Allowed

Punjab National Bank v. M/s Gamman Global Exports

DRT25 Mar 2026TA/20/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of a loan defaulting account. The court rejected defenses regarding unsigned documents and forgery, finding the bank proved its case. The application is deemed abated against one respondent who failed to appear.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay Rs.3,58,44,434/- along with interest at 12.75% p.a. and costs within 30 days. Recovery certificate to be issued.

Punjab National Bank versus M/s Gamman Global… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

->l

¶2

¶3

Before SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI, Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi

¶4

TAl20l2024

¶5

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK VS M/S GAMMAN GLOBAL EXPORTS & ORS.

¶6

Reserued on : 1O.O2.2026

¶7

Pronounced on : 25.O3.2026

¶8

Punjab National Bank - Applicant bank

¶9

Vs.

¶10

M/s Gamman Global Expofts

¶11

Shri. Mahan Mukherjee

¶12

Shri. Rajinder S. Rai Kawar

¶13

Shri. Anil Kumar Jaggi

¶14

Shri. Aruind Johri

¶15

Smt. Shanti Devi

¶16

Miss Stella Anima Biswas

¶17

Smt. Saifali Mukherjee

¶18

Shri. A. Bannerjee

¶19

Smt. Ram Rakhi -^Defendants

¶20

Present: Shri. Ved Prakash Bhatt, Counsel appears for applicant bank.

¶21

Shri I.S. Chauhan, Counsel for defendant no.4 along with Shri Anil Kumar Jaggil defendant no.4 appeared in person. None for other defendants.

¶22

FINAL ORDER

¶23

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 18.02.2005 through Shri. Nirbhay Kumar, Senior Manager and Principal Officer and duly Constituted Attorney of the applicant bank, under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,58,44,434/- along with further interest thereupon @12.75o/o p.a. from the date of fi!ling of this O.A till the date of realization in full.

¶24

The brief facts of the case are that at the request

¶25

of defendant nos. 2 & 3 ac!!g+on behalf of defendant U.i

¶26

TA NO/2012024

¶27

¶28

no.l, the applicant bank sanctioned a Cash Credit (Hyp) Limit Facility of Rs.20 Lacs, vide sanction letter dated 07.09.2001. The defendant nos.l to 3 executed all necessary loaning documents on 07.09.2001. The defendant nos.2, 3 and 10 simultaneously executed agreement to guarantee dated 07.09.2001 in favour of applicant bank. Again, at the request of defendant nos.l to 3 in the month of March, 2002, the applicant bank enhanced a Loan Facilities i.e., (a). Cash Credit (Hyp) of Rs.65 Lacs. (b). Cash Credit (Book Debt) of Rs.15 lacs and Overall Ceiling of Rs.65 Lacs (c). ILC (DCA/DP) of Rs.30 Lacs. (d). ILG of Rs.5 Lacs, vide sanction letter dated 08.03.2002. The defendant nos.1 to 3 executed all necessary loaning documents on 08.03.2002 and t7.L2.2002. The defendant nos.5,6,8,9 and 10 simultaneously executed agreement to guarantee dated 08.03.2002 in favour of applicant bank. Again, at the request of defendant nos.1 to 3, the applicant bank enhanced the loan facilities and an additional ad-hoc Limit of Rs.35 Lacs, vide sanction letter dated 13.08.2002. The defendant nos.1 to 3 executed all necessary loaning documents on 14.08.2002. The defendant nos.5 ,6,8,9 and 10 executed guarantee agreement dated 14.08.2002. Again, at the request of defendant nos.1 to 3, the applicant bank sanctioned the enhancement of Cash Credit (Hyp) Limit of Rs.125 Lacs and Cash Credit^(Book Debt) Limit of Rs.15.00 Lac and renewal of non-fundbased Limits of Rs.35.00 Lacs, vide sanction letter dated 03.02.2003. The defendant nos.1 to 3 executed all necessry loaning documents on 08.02.2003. The defendant nos. 5 to 10 agreed to act as guarantor for the loan amount in question and executed guarantee agreements in favour of a nt bank. Again, the s4

