Allowed

Punjab National Bank v. Radhey Shyam Trading Company

DRT27 Apr 2026TA/3016/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this money recovery matter, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's Original Application. The court found that the defendants failed to adjust their account, leading to a default after stock auction. The bank was granted the recovered sum of Rs. 1.31 crore plus costs as the case remained unrebutted.

What did the court decide?

Directing the defendants to jointly or severally pay the applicant bank Rs. 1,31,28,065.82 as on 31.05.2018 along with pendentelite and future interest @13.25% per annum and costs within 30 days.

Punjab National Bank versus Radhey Shyam Trading Company — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

T.A. No. 3016 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.3016 of 2022

¶5

Punjab National Bank

¶6

Circle Sastra East Delhi, First Floor CSC, E-Block, Mayur Vihar Phase II, New Delhi-110091

¶7

Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s Radhey Shyam Trading Company Through its proprietor Sh.Radhey Shyam G-2153,^1st Floor, Bhardwaj Market Narela, New Delhi

¶10

Sh. Radhey Shyam H.No.25, Block G, Punjabi Colony Narela, New Delhi-110040

¶11

Sh.Sant Lal Aggarwal D-13, Pushpanjali Enclave Pitampura, Delhi-110034 Defendants

¶12

Present: Ms Nishi Chaudhary, Counsel for the applicant bank Date of Reserve: 08.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 27.04.2026

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

This original application has been filed before DRT-III, Delhi & then transferred to DRT-I, Delhi by the applicant bank on 13.06.2018 through Sh.Anil Kumar Jain, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the

¶15

T.A. No. 3016 of 2022

¶16

defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,31,28,065.82 (Rupees One Crores Thirty One Lacs Twenty Eight Thousand Sixty Five & paisa Eighty Two only) as on 31.05.2018 along with pendentelite and future interest @13.25% from the date of filing of this OA till the date of realization along with costs. Further, the name of Shri Vivek Kumar was substituted as authorized representative in place of Sh.Anil Kumar Jain, erstwhile AR for the applicant bank.

¶17

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of defendant no.1 through its sole proprietor being defendant no.2 in the business of trading of rice and paddy and commission agents, the applicant bank sanctioned Cash Credit (Pledge) facility of Rs.400.00 lacs (Rupees Four Crore only) against Warehouse Receipts of National Bulk Holding Corporation (NBHC) @12.25% interest per annum on 22.01.2012 under MSME scheme which was enhanced to Rs.900.00 lacs on 22.10.2012. The applicant bank renewed the credit facility on 28.07.2015 @11.75% per annum with monthly rests. Defendant no.3 stood as guarantor for due repayment of credit facility of Rs.900.00 lacs.

¶18

That in order to avail the credit facility, the defendant no.1 through its proprietor being defendant no.2 executed Original Supplementary Agreement and Advance against Warehouse Receipts issued by NBHC dated 30.03.2012 and 21.12.2012. Further, the defendant no.1 executed Original Supplementary Agreement dated 28.07.2012 in favour of applicant bank. The defendant no.3 executed Agreement of Guarantee on 21.12.2012 in favour of applicant bank to secure the loan facilities availed by defendant no.1.

¶19

T.A. No. 3016 of 2022

¶20

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the loan facility, the defendants did not maintain the financial discipline and miserably failed to adhere to the terms and conditions due to which account maintained becoming irregular despite of several requests by the applicant bank. The applicant bank issued notice for adjusting the account to avoid sale of pledged stock but no action taken by the defendants. Ultimately, the applicant bank classified the accounts as NPA in the year 2015 as per RBI guidelines and issued recall notice on 12.05.2015. The applicant bank put on sale of stock of commodities pledged for auction but defendants regularized the account by depositing the overdue amount in the account. Later on, the defendants again defaulted despite various notice of applicant bank again classified the account as NPA on 14.08.2017 and auctioned the commodities and realized a sum of Rs.1,07,65,011/- duly appropriated in the account. As the defendants failed to adjust the account, hence, the applicant bank has approached this tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶21

The defendant no.1 executed balance and security confirmation letter dated 21.12.2012 and 08.02.2017 in favour of applicant bank.

¶22

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite of proper service, the defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 08.12.2025, right to file evidence on behalf of the defendants stands closed as none appeared before the Tribunal and even written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have not been filed by the defendants.

¶23

Sdr

¶24

T.A. No. 3016 of 2022

¶25

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed the original documents to its case such as General Power of Attorney, Loan Application and Sanction Letter, Original Supplementary Agreement, Advance against Receipts issued by Warehouse of NBHC, Advances Against Warehouse Receipts, Sanction Letters, Supplementary Agreements, Advance against Warehouse Receipts, Agreements of Guarantee, Acknowledgement Letