Allowed

Punjab and Sind Bank v. M/S Arun Dev Builders Limited

DRT23 Feb 2026TA/277/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by PUBG & SIND BANK for recovery of dues against M/s ARUN DEV BUILDERS and others. The tribunal held the application maintainable, dismissed contentions regarding unauthorized debits and exorbitant interest, and directed immediate payment.

What did the court decide?

Direction to pay Rs. 8,51,80,029/- with interest at 10% p.a. within 30 days, recoverable from mortgaged properties.

Punjab and Sind Bank versus M/S Arun Dev Builders Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

¶2

Before SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI, Presiding Offier Debts Recovely Tribunal-Il, Delhi

¶3

TANo.277 of 2024

¶4

PUNJAB & SIND BANK Vs M/S ARUN DEV BUILDERS LIMITED & ORS

¶5

Reserved on : O6.02.2O26 Pronounced on z 23.02.2026

Punjab & Sind Bank

-^Applicant bank

Vs.

M/s Arun Dev Builders Limited

¶10

Sh. Manoj Bhardwaj

¶11

3, Sh. Ramesh Chander Sharma

¶12

Sh. Parveen Bhardwaj

¶13

Smt. Neena Bhardwaj

¶14

M/s Paras Jain Production M. Ltd. - Defendants

¶15

Present: Shri R. Wali, Counsel appears for applicant bank.

¶16

Ms. Dimple, Counsel appears for defendants.

¶17

FINAL ORDER

¶18

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 21.t2.20I6 through Shri R. Giridhar, Chief Manager and Shri Rajesh Kumar Bindlish, Officer of the applicant bank, under Section 19 of the RDB Act,

¶19

1993 against the defendant no.1 to 6 for recovery of a sum of Rs.8,51,80,029/- together with cost, charges and pendentellite and future interest @ 13.75olo p.a. from date of filing of this O.A. tiil the realization in full.

¶20

The brief facts of the case are that defendant no.l is a company incorporated under the companies Act, 1956 and defendant no.2 and 3 are its Directors. At the request of the defendant no. 1 through its authorized representatives i.e. defendant no. 2, the applicant bank sanctioned, on 22.04.2010, an ODp Limit to the tune of

¶21

sr,

¶22

¶23

TANO.277 of2024

¶24

Rs.700 lacs by way of enhancement from Rs.275 lacs already being availed by the defendant no.l on the terms and conditions contained therein which were duly accepted by the defendants for their business^purpose. The above said credit facility was to be secured by primary security of mortgaged of under mortgaged properties i.e. (i) Residential property bearing no.F-1211, Chittaranjan Parlt New Delhi-l10019^{(basement+ Three} floors) (in the name of the defendant no. 1),⁽ⁱⁱ⁾ Residential Land measuring t7t32 sq. mts. situated^at Viltage Dhani Gaskan, Tehsil Virat Nagar, District^Jaipur, consisting of 21 Khasras⁽ⁱⁿ the^name of the^defendant no.l), (iii) Property being land^{measuring3.2210 hectares} i.e. 322L0 meters, Village^{Dahiyaki, Pargana, Mangalore,} Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar^{being Khata no.5,} Khasra no.9, Rakba no.0.8290^{hectare and Khasra no.79,} Rakba no.2,3920 hectare i.e. total^{Kita Rakba no.3.2210} hectare (in the name of the defendant^{no.6),(iv) l-and} measuring 7.267 hdare of Village^{Rahmadpur,Aitmal,} Roorkee, District Haridwar^(out of^{which an area of} 9737.24 sq. mts. i.e. 1.245^{hectare is converted into} commercial land)⁽ⁱⁿ the^name of^{the defendant no. 6),} (v) Land having area measuring 0.808^{hectare, out of} Khata no.165, Khasra no.927 situated^{at village Aitmalpur,} Bongla, Pargana Jwalapur, Tehsil^{& DistrictHaridwar (in} the name of the defendant^no. 6),^{(vi) Landhaving area} measuring 0.823 hectare, out of^{Khatano'165, Khasra} no.928 situated at village Aitmalpur, Bongla^Pargana Jwalapur, Tehsil & District Haridwar^{(in the name of the} defendant no. 6) and^(vii) l-and having^{area measuring} 0.632 hectare, out of Khata no.165,^Khasrano.929 situated at village Aitmalpur,^{Bongla,Pargana Jwalapur,} Tehsil & District Haridwar ( in the name of the^defendant no. 6). Besides the sanctiored*limit of Rs.700^{lacs, the}