¶29

TA NO/2012024

¶30

¶31

request of defendant nos.l to 3, the applicant bank enhanced and sanctioned an additional Packing Credit & FOBNLC Limit Facilities of Rs. 150 Lacs, vide sanction letter dated 10.03.2003. The defendant nos.l to 3 executed all necessary loaning documents on 13.03.2003. The defendant nos.4 to 10 agreed to act as guarantors. It is submitted that defendant^nos.2 to 10, acting as guarantors for the loan transaction involved, executed guarantee agreements on different dates. The defendant nos.4,6,7 and 10^created mortgages of his/her/their^properties in favour of applicant bank by way of deposit of title deed and^with an intention to create the mortgage deposited of^the properties to the applicant bank. i.e., (i). Residential Plot with building erected thereon bearing no.284ⁱⁿ Block-A in the lay out^plan of New Friends CHBS Colony New Delhi measuring 485.2 Sq. Yds by the defendant no.4. (ii). Residential Plot with building erected thereon bearing no N-154 situated at Greater^{KailashPart 1$} New Delhi measuring 300 Sq. Yds by the defendant no.6. (iii). Residential building erected bearing^no. 65ⁱⁿ Block-B situated at Paschimi Marg Vacant Vicar^New Delhi measuring 485.2 Sq Yds by the defendant^no.7. (iv). Residential propefi with land and building erected thereon bearing Municipal no 208 Old Gupta^Colony Delhi constructed on fee hold^plot of Iand bearing^no.1 measuring 260 Sq Yds by the defendant no.10.^In Primary security of the above said loan facilities,^the defendant nos.1 to 3 hypothecated the stocks of^rice lying in the godowns situated at village Mukhmailpur, Alipur Karnal Road, Delhi, in favour of applicant bank. The applicant bank asked the defendants no.1 to 3 for verification of hypothecated stocks lying in the^godown at Village Mukhmailpur*Alipur, but the defendants gl^r..

¶32

¶33

TA NO/2012024

¶34

deliberately refused to cooperate. Accordingly, applicant bank had no option but to take physical possession of hypothecated goods lying in the godown at Mukhmailpur Alipur Karnal Road, Delhi belonging to defendant no.1. Accordingly, the applicant bank officials visited the site on 29.03.2004. However, the godown was found locked and the defendants nos.1 to 3 were not willing to cooperate with the applicant bank regarding the preparation of inventory and / or to hand over the possession of stocks lying therein in terms of hypothecation agreement accordingly, the applicant bank officials put seal over the locks of defendants nos.1 to 3 and took constructive possession of the godown without opening its lock. A notice to this effect was affixed on the gate of godown by applicant bank officials on 29.03.2004. It is submitted that during the pendency of the present Original Application, total rice stocks etc. have been sold by the applicant bank in a public auction held on 25.02.2005 for a consideration of Rs.12.61 Lacs. Auction was conducted at site in the presence of Public Notary and other witnesses, out of which Rs.1,15,000.00 have been paid to the landlord towards the rent due for godowns by defendants @ Rs.10,000.00 per month and balance Rs.11.46 lacs has been settled towards the loan amount in the present Original Application.

¶35

It is fufther submitted that the defendants enjoyed and utilized the Loan facility, 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 ctasS{ed as NPA on 31.03.2004.

TA NO/20/2024

Therefore, the applicant bank serued a legal notice dated L5.07.2004 to the defendants but failed to recover the same Thus, the present O.Afl-A is preferred by the applicant bank to recover its dues.

¶40

On notice by this Tribunal, the defendant nos.1 to 9 put appearance through counsel. The defendant nos.2,4,7 and t have filed written statement. The defendant nos.3 & 4 have filed their evidence. Thereafter, the defendant nos.5 & 6 failed to put appearance in the matter. Accordingly, the defendant nos.5 & 6 were proceeded against exparte on 22.11.2006.

