Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. M/S Aarush Sales Corporation

DRT2 Jul 2026TA/233/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Bank of Baroda's application for recovery of over Rs.53 lakhs advanced to a defendant corporation mortgaged by a guarantor. Despite a defence of blank signatures, the court found the case proved and directed recovery from personal assets and sale of mortgaged shops.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.53,68,785/- with interest directed to be effected through sale of mortgaged properties and from defendants' personal assets.

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Aarush Sales Corporation — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

TA No: 233/2024

¶4

Date of Institution: 09.04.2012 Date of Decision: 02.07.2026

¶5

Bank of Baroda, Branch Office at Gandhi Nagar, Jammu.

¶6

. ..Applicant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

M/s Aarush Sales Corporation Opp. 215 Transit Camp Bari Brahamana Jammu, through its Prop. Smt. Meera Gupta W/o Sh. Sanjeev Gupta R/o Opp. 213 Transit Camp, Bari Brahamana, Jammu.

¶9

Sh. Sanjeev Gupta S/o Sh. Purshotam Lal R/o H.No.132, W.No.12 Opp.215 Transit Camp Bari Brahmana, Jammu.

¶10

Sh. Naresh Kumar S/o Sh. Lal Raj R/o H.No.140 Saraswati Vihar, Barnai, Jammu.

¶11

...Defendants

¶12

Advocates

¶13

Ms. Kanchan Sehgal, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants – ex parte.

¶14

TA for the Recovery of Rs.53,68,785/- with interest @14% per annum with monthly rests from 09.04.2012.

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Bank of Baroda filed the suit for the recovery of Rs.53,68,785/with interest against M/s Aarush Sales Corporation and others (defendants) in the Court of Principal District Judge, Jammu. However, vide order dated 28.02.2023, this suit was transferred by the Court of Additional District Judge, Commercial Court, Jammu to DRT-1, Chandigarh.

¶17

Bank’s case is that on 26.11.2008, it had granted an Overdraft Limit of Rs.40.00 lacs to Defendant No.1 for business purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant No.2 had mortgaged two shops on land measuring 2 Marlas 180 sq.ft under Khasra No.1215min, Khata

¶18

¶19

No.764min, Khewat No.163min situated at Birpur Bari Brahamana Tehsil and District Samba (fully detailed in para No.5 of the plaint). Defendant No.2 and 3 had stood guarantors. The loan was chargeable to interest @0.75% above BPLR with monthly rests. On 09.04.2012, a sum of Rs.53,68,785/- was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this suit.

¶20

On 29.07.2013, Defendants No.1 and 2 had filed their written statement, wherein they alleged that the suit was not filed by the authorized officer; defendant No.2 had never stood guarantor; the suit of the bank is liable to be dismissed, as all the documents used by the Bank on 25.11.2008 had been signed in blank from the defendants and, under the circumstances, executing of any document and sanctioning of loan, prior to filing of the loan application, amounts to contingent contract and is void ab initio. Vide order dated 05.03.2022, Defendant No.3 was proceeded ex parte in the Court of Additional District Judge Bank Cases, Jammu and on 18.05.2026, none appeared on behalf of the defendants before this Tribunal and defendant No.1 and 2 were also proceeded ex parte . 5. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Basant Singh Khokar, Chief Manager along with the loan and original security documents. 6. I have perused the evidence on the record. I am of the considered view that the Bank has proved its case that it had advanced the loan of Rs.40.00 lacs and on 09.04.2012 a sum of Rs.53,68,785/- was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.53,68,785/- (Rupees Fifty-Three Lacs Sixty-Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty-Five Only) with interest @14% per annum with monthly rests from 09.04.2012, till the date of payment is hereby

¶21

¶22

allowed with costs. The liability of all the defendants would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged property(ies) i.e. two shops on land measuring 2 Marlas 180 sq.ft under Khasra No.1215min, Khata No.764min, Khewat No.163min situated at Birpur Bari Brahamana Tehsil and District Samba fully detailed in para No.5 of the plaint as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants.

¶23

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 03.08.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgaged property as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) of the Act . 10. A Copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to the Recovery Officer as well as the parties.

¶24

Pronounced in the open court. (A S Narang) Dated: 02.07.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh HARSH

Bank of Baroda v. M/S Aarush Sales Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. M/S Aarush Sales Corporation

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

State Bank of India versus Mr Ramesh Rai

Lalita Chakraborty versus Truhome Finance Limited and Anr.

West Bengal Gramin Bank versus Phajul Haque, Prop. of Sony Enterprise And Ors.

Syndicate Bank versus M/S Ashoka Paper Products

Gupta Hardware Store versus Shriram City Union Finance Limited

Ms Sanjukta Pharmacy Prop Tapan Barman versus Uco Bank