6.I '

I I I I I I i I I I I I i )

¶29

TANO.277 of 2024

¶30

defendant no.l has also availed the adhoc limit of Rs.50 lacs over and above the sanctioned limit. In consideration of the above credit limit sanctioned by the applicant bank in favour of the defendants, the defendant no.1 through its authorized representative i.e. defendant no. 2, duly authorized vide Board Resolution dated 3L.07.20L0, executed and delivered the various loaning and security documents in favour of the applicant bank on 07.08.2010 & 09.08.2010. The defendant no.2 to 6^have also given their^{personal/corporate} respective continuing guarantees to secure the credit facilities availed by the defendant no.1 from the applicant.^Defendants acknowledged the outstanding^{liabilityin the loan account} and also executed a revival letter on^{15.01.2013and} t2.02.2013 confirming the debit balances^{in the account} on the respective dates. On the^request of^the defendants, the credit facilities availed^{by themwere} further renewed by the applicant vide sanction^dated 29.06.2013 on the terms and^{conditionscontained} therein. The defendants have already^{executed the} loaning documents and also confirmed the^{debit balances} and executed the revival^letters.

¶31

It is further submitted that the^{defendantsenjoyed} 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 classified as NPA on 31.12.2014. Therefore,^the applicant bank served a demand noUce U/s 13(2) of^the SARFAESI Act, dated 31.01.2015 to the^defendants, demanding the amount due as on that date, but^failedto recover the same. Pursuant to non-compliance of^demand oi

TA NO.277 of 2024

notice U/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, the applicant bank took further measures under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and inter-alia receiver was appointed by the Ld. CMM to take physical possession of one of the secured assets. At this stage, defendants filed an SA U/s 17 of the SARFAESI Act being SA no.102/2015 which is pending consideration before this Hontle Tribunal. The defendants failed to clear the overdue amount as^assured by the defendants to the Hontle Tribunal in the^above noted SA. Though some amount has been^depositedby the defendants^pursuant to the directions^issued by^this Hontle Tribunal as an interim measure in^{the above} noted SA. The amount as directed^{was not deposited} within the time^period stipulated^by this^{Honble Tribunal.} However, the said amount has been^{adjusted towards the} outstanding dues. This is without^{prejudice to the fact} that the entire loan amount^{has been recalledand} therefore, the entire outstanding dues^{are repayable.} Thus, the^present O.A. is^{preferred by the applicantbank} to recover its dues.

¶36

On notice by this Tribunal,^{defendants put} appearance through counsel and^{filed the written} statement and evidence.

¶37

The applicant bank filed^{its evidence by way of the} affidavit of Shri Rajesh^Bindlish, Officer^{of the applicant} bank as^paper no.1 to^paper no.573,^{The defendants have} also filed their evidence.

¶38

In the written statement filed by the^{defendants,it} is submitted that the defendant No. 1 is a^company registered under Indian Companies Act and defendant^no. 2 is the Chairman and other defendants are also^allegedly t-

C).