¶41

In their written statement the defendant no.3 has denied the facts mentioned in the OA. It is submitted that the^{presentplaint/original} application has not been signed, verified nor instituted by duly authorized and competent person. Hence the^present application deserues to be dismissed on this^ground alone. The present suit is based on false, fabricated and manufactured documents. It is submitted that no cause of action can arise upon such documents. The documents^purpofting to be statements of accounts are also wrong. It is further submitted that at the time of the opening of the account, various documents, unfilled and undated printed^performs, blank letter heads and even unfilled and undated printed performs containing blank spaces upon which on some even revenue stamps had been affixed were obtained by the officers of the applicant bank. It is submitted that the applicant bank has also sought to debiVcharge interest over and above the rates of interest mentioned in the documents heavily relied upon by it. The present application is not maintainable in its present{orm and deserue its outright

TA NO/2012024

dismissal. It is fufther submitted the defendant no.1 was a leading firm expofting best quality Basmati Rice. It is fufther submitted that the customer of the firm has immense faith in the name of the firm for the quality of the rice supplied by the defendant and enjoys a remarkable goodwil! among its customers. It is further submitted that the applicant bank has not disclosed the full and true story of the case before thls Hon'ble Tribunal with a motive to get undue advantage by suppressing the material facts. It is further submitted that the applicant bank has concealed the fact that while the godown was in the^possession of the applicant bank, a major fire broke out in the^godown due to the negligence of the applicant bank officia!. It is further submitted that to extinguish the fire^{which had broken} out at the godown, rather than using^othermethods available to control the fire, the^{applicantbank being} fully aware of the fact that the^{godownis full of valuable} rice, doused the^godown with the^{water. It is fufther} submitted that due to the above^{negligent act done by} the applicant bank the entire rice^{stock lying in the} godown being a perishable commodity,^got wet and due the non-conseruation and mishandling^{by the applicant} bank herein, lost it market value. It^{is submitted that} the applicant bank failed to^protect the^{rice stock of the} defendant, worth crores with a^{reasonable care and} thus are liable to the defendant to indemnify^{for the loss} caused to the defendant due to negligence of^the applicant bank. It is submitted that the stock of^rice which lost its market value was itself sufficient^{to satisfy} the entire dues of the applicant bank. On this^ground alone the Original Application, deserues to be^rejected. It is submitted that the entire stock of rice of^the defendant was insured fgqr\fire and other mode of

TA NO/2012024

destruction. It is further submitted that at the time fire had broken out at the godown the defendant herein were not in the possession of the stock and the applicant bank was in complete possession of the godown, it is also submitted that the applicant bank was fully aware of the stock being insured for. It is further submitted that the applicant bank even being aware of the aforesaid insurance, rather than claiming the insured amount sold the rice in a great hasty and suspicious manner at a throw away^price, for the reason best known to them. That the conduct of the applicant bank raises a serious^question mark on the tactics applied by the bank to harass the borrower. It^is further submitted that the applicant bank cannot claim^any money due from the defendant as they^themselves have waived it by not raising the insurance^{claim before} the insurer. Thus, the^present Original^Application deserues rejection on this^ground alone. It^{is fufther} submitted that if the applicant bank has^{had claimed} the insurance amount for which the^{stock was insured} and the remaining rice stock would^{have been the sold} in a fair manner, the liability of the defendant^herein could have been discharged. It is further submitted^that the applicant bank failed to explore all the^methodsfor realizing the loan amount which a reasonable^person could have explored and thus the answering defendant is not liable to^pay any amount in the^given facts and circumstance. It is submitted that due to the negligence on the^part of the applicant bank the much-valued^stock of Basmati rice, lost its market value and the applicant bank sold it for a throw away^price with the connivance of some grain dealer. It is further submatted that the conduct of the officials of the bank in selling the entire stock of the rice, without any information to the S^

