Allowed

Bank of Baroda (Vijaya Bank ) v. M/S Elite Enterprises

DRT22 Jun 2026TA/2099/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by Bank of Baroda against three defendants for recovery of Rs. 1.61 crore. The court found the prima facie case established via affidavit evidence due to the defendants' default and absence, directing payment and recovery from hypothecated/mortgaged assets.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs. 1.61 crore with interest and costs within 30 days. Recovery from mortgaged properties and hypothecated assets in case of failure.

Bank of Baroda (Vijaya Bank ) versus M/S Elite Enterprises — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

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

¶2

TA No.2099 OF 2023

¶3

BANK OF BARODA (VrJAyA BANK) VS M/S ELITE ENTERPRISES & ORS

¶4

Reserued on : 18.05.2026 Pronounced on : 22.06.2026

¶5

Bank of Baroda (VUaya Bank)

¶6

-Applicant bank

¶7

Vs.

¶8

M/s Elite Enterprises

¶9

Mrs. Anju Seth

¶10

Mr. Mukesh Kumar Defendants

¶11

Present Ms. Megha Chauhan, Counsel appears for applicant bank. Defendants are exparte, since, 18.08.2025.

¶12

FINAL ORDER

¶13

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 01.01.2018 through Sh. Vipin Kumar, Assistance General Manager and Authorized Officer of the applicant bank, under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,61,88,210/- together with cost, charges and pendentellite and future interest @1L.70o/o from date of filing of this O.A. till the realization in full.

¶14

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant no.l through defendant nos.2 & 3, the applicant bank sanctioned a Working Capital/ Term Loan V-Vyapar Scheme Facility of Rs.1,50,00,0001-, vide sanction letter dated 27.t0.2016. The defendants executed all necessary ,__joaning documents on 'sli,

¶15

¶16

TA NO. 2099 of 2023

¶17

28.10.2016. The defendant nos.2 & 3 executed a letter of guarantee dated 28.10.2016. To secure the above loan due amount' with interest created equitable mortgage immoveable properties and deposited the original title deeds of under given two properties with the applicant bank i.e., (i). Propefi Land & Building bearing Plot No. WZ-36, Chaukhandi Ext, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-110018. (ii). Second &Third Floor with roof rights out of Propefi bearing No.1299, Subhash Nagar, New Delhi. The defendant also secures the loan amounts by way of hypothecation of entire current assets (present & future) including stock of raw material, stock in process, finished goods, goods in transit and receivable/book debts.

¶18

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 29.06 .20L7. The applicant bank serued a demand notice dated 01.07.2017 to the defendants but failed to recover the same. Thus, the^present O.A.fl-.A. is preferred by the applicant bank to recover its dues.

¶19

On notice by this Tribunal, defendants failed to put appearance at all, despite publication. Accordingly, the defendants were^proceeded against exparte^on 18.08.2025.

¶20

The applicant bank has filed^{evidenceby way of} affidavit of Sh. Suresh Chander,^{Senior Managerof the} 9).'

r.G

TA NO. 2099 of 2023

applicant bank as Paper No.1 to Paper No.76, which have gone unchallenged and un-rebutted. Hence, the case of the applicant stands fully established against the defendants with respect to nonpayment of outstanding amount.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

ORDER

¶28

I hereby allow this T.A. of the applicant bank and direct the defendant nos.l to 3 to^{pay jointly} and severally to the applicant bank within 30 days from today, a sum of Rs.1,61,88,2L01- along with cost, expenses and interest @11.70olo from the date of filing of this O.A. which has become T.A till the date of realization.

¶29

In case of failure to deposit the above amount within the stipulated period, the same shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated assets^{and the} sale of mortgage^properties i.e.,^{(i). Land} &^Building bearing Plot No. WZ-36, Chaukhandi^{Ext, Tilak Nagar,} New Delhi-110018.^(ii). Second &^{ThirdFloor with roof} rights out of Property gjg.tsg No.17l99,^Subhash

¶30

¶31

TA NO. 2099 of 2023 4

¶32

Nagar, New Delhi. In case of short fal[, the same shall be recovered from the sale of personal movable and immovable assets of the defendant nos.l to 3.

¶33

Recovery Certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribuna!-Il, Delhi.

¶34

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

¶35

Parties are directed to appear before the Ld. Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi on 24.08 .2026. Pending IAs, if ory, stand disposed of.

¶36

File be consigned to records.

¶37

l-^**;-*

¶38

Date :22.06.2026

¶39

(SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT.II, Dclhi

¶40

This^judgement has been signed, dated and

¶41

pronounced in open court.

¶42

Date :22.06.2026

¶43

9xL : (SUSHIL KUMAR RAsr6bii PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, DCIhi

Bank of Baroda (Vijaya Bank ) v. M/S Elite Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda (Vijaya Bank ) v. M/S Elite Enterprises

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