TA NO.277 of 2024

the guarantors and mortgagors. It is submitted that the defendant no. 1 was sanctioned/enjoying the ODP limit of Rs.700 Crores from the applicant bank for colonizers & developers business. It is submitted that the defendant no. 1 required the cash for its business and as such requested the applicant bank for a loan/ credit limit and the applicant bank agreed to provide the financial assistance through Overdraft Facility and asked for 50o/o margin and as such the^properties having valued to the tune of Rs.25 crores approximately were^given to the applicant bank, but to the utter surprise the^applicant bank granted the credit limit of^{Rs.7 crores} only^andas such the defendant no. I kept on^{requesting for releasing} further amount as required /^promised or in the^alternate release the properties beyond 50o/o^margin. It^is submitted that applicant bank abruptly^stoppedthe financial assistance in between and as such^hugesums were bonowed at exorbitant rates from the^{market and in} the^process entire receivables were^{ploughed back into} company to continue the activities. It^{is submittedthat} the account is Never NPA.^{The amount outstandingas on} 31.12.2015 was Rs.6,92,87,76t.86 only.^{Even the amount} prior to on 30.09.2014 shows an entry of Rs.19,31,382.00 which stated that entry dated 29.09.2014 &^{entry dated} 30.09.2014 rectified but there is no^entryon 29.09.20L4130.09.2014 which could be^rectified. It^is submifted that even if the concept of^{NPA is seen the} account is not NPA on 31.12.2014 as the^{interest for 90} days was not overdue at the end of the^quarter.The interest for 90 days charged in the account will^become overdue only at the end of 90 days only.^{The wrong debit} on 30.09.2014 of Rs.19,31,382.00 has raised the^figure wherein even the balance in the ac@unt was^Rs 6,95,M,322.86 on 30.09.?014_: It is submitted that^only

g}t

TA NO.277 of 2024

on 11.12.2014 the regular bail has been granted to the defendant no.2 and there onwards he is trying to generate the money and has also been in talks with bank for seftlement of account by various modes. It is submitted that the Income Tax Authorities attached the bank accounts of the defendants and as such it became impossible to make any payments till the dues of the Income Tax were to be^paid or as settlement arrived at. It is submitted that a loan of Rs.20 Lacs was applied and the applicant bank has agreed to^grant the^loan for^Rs.14.50 crores but however, only renewed the limits in the^year 2013 which further squeezed the resources of^defendant no. 1. But the mortgage allegedly^was done^for an^higher amount of loan which the applicant bank^{has promised} but not released. It is submitted that the^{account of} defendant is not an NPA as on 31.12.2014^howeverthe defendant has^proposed to the bank and^{has offered for} repayment of legitimate dues as the^{project of 400 flatsis} ready to be sold as all relevant^{permissionshave been} received. Upon being^permitted the defendant^{will open} escrow account to receive all the bookings^{in the said} account and the bank can take^{50o/ofrom the same} towards clearance of the liability and^{balance will be} released for construction of the units. It^{is submittedthat} several rounds of meetings took^{placewith the officials of} the applicant bank. However, due to the arbitrary,^illegal and non-helping approach of the applicant^{bank's officials,} despite assurances, the bank officials did^{not pay any} heed to the requests and always kept on saying that^the matter is under consideration. As stated above if the project of 400 flats is considered the entire alleged outstanding of the bank will be cleared with in short^span of L8-24 months. It is submitted that it could be^seen from the pleadings before !hq!!.M. that the bank has I

¶48

¶49

TA NO.277 of 2024

¶50

deliberately, internationally and fraudulently concealed material facts from the Hon'ble Tribunal. It is submitted that the bank has got various other properties but has been hitting on the property in question to hit the defendant no.1 and to close down the business of the defendant no.1. It is submifted that the applicant bank could have taken^possession of the other^propefties but has not done so. It is submitted that the applicant bank has taken the Land only as mortgage as no CLU was given thus as such the bank is not entitled to take the possession of the building. It is submitted that the action initiated by the applicant bank under the^aforesaid provisions of the said Act qua the property of the defendant, are not only de'hors the said^{Act, malafide,} arbitrary, and illegal, but also an^{malafideattempt to} cover-up the applicant bank's negligence,^omissions, commissions, high handiness and tainted^arm-twisting tactics, besides also being in^violation of^{the principlesof} natural^justice and hence, merits to be^{set aside/quashed} by this Hon'ble Tribunal. It is^{submittedthat the officials} of the applicant ban( through various^{arbitrary acts of} omissions and commissions, as well^{as sheer negligence,} has led to the^precarious financial condition/crisis,^the defendant finds itself in today. Such^{losses, damages} attributable to the applicant bank and^{its erringofficials,} warrants intervention of this Hon'ble Tribunal to^be granted in favour of the defendant. It is submitted that the Authorized Officer deliberately overcharged^the interest in the account so as to make it NPA despite^the fact that the installments were to statt from^September 2014. Despite repeated requests to defendant no.2 to furnish the following so as to look into the matter as toⁱⁿ the account ever became NPA or^just because of^wrong charging of interest and allgqed entry dated 30.09.2014.

