Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. M/S Beenas Diamond

DRT7 Feb 2026TA/2188/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of dues arising from a defaulted cash credit facility, rejecting defense pleas regarding blank documents, excessive interest, and unchallenged bank statements, and directing payment of principal and interest.

What did the court decide?

Direct defendants to pay Rs. 1,16,41,455/- plus interest at 14.75% p.a. within 30 days or recover from sale of mortgaged property.

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S Beenas Diamond — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

T.A. No.2188 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. 2188 of 2022

¶5

Bank of Maharashtra

¶6

17A/45, WEA Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005

¶7

Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s Beenas Diamond

¶10

Through its proprietress Smt. Simmi Dhingra w/o Sh.Dhruv Dhingra Gold Palaza, Shop no.104

¶11

Gurudwara Road, Naiwala Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005

¶12

Also at:

¶13

Mrs. Simmi Dhingra w/o Sh.Dhruv Dhingra B-32, Swasthya Vihar, Vikas Marg Delhi-110092

¶14

Mr. Dhruv Dhingra s/o Sh. Subhash Dhingra B-32, Swasthya Vihar, Vikas Marg New Delhi-110092

¶15

Mrs. Beena Dhingra w/o Sh.Subhash Dhingra B-32, Swasthya Vihar, Vikas Marg, Delhi-110092 Defendants

¶16

Present: Mr. Prashant Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the bank

¶17

Date of Reserve: 16.01.2026

¶18

Date of Pronouncement: 07.02.2026

¶19

FINAL ORDER

¶20

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 04.07.2017 before DRT-I, Delhi through Shri Darshan Singh, authorized representative of the applicant bank, under

¶21

T.A. No.2188 of 2022

¶22

Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,16,41,455/- (Rupees One Crore Sixteen Lacs Forty One Thousand Four Hundred Fifty Five only) as on 03.07.2017 together with pendentelite and future interest @18% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing of this application till the date of realization and costs.

¶23

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant no.1 through its proprietress Smt.Simmi Dhingra, the applicant bank sanctioned Cash Credit facility for a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) on 14.09.2013 @14.75% floating rate of interest per annum against hypothecation of stocks, book debts and mortgage of property as collateral security for business requirements. The defendant no.2 and 3 stood as guarantors for the credit facility availed by defendant no.1 sanctioned by the applicant bank.

¶24

That in order to avail the loan facility, the defendants no.1 through its proprietress submitted loan application and executed Letter of Proprietorship, Demand Promissory Note, Composite Deed of Hypothecation, Power of Attorney and Guarantee Agreement on 16.09.2013 with the applicant bank.

¶25

That in order to secure the loan facility, the defendant no.2 created equitable mortgage of property i.e. Commercial premises no.14, admeasuring 119 sq. ft., being part of lower Ground Floor in five story commercial building being Municipal no.2529-2531, Part of Khasra no.285, Gali no.6-7, Block-M, Ward-XVI, Naiwala Estate, Beadonpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 by depositing original property documents and executed Mortgagors Declaration for Proposed Equitable

¶26

T.A. No.2188 of 2022

¶27

Mortgage and Original Sale Deed dated 25.07.2013, Memorandum of Record of Equitable Mortgage and Letter of Confirmation of Equitable Mortgage on 18.09.2013 towards applicant bank.

¶28

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that the defendants acknowledged the debt and confirmed balance and security confirmation letter on 19.05.2016 and 19.06.2016.

¶29

It has been submitted that after availing the aforesaid loan facility, the defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions and despite of several requests and reminders, failed to pay the outstanding dues in time to the applicant bank. Ultimately, the applicant bank declared the account as NPA on 26.10.2016 by the applicant bank but no response and hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶30

Notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 dated 22.12.2016 was issued to the defendants but the same was neglected. The applicant bank issued Notice for possession dated 24.05.2017 and taken symbolic possession of mortgaged property duly published in newspapers on 27.05.2017.

¶31

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and filed written statement but failed to exhibit documents hence right to exhibit documents of the defendants was closed as per order dated 28.10.2024. cd-

¶32

T.A. No.2188 of 2022

¶33

It has been submitted that defendants have raised the objection that the applicant bank has got the signature of the defendants on blank documents while granting the loan facilities to the defendants. This Tribunal has gone through the documents which are duly filled and executed by the defendants and this Tribunal is of the view that plea of blank documents is no plea in the eyes of law as has been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of "Indian Bank Vs. Cheese Wafers (India) Pvt. Ltd. It was held if the defendants have not filed any complaint before higher authorities of the bank or filed any complaint before police authorities ". Thus, the plea of blank documents is not maintainable after filing of the suit and the same is rejected.

¶34

It has also been submitted by the defendants the applicant bank has charged the exorbitant rate of interest, this Tribunal is of the view that as per the provision of Section 19(20) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 which is analogous to Section 34 of CPC, on filing of the suit/claim, the contract between the parties comes to an end and the Court/Tribunal has a discretion to award the same depending upon the circumstances of each case. Same principle has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra & Others. Taking stock of all the circumstances and keeping in view that there is a drastic fall in rates of interest globally and domestically, I am of the opinion that interest of justice will be served if the interest at the rate of 14.75% p.a. is awarded.

¶35

The defendants have also challenged the statement of account of the bank but this Tribunal is of the view that statement of account is duly certified under Section 4 of the

¶36

sd-

¶37

T.A. No.2188 of 2022

¶38

Bankers Books of Evidences Act and the same cannot be challenged unless specific entry is pointed by the defendants. Hence, the said objection is not maintainable and the same is hereby rejected.

¶39

The witness of the applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments made in this O.A. The evidence lead by the applicant bank which consists of mainly written / typed documents has gone unchallenged and there is no question of disbelieving the same based upon the documents. This Tribunal has also observed that not an iota evidence has been led by the defendants against the claim of the applicant bank and has made only submission on fact as stated in the written statement evidence. That in the civil proceedings it cardinal principle, that whosoever alleges a fact he/she has to prove in the court of law by leading evidence mere assertion are not sufficient and nowhere defendants have denied about the availment of the loan.

¶40

In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Tribunal is of the view that the defendants have failed to convince this Tribunal and this Tribunal do not find any merit and reject the contentions of the defendants as baseless.

¶41

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Sh.Surendra Singh, authorized representative of applicant bank who has proved the documents such as Gazette Notifications, Sanction Letter, Letter of Proprietorship, Demand Promissory Note, Composite Deed of Hypothecation, Power of Attorney, Guarantee for all Facilities, Mortgagor's Declaration for proposed Equitable Mortgage, Sale Deed, Memorandum of Record of Equitable

¶42

T.A. No.2188 of 2022

¶43

Mortgage, Letter of Confirmation of Equitable Mortgage, Letters, Balance & Security Confirmation Letters, Notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, Possession Notice, Newspapers Publication, Statement of Account and Valuation Report marked as Annexure A to Annexure S from page no.1 to 136.

¶44

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.

¶45

15.^{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.

¶46

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

¶47

ORDER

¶48

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank, jointly or severally, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.1,16,41,455/- (Rupees One Crore Sixteen Lacs Forty one Thousand Four Hundred Fifty Five only) as on 03.07.2017 together with pendentelite and future interest @18.00% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing of this application till the date of realization, failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of property i.e. commercial premises bearing Pvt No.14, admeasuring 119 sq. ft., Lower Ground Floor, Municipal no.2529-2531, being part of Khasra no.285 situated in Gali no.6-7, Block-M, WardXVI, Naiwala Estate, Beadonpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-

¶49

¶50

T.A. No.2188 of 2022

¶51