¶50

¶51

TA NO/20/2024

¶52

defendants cast a serious doubt about the authenticity and transparency of that transaction. It^is fufther submitted that the applicant bank instead of claiming the insurance money for the^{loss causedto the} stock by fire, willingly waived it off^{by not claiming the} insurance amount from the^{insurer. Thus, considering} this fact alone the^{present OriginalApplication is liable} to be rejected. It is^{submitted that the applicantbank} should act in a fair^{and reasonable manner.The} Financial Institutions^{must work in a manner that} protects not only their interest^{but should not unduly} and unlawfully^{prejudice the rights of the borrower} which he enjoys under^{the holy constitution of this} country. It^{is submittedthat duringthe pendency of the} present Original Application^{the applicant bank entered} into a settlement^{with the M/s Ekkta Buildwell for an} amount of^{Rupees one crore, which this Hon'ble} Tribunal was^{pleased to record the settlementon} 09.06.2011,^{wherebyall the claims of the applicant} bank^got discharged^{against the property bearingno.} N-154, Greater^{Kailash,New Delhi, admeasuring300} Sq.yards.Itisfurthersubmittedthatthe aforementioned^{propefiwhichhad been mortgagedby} the defendant^{no.6, having a market value of Rupees} Ten Crores and^{the bank instead of proceedingfurther} to realize its^{dues went for the settlement with M/s} Ekkta Buildwell for^{an amountmuch less than the} market^price of^{the propefi. The settlement entered by} the appticant bank^{with M/s Ektta Buildwellis} completely^{prejudicial to the applicantand the conduct} of the bank^{amountsthe waiving off the entire dues} against the defendant.^{It is further submitted that as} the applicant bank^{by their conduct had relinquished} and waived off the^{claims which could have been}

TA NO/2012024

realized against the aforementioned Froperty, the defendant should be discharged from all the liabilities claimed by the applicant bank. On this ground alone this Original Application merits rejection. It is submitted that copy of some document supplied by the applicant bank is not legible and all the necessary defense which the defendant may have, could not be raised by the defendant due to non-legible nature of the documents. That it is further submitted that applicant bank has deliberately supplied non legible copy of documents to the defendant no. 3 with the ulterior motives. The counsel of the defendant no. 3 again pointed out several times before this Hontle Tribunal about the non-legible character of^copy of^certain documents and by Order dated 01.09.2008,^{this Hon'ble} Tribunal^pleased to direct the applicant^{bank to supply} the legible copy of the documents^{to the counsel of the} defendant no.3 within one week of^{the above said} Order. It is submitted that despite^{direction of this} Hon'ble Tribunal to supply the legible^{copy of the} documents to the counsel of the defendant^{no.3, the} applicant bank has not supplied^{the same till date in the} complete disregard of the Order of this^Hon'ble Tribunal. It is^prayed that this Honble^{Tribunal may} dismiss the^present O.A.

¶57

In their written statement the^{defendant no.4 has} denied the facts mentioned in the^OA. It^{is submitted} that the application filed by the applicant bank^{is not} maintainable and liable to summary rejection^against the defendant no.4 as the defendant no.4^{never stood} guarantor nor executed any guarantee nor deposited the original title deeds of the^property bearing^{No. A} 284, New Friends Colony, New Delhi with the applicant bank at any^point of [img and^perusa! of the^records