t)1

TA NO.277 of 2024

It is submitted that applicant bank has standard printed forms of contract and when the blank spaces are filed in, an alleged contract is presumed to come in existence. These standardized contracb that the Applicant Bank enters into are nothing really but^pretended contracts that have only the semblance of the contract. They are called contracts of adhesion from the French term (Contract Adhesion) because in these a single will is exclusively^predominant acting as a unilateral will^which dictates its terms not to an individual but to an indeterminate collectively. The standard terms and conditions^prepared by one^{party (the} Applicant^{Bank in} this case) are offered to the other on a^{"take-it-or-leave-} it" basis. The individual's^{participation} consists of a^mere adherence, of then unknowing to the^{documents drafted} unilaterally and insisted upon by the^{powerful enterprise} as the applicant bank. It is^{submittedthat the conditions} imposed by the documents upon the^{customersare not} open to discussions, nor are they^{subjectto negotiations} between the^parties but the contract^{has to be accepted} by the^{printing press.} The characteristic^usuallyand traditionally associated with the @ntract,^{such as freedom} to contract and consciences are absent^{from these so-} called contracts. In the instant case also^{the contract} agreement between the Applicant Bank and^the answering Defendants were merely a contract^of a^big business enterprises legislating in^{substantially} authoritarian manner. The said term in the^contract documents signed by the defendants, in blank, were^for the defendants to take-or-leave. Because of the monopolistic or near monopolistic^position of the applicant bank; the said bank introduced clauses in their^standard form, which may and often^go to the extent of exemption the defendants from all- liability under the contract

5.I ,

l I 1 I I

I i I I I i

TA NO.277 of 2024

agreement. The aforesaid averments stand really established from the fact that the defendants had been made to sign on the blank documents, which shall be demonstrate at the time of hearing in the mafter. It is submitted that the records of the bank itself would show and demonstrate that after the alleged declaration/classification of the alleged accounts as NPAs, the applicant bank and/or its purported branch in possession of the ledger certainly could not have shown any interest due and payable in respect of accounts in question. It is submitted that the applicant bank being in dominant position, had obtained signatures on blank documents, unfilled, undated printed formats, blank stamp papers, the blank purported confirmation letters etc. It is submitted that signatures were obtained in all the aforesaid documents blank and unfilled and undated, during the initial period of the grant of the financial facilities/working capital and now the said very documents after manipulations is being mis-utilised to the detriment of the defendant. It is submitted that obviously the applicant bank was being faced with such legitimate demands of the defendant and finding that the concerned staff/bank officials had actually been negligent, and malafide and arbitrary and for extraneous reasons have neither complied the provisions of law nor agreed for the defendant suggestion to resolve the issues, to cover-up all the said omissions and commissions the higher ups in the bank thought the best way to make the defendant to be under^pressure and succumb to the illegal and illegitimate demands of the applicant Bank. It is submitted that the applicant bank illegally issued notices dated 31.01.2015 under Section 13(2) of the Securitization Act in respect of accounts. It is submitted that bare perusal of the impugned notices would cleryI show that the same was

