(Expired), and Sh.S.S.Lamba were irectors. The office of OL took possession of factory situated t B-2, B-3, bearing No.D-22, Industrial Focal Point, Dera Bassi,

¶25

T.A. No. 178 of 2023

¶26

unjab and was sold for Rs.3.12 crores on 02.02.2006 as per •rder of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and handed over the •ossession to purchaser on 14.08.2006. The criminal •^{omplaint No.14/2003 filed under Section 454 of Companies} ct 1956 has been disposed of on 25.08.2004. The OL office i vited claims through newspaper publication and disbursed t e amount to IDBI as interim payment of Rs.2.50 crores and s.39,58,770/- on 06.02.2019. Due to non availability of bank •etails / proper addresses, amount of Rs.3,85,477/- of 10 orkers transferred to RBI as Unclaimed Dividend on 0.08.2019. The claim of IDBI not satisfied fully and no ovable assets could be recovered charged to Punjab & Sind :ank to make payment due to lack of fund. The OL submitted t at company has been dissolved by Hon'ble High Court vide •rder dated 11.12.2019 and there is no fund of company, •ooks closed and OL is discharged.

¶27

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its vidence by way of the documents such as Statement of I ishonoured Bills/hundies, Letter of Credit along with Purchase greement dated 01.01.1999, Letter dated 28.08.1999 for onfirming the Authority to open LC, Letter dated 30.08.1999 f Defendant no.2, Letter dated 28.08.1999 for Confirmation f LC, Letter dated 04.09.1999 reg Confirmation for payment n Due Dates of Bills, Letter dated 28.08.1999 for Discounting nclosed Bills, Letter of Credit along with Purchase Agreement ated 14.09.1999, Letter dated 21.09.1999 seeking onfirmation of Bills, Letter dated 22.09.1999 regarding onfirmation, Letter of Credit with Purchase Agreement dated 7.10.1999, Letter dated 15.10.1999 seeking Confirmation of ills, Letter dated 16.10.1999, Letter dated 22.11.1999, Letters ated 16.12.1999, 15.01.2000, 17.01.2000, 31.01.2000, 4.02.2000, 06.05.2000, 16.03.2001 for making payment of

¶28

Mit

¶29

T.A. No. 178 of 2023

¶30

ills, Recall Notice, UPC & Regd. Post Receipts/AD Cards, ower of Attorney

¶31

The witness of the applicant bank has fully corroborated t e averments made in this O.A. The evidence lead by the pplicant bank which consists of mainly written / typed •ocuments has gone unchallenged and there is no question of • isbelieving the same based upon the documents. This ribunal has also observed that not an iota vidence/documents has been led by the defendants against t e claim of the applicant bank and has made only submission •n fact as stated in the written statement evidence. In the civil •roceedings it cardinal principle, that whosoever alleges a fact e/she has to prove in the court of law by leading evidence ere assertion are not sufficient and nowhere defendants have

¶32

•enied about the availment of the loan.

¶33

In view of the above facts and circumstances, this ribunal is of the view that the defendants have failed to

¶34

c •nvince this Tribunal and this Tribunal do not find any merit nd reject the contentions of the defendants as baseless. I ereby allow this O.A. as the applicant bank has proved its laim beyond reasonable doubt.

¶35

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

¶36

ORDER

¶37

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants no.1 and 2 to

¶38

ay to the applicant bank, jointly or severally, within a period f 30 days, a sum of Rs.44,01,319/- (Rupees Forty Four Lacs one Thousand Three Hundred Nineteen only) together with

¶39

¶40

T.A. No. 178 of 2023

¶41

p ndentelite and future interest @18.50% per annum along ith costs from the date of filing of this application till the date orealization failing which the aforesaid amount shall be r •covered from the sale of movable and immovable properties odefendant no.1 and 2. ( I) The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent t e Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi. ( II) Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer, RT I, Delhi on 28.04.2026.
( V) Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be s nt to all concerned free of cost. (GOVIND BALLABH S ARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI
ictated and pronounced in open court) ated: 26.02.2026 I

p ndentelite and future interest @18.50% per annum along
ith costs from the date of filing of this application till the date
orealization failing which the aforesaid amount shall be
r •covered from the sale of movable and immovable properties
odefendant no.1 and 2.
( I)
The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent
t e Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi.
( II)
Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer,
RT I, Delhi on 28.04.2026.

( V) Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be
s nt to all concerned free of cost.
(GOVIND BALLABH S ARMA)
PRESIDING OFFICER
DRT-I, DELHI

ictated and pronounced in open court)
ated: 26.02.2026
I

¶42

Idbi Bank Ltd. v. M/s Core Organics Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idbi Bank Ltd. v. M/s Core Organics Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Gurdev Singh

Canara Bank versus Ramesh Kumar

Hdfc Bank versus Pukhraj Singh

Bank of Baroda versus Surekha

Mr Abdul Mannan And Anr. versus Axis Bank

State Bank of India versus Vipin