TA NO/20/2024

would show that the documents placed on the records at Page No. 370 to 377, i.e., an Agreement of Guarantee dated 5.4.2003 bears the signatures as 'Anil Kumar Jaggi' in Hindi which are neither the signatures nor the handwriting of the defendant no. 4 and it is interesting to point out that fraud is patent on the face of it as none of the signatures so done on each page, does not matching with each other's what to talk of those as signatures of defendant no. 4 and in some of the places instead of "Anil" it is mentioned as "Amil and the applicant has been shown in occupation of gold, which occupation is totally foreign to the applicant and no para of the said Guarantee Agreement is in writing of the defendant no. 4. Thus, anything written in that Guarantee Agreement, is not binding upon the defendant no. 4 and no action can be initiated against him. Secondly, the Conveyance Deed placed on the record as Page 408 to 413 and Lease Deed from Page 4L4 to 429 is also forged and fabricated and^purposely originals have not been^placed on the records. The father of the defendant no. 4 is in^possession of the originals of the Conveyance Deed and as that of Perpetual Lease Deed and no equitable moftgage can be created in respect of the immoveable^propeny without deposit of the original title deeds. It is further pointed out that besides the applicant bank, three other banks, i.e., Canara Bank, Union Bank of India 18/05, L05/0484L104. and Bank of India in O.A. No. 18 are claiming having originals with them and the defendant no. 4 is also claiming that the originals are with his father and as such it is a clear-cut fabrication by the other defendants along with the bank officials so as to deprive the defendant no. 4 from his propefi. It is further pointed out that the fraud is patent on the face t\

¶62

t l

¶63

TA NO/20/2024

¶64

of it as perusal of Page- 429 which is alleged to have been the part of the Perpetual Lease Deed dated 17th December, 1981, having executed by the President of India, the New Friends Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. and Lessee Shri Nand Lal shown to be presented by Shri Surinder l-al S/o Shri Nand Lal and has been signed by one Shri Brij Lal Sawanni as Office Secretary of the New Friends Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. and it contains the name of the defendant no. 4 as Anil Kumar S/o Shri Maqsudan Lal Jaggi, where the signatures are in English as "A.K. Jaggi Still the applicant bank never cared to tally these signatures at the time of seeking the^{guaranteewith the} originals The Affidavit on Page 430 43L is^also fabricated and an application to the Bank at^{Page 432} and 433 shows to be letter of continuity at^Page signatures in Hindi of the defendant no. 4,^{which is} neither the signatures nor the handwriting of defendant no. 4. Any of these documents and in letter of^continuity again signatures are as "Anil Kumar^{Jaggi Letter of} Continuity and Letter of Deposit of^{Title Deeds refers} that the Deeds were deposited on 6.7.2002,^whereas the Guarantee Agreement is Dated 5.4.2003^{and as} such it is beyond comprehension of any^reasonable person as to when for the first time Guarantee Agreement was executed on 5.4.2003, where^{was the} question of deposit of Title Deeds on 6.7.2002 or swearing an Affidavit on 21st June, 2002.^{Nowhereit is} mentioned as to why what for these documents^were received by the bank and who delivered it and^who received it on behalf of the bank. It is not out of^place to mention here that the bank has not written a single letter to the defendant no. 4 at any^point of time of any officials of the bank kind whatsoever and as thg gr\

¶65

TA NO/20/2024 t2

¶66

were fully aware that the whole^{of the transaction is} fabricated so far as the defendant^{no.4 is concerned} and it is the officials of^{the bank who in connivance with} the other defendants other^{than defendant no. 4 have} misappropriated and^{usurp the money belongingto the} bank as other^{defendants appear to be close relatives} of the defendant^{no. 2 who initially startedthe account.} The application^{thus liable to be dismissed forthwith. It} is further submitted^{that since the defendantno 4 has} claimed above^{that the original title deeds are with his} father, he undertakes^{to producethe originals for} demonstration^{before this Hon'bleCourt as and when} so directed or^{required or comparisonof the true, i'e',} filed on the^{recordsor claimedby the bank with them} and with the^{applicantwould show the forgery. It is} further submitted^{that Delhi Development Authority} preparesfoursetsofthedocumentsforwhich signatures are^{obtained in their office and thereafter} one is retained^{in their office and three are returned for} presentation with^{the concerned sub-Registrarto the} party concerned and^{sub-Registrar after receiving the} 53me returns^{the originals to the concernedparty,} retain a copy^{with him and dispatchone copy to the} Delhi Development^{Authorityand in this process it} appears that^{officials of the bank along with other} defendants^{have either stolen or createdthese} documents^{and kept with them. Nobody can believe} that there^{can be deposit of title deedsof originalswith} four banks^{and at the same time the party concerned} may retain it^{with him also. This is a serious matter and} such a fraud^{cannotbe exercised by anyonewithout the} connivance^{of the bank officials. The present application} is thus liable^{to be dismissed. It is prayed that this} Honble Tribunal^{maY dismiss the presentO'A'} C,\