TA NO.277 of 2024

in any event illegal, void abinitio, non-est, nullis juris and stood vitiated being in utter derogation and in violaUon of the well accepted of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that no details of alleged transactions or material in paticulars as to the specific rates penal interest and capitalizing effect thereof, have been furnished in the said notice. What to talk of the details, even the details of the account have not been accounted for. It is submitted that defendant disputed the charging of the interest being contrary to law, exorbitant and untenable in law. It is submitted that despite oral request and reminders to provide the details of the account clearly^providing every detail including^rates of interests, penal interest and capitalizing thereof,^nothing was provided. Rather the same has been included in the purportedly claim. It is submitted that the amount of interest debited in the account in three months i.e. Oct to Dec is Rs.29,20,922.00 and is Rs7,24,29,193.86 the alleged outstanding shown as on 31.12.2014^{thus by} there own admission also the account is not^NPA. It^is submitted that the bank has failed to disclose the^NPA amount in the notice and has simply stated^amount outstanding and the applicant bank^{has not filed the} documents of sanction as the sanction letter filed^{is only} renewal letter. It is submifted that the applicant bank^has not flled the statement of account from the^inception and has deprived the replying defendant to take objections to the unauthorized entries in the account. It is submitted that the relevant documents are the essential^part of the claim of the applicant bank as the same are mentioned in the documents and without which the^proper reply to show cause cannot be filed. It is submitted that the bank has put to auction the property which was much more than the claim of the bank gyt !..r not taken any further

¶65

<4,

¶66

TANO.277 of 2024 1l

¶67

steps for the same as the said property was in possession of the bank as per the notice issued by the bank for the sale. Had the Bank appropriately followed the sale of the said asset there would have been no amount left and the excess amount would have added to the liquidity of the defendant no. 1. It is submitted that the valuation reports avaihbb with defendants will show that the value of assets are much more than claim of bank. It is submitted that the^present O.A. is not legally maintainable since the document referred to in the O.A., have not been filed and the documents so serued are also incomplete. It is submitted that while filing an OA all the documents referred to or relied upon along with^complete statement of account are required to be filed along^with O.A., it is a mandatory requirement which has not^been fulfilled and as such the OA is liable to be dismissed^on this ground alone. It is submitted that it has been^{held by} this Hon'ble Tribunal that Rule 9 is mandatory^provision, compliance is mandatory and in case bank and^applicant banks have failed to file all the documents^{in accordance} with Rule 9 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal^(Procedure) Ruled, 1993, banks/applicant banks are required to file^an application and should^give reasons as to why they^did not file all the documents relied upon or referred in^the application as well as complete statement of account showing details of the debts due from the defendants and the balance which has become due. It is submitted that the defendants had already submitted before Tribunal regarding the incomplete information and documents. It is submitted that the applicant bank has filed statement of account in respect of various loans. It is submitted that the applicant bank has not filed the complete statement of account as required as^per the rules and statement of the account is the back bone of the O.A. and unless and

¶68

¶69

TA NO.277 of 2024 12

¶70

until complete statement of account is filed/placed on record, the defendants would become handicap and would not be able to bring out unauthorized debit created in the statement of account. It is submitted that the application is liable to be rejected on account of noncompliance of the mandatory provisions being Section 19 and 22 of the Recoveries of Debts Due to Banks and Applicant Banks Act read with rule 9 of the rules framed. This is because the applicant banks has not filed in this Hon'ble Tribunal and not supplied to the defendanb the legible documents on the basis of which interest has been charged in the account of the defendants for the entire period of the account. It is submitted that no amount is due to the applicant banks, as the applicant bank has charged from the defendants illegal and o<cessive^rate of interest in violation of RBI^guidelines. It is submifted that the applicant banks has also never informed the defendants with regard to the rates of interest as the defendants had signed on the blank documents^which infact will not have any bearing on the case. It is submifted that the OA is vague and does not disclose the cause of action and when it arose and the statement of accounts has not been certified in accordance with the relevant provisions under the Bankers Books of Evidence Act. Moreover, some of the statements of accounts are only one-entry accounts, which cannot be relied upon for fastening any liability upon the answering respondent. It is submitted that the applicant banks are guilty of charging arbitrary, illegal rates of interest in the account of various loan facility. It is submitted that the application is liable to be rejected on ground that the applicant bank is claiming relieE under certain Acts on which this Hon'ble Tribunal have no jurisdiction. It is submitted that the OA filed by the applicant banks are on different causes of

TA NO.277 of 2024

action for the different alleged loans granted to the defendants. As such the OA is barred by Rule 10 of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 1993. It is submitted that in this case the applicant bank have themselves admitted the different alleged loans were granted at different point of time and as such the different cluses of actions on different alleged loans have arisen. It is submitted that the OA has been filed by the applicant bank is without any cause of action against the answering defendants and is devoid of merits. It is submifted that the documents which are alleged to be basis for the claimed made by the applicant bank are unenforceable, bad in law, under-stamped, without consideration and therefore, no documents in the eyes of law. It is submitted that the OA has not been signed, verified and instituted by a duly authorized and competent person. It is submitted that the OA and the documents relied upon does not disclose as to^who authorized the branch manager to authorize Shri Rajesh Kumar and Sh. R. Giridhar to file the Original Application. It is submitted that no authority has been filed or branch manager who authorized Shri Rajesh Kumar and Sh. R. Giridhar to file the^present OA. It is submitted that the^OA filed by the applicant bank is barred by limitation. It is submitted that the OA does not disclose the figure of the principal amount, interest charged and expenses debited from time to time in the accounts maintained by the applicant bank. It is submitted that the statement of account, upon which the alleged claim has been based is prima-hcie wrong, contains wrong, incorrect and unauthorized entries, wrong calculation of interest, as also wrong application of interest rates, besides unauthorized debits and as such the said statement of account being false, frivolous, containin_g - incorrect, wrong and

TA NO.277 of 2024

unauthorized entries is of no consequence. It is submitted that the applicant bank has concealed the material facts in the OA. It is submitted that the applicant bank themselves has not supplied the legible documents to the defendants and failed to file the documents as provided in Rule 9(2) i.e. Neatly typed copies in double space on one side of the paper and the documents so filed are not legible and are in very small font which can't be read and as such the present Original ApplicaUon is defective and cannot be entertained until and unless the compliance as^provided under law are complied with. It is submitted that the officials of the Applicant Bank approached the defendant no. 1 and allured to^grant further credit facilities on lower rate of interest and other attractive offers as well as best banking services in comparison to others and requested the defendant no.¹ to obtain credit facilities from applicant bank. However, the required limits were not sanctioned / released to the defendant no. 1 which in turn made the defendant no.¹ to suffer from huge losses. It is submitted that since due to non receipt of^payments from debtors on time, there was delay in depositing the amount, and the applicant bank was well apprised with the said fact, but despite the same, the applicant bank did not cooperate with the defendants with malafide intentions. It is submitted that applicant bank classified the account wrongly as NPA and issued Demand Notice U/s 13(2) of the Seuritisation Act. It is submitted that the applicant bank has charged from the defendant's, illegal and excessive rate of interest in violation to the RBI guidelines. It is submitted that the statement of account so filed by applicant bank is no statement of account in the eyes of law and is hit by provisions of Sec. 65 B of The Indian Evidence Act read with Banker's Book of Eyldence Act and I.T. Act as no

6J''

TA NO.277 of 2024

certificate has been filed by the applicant bank as required U/s 65 B of The Indian Evidence Act. It is submitted that in case no ceftificate has been issued in terms of Sec. 65 B of The Indian Evidence Act, therefore the same cannot be admitted in evidence. The defendants have relied upon the^judgements i.e. the^judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Tribunal of India in the matter of Ravinder Singh Vs. Central Bank of India and the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter namely "Anvar P.V. Vs. P.K. Basheer and Ors." being Civil Appeal No. 422612012. Accordingly, it is prayed that the OA is liable to be dismissed.

¶83

Heard the Ld. Counsels for both the^parties and perused the records.

¶84

The first contention of the defendant is that the OA has not been filed by the competent^person who is authorized to veriff and file the^present OA. From^perusal of the record it is clear that the officer of the bank^has been authorized by the bank to file the^present OA and therefore, the contention of the defendant that the OA has not been filed by authorized^person has no force.