¶67

¶68

TA NO/2012024

¶69

T.Theapplicantbankanddefendantnos.3&4 have filed their^{respective evidence'}

¶70

S.HeardtheLd.CounselofapplicantbankandLd. counsel for^{defendant no.4 and perused the record.}

¶71

In^{the writtenstatement, the defendant no.3 has} raisedobjectionthattheoAhasnotbeenfiledbythe competentpersonwhoisauthorizedtoverifyandfile thepresentoA.Fromperusaloftherecord,itisclear that the^{officer of the bank has been authorized by the} banktofilethepresentoAandtherefore,the contentionofthedefendantno.3thattheoAhasnot been Rled^{by authorized person has no force'}

¶72

t0.Thenextcontentionofthedefendantno.3inthe written^{statement is that the oA has been filed without} anycauseofaction.Inthisregardlhavegonethrough therecord.Fromperusaloftherecord,itisclearthat the applicant^{bank has issued legal notice to the} defendanttorepaytheamountdueandthedefendants have failed^{to repay the entire due amountand} therefore,thecauseofactiontofiletheoAhasduly ariseandtherefore,thecontentionofthedefendant no.3 has^{no force.}

¶73

ll.Thenextcontentionofthedefendantno.3isthat theapplicantbankhasnotfiledthecompletestatement ofaccountasrequiredaspertherules.Inthisregardl haveperusedtherecord.onperusaloftherecord,itis clearthattheapplicantbankhasfiledthecomplete statement^{of account. Therefore,there is no force in} the contention^{of the defendant no'3'}

¶74

L2.Thenextcontentionofthedefendantno.3isthat theapplicantbankhasobtainedsignaturesontheblank proformas,^{thereforq, the said paper cannot be relied} e)

¶75

¶76

TA NO/2012024

¶77

upon. But^{the contentionof the defendanthas no} force. The^{defendantis well educated businessman,} therefore,^{it cannot be presumedthat they have signed} the^{papers without going through the conditionsof the} sanction letter.^{Further, the defendant has never filed} anycomplaintbeforethecompetentforuminthis regard.

¶78

The^{next contentionof the defendant no.3 is that} the applicant^{bank has chargedexorbitantrate of} interest. on^{the other hand, the Ld. counselof the bank} has submitted^{that the interesthas been charged as per} agreementbetweentheparties.Inthisregardlhave gonethroughtherecord.Fromperusalofthestatement of account,^{it is clear that the applicant bank is charging} rate of^{interest as per agreement.Therefore,it cannot} besaidthattheapplicantbankischargingexorbitant rate of^interest.

¶79

L4. The^{Ld. counsel of the defendantno'4 has} submittedthathehasneverexecutedtheguarantee nor deposited^{the original title deed of the propefi} bearing^{no. 284 in Block-A in the lay out plan of New} Friends^{CHBS Colony New Delhi. It is submittedthat the} defendantno.4hasneverdepositedtheoriginaltitle deedtotheapplicantbankastheoriginaltitledeeds are lying^{with the father of defendant no'4' It is fufther} submittedthatfourbanKareclaimingtheoriginaltitle deedshavebeendepositedwiththem.Itissubmitted thatCanaraBank,UnionBankoflndia'BankofBaroda andtheapplicantbankisclaimingthatthattheoriginal titledeedshavebeendepositedwiththem.Howitcan bepossibletodepositoriginaltitledeedtofourbanks whichshowsthattheagreementdocumentsarefalse andfabricated.Itisjurthersubmittedthatthereare 5A