¶85

The next contention of the defendant in the written statement is that the OA has been filed without any cause of action. In this regard I have^gone through the record. From perusal of the record it is clear that the applicant bank has issued legal notice to the defendants to repay the amount due and the defendants has failed to repay the entire due amount and therefore, the cause of action to file the OA has duly arisen and therefore, the contention of the defendant has no force.

¶86

The next contention of the defendant is that the applicant bank has charqqd-exorbitant rate of interest t-t .

¶87

¶88

TA NO.277 of 2024

¶89

which is against the judgment given by the Hontle Supreme Court in Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra and Ors. On the other hand the Ld. Counsel of the bank has submitted that the interest has been charged as per agreement between the parties. In this regard I have gone through the record. From perusal of the statement of account it is clear that the applicant bank is charging rate of interest as per agreement. Therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant bank is charging exorbitant rate of interest.

¶90

The next contention of the defendants is that the applicant bank has obtained signatures on the blank proformas, therefore, the said paper cannot be relied upon. But the contention of the defendants has no force. The defendants are well educated businessman, therefore, it cannot be^presumed that they have signed the papers without going through the conditions of the sanction letter. Further, the defendant has never filed any complaint before the competent forum in this regard.

¶91

L2. The next contention of defendant is that the statement of account is against facts of the case. In this regard I have^perused the statement of account. From perusal of the statement of account it is clear that there is no discrepancy in the statement of account and the contention of the defendants cannot be accepted.

¶92

The next contention of the defendants is that the application is barred by limitation. But from^perusal of the record it is clear that the OA has been filed within limitation period.

¶93

L4. The next contention of the defendant is that NPA has been wrongly declared. In this regard I have gone through the statement ol_a-c-count. From perusal of the g.,\ i

¶94

¶95

TA NO.277 of 2024

¶96

statement of account it is clear that the contention of the defendant is against the evidence. The account has been declared NPA after expiry of 90 days of the over due. Therefore, the contention of the defendant has no force.

¶97

In the light of the above discussions, the present T.A. deserves to be allowed against the defendant no.l to 6. Keeping in view of the entire circumstances of the case it appears appropriate to award interest @10olo simple^p.a.

¶98

ORDER

¶99

I hereby allow this O.A. of the Applicant Bank and direct the defendant nos. 1 to 6 to^{pay jointly} and severally to the applicant bank within 30 days from today, a sum of Rs.8,51,80,0291- along with cost, expenses and interest @ 10olo simple^p.a. from the date of filing of this O.A. which has become T.A. till the date of realization.

¶100

In case of failure to deposit the above amount within the stipulated period, the same shall be recovered from the sale of the mortgaged propefi bearing no. (i) Residential property bearing no.F-121 1, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi-l10019 (basement + Three floors), (ii) Residential Land measuring L7t32 sq. mts. situated at Village Dhani Gaskan, Tehsil Virat Nagar, District Jaipur, consisting of 2l Khasras, (iii) Property being land measuring 3.2210 hectares i.e. 32210 meters, Village Dahiyaki, Pargana Mangalore, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar being Khata no.5, Khasra no.9, Rakba no.0.8290 hectare and Khasra no.79, Rakba no.2,3920 hectare i.e. total Kita Rakba no.3.2210 hectare, (iv) Land measuring 7.267 hffire of Village Rahmadpur, Aitmal, Roorkee, District Haridwar (out of which an area of 9737.24 q.

TA NO.277 of 2024

mts. i.e. 1.245 hectare is converted into commercial land), (v) Land having area m@suring 0.808 hectare, out of Khata no.165, Khasra no.927 situated at village Aitmalpur, Bongla, Pargana Jwalapur, Tehsil & District Haridwar, (vi) Land having area measuring 0.823 hectare, out of Khata no.165, Khasra no.928 situated at village Aitmalpur, Bongla Pargana Jwalapur, Tehsil & District Haridwar and (vii) Land having area measuring 0.632 hectare, out of Khata no.165, Khasra no.929 situated at village Aitmalpur, Bongla, Pargana Jwalapur, Tehsil & District Haridwar. In case of short fall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of personal movable and immovable assets of the defendant no. 1 to 6.

¶105