TA NO/2012024

variations in the^{signature of Anil Kumar Jaggi in} different documents.^{Insome documentsthe} signatures are^{in Hindi and in some documents instead} of Anil it^{has been written as Amil and the signatures} appears to^{be differentif we compare with a naked eye.} Therefore,^{it is submittedthat the signatures are forged} and fabricated.^{In this regard I have perused the} documents.^{From perusalof the record there appears} no such differences^{in the signatures that it can be said} that^{prima facie they are forged and fabricated. It is for} the^{persons to either sign the document in Hindi or in} English and^{if the defendant no.4 has done so it cannot} be deemed^{that these are not the signatures of} defendant^{no.4. Therefore,the contention of defendant} no.4 has^{no force.}

¶84

The^{next contentionof Ld. counse! of defendant} no.4 is that^{the originaltitle deed has not been filed by} the applicant^{bank in the present oA and therefore, the} oA cannot^{be decreed.From perusalof the record it is} clear that^{the original title deedshave been seized by} theCBlandtheyarelyingwiththeCBl.Therefore, merelybecausetheoriginaltitledeedshasnotbeen filedbytheapplicantbankbeforethisTribunal,theoA cannot be^dismissed.

¶85

16.Fromperusaloftheentireevidence,itisclearthat thedefendantshavefailedtoprovetheircaseas claimed^{in the writtenstatement.on the other hand,the} applicant^{bank has proved his case against the} defendants^{and therefore,the defendants are liable to} payjointlyandseverallytheamountclaimedbythe applicantbankandtheoMrAoftheapplicantbankis liable to^{be allowed.} , . sA

¶86

¶87

TA NO/20t2024 16

¶88

The Ld. counsel of the applicant has filed the application for impleadment of LRs of defendant no.6 but has not pursued the appliiation and therefore, no order has been passed on the said application. In the light of the above the OA shall be deemed to be abated against defendant no.6 and no order can be^passed against the defendant no.6 or the legal representatives of defendant no.6. The defendant no.10 has been deleted vide order dated 23.LL.2007.

¶89

In the light of the above discussions, the^present TA deserves to be allowed.

¶90

ORDER

¶91

I hereby allow this T.A. of the Applicant Bank and direct the defendant nos.1 to 5 and 7 to 9 to^{pay jointly} and severally to the applicant bank within 30 days^from today, a sum of Rs.3,58,44 ,4341- along with cost, expenses and interest @L2.75o/o from the date of filing of this O.A which has become TA till the date of realization.

¶92

In case of failure to deposit the above amount within the stipulated period, the same shall be recovered from the sale of the hypothecated assets and the sale of the mortgaged^propefties (i). Residential Plot with building erected thereon bearing no.284 in Block-A in the lay out plan of New Friends CHBS Colony New Delhi measuring 485.2 Sq. Yds and^{(ii)Residential} building erected bearing no. 65 in Block-B situated at Paschimi Marg Vacant Vicar New Delhi measuring 485.2 Sq Yds. In case of short fall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of personal movable and immovable assets of the defendant nos.1 to 5 and 7 to 9.

¶93

¶94

TA NO/20t2024 t7

¶95

Recovery Ceftificate be issued forthwith and be sent to Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi.

¶96

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

¶97

Parties are direct to appear before the^Ld. Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi on 25.05 .2026. Pending IAs, if ?fly, stand disposed of.

¶98

File be consigned to records.

¶99

tS-ti

¶100

Date: 25.03.2026

¶101

(SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

¶102

This^judgement has been signed, dated and

¶103

pronounced in open court.

¶104

€)

¶105

Date :25.03,2026 (SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

¶106

Punjab National Bank v. M/s Gamman Global Exports

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. M/s Gamman Global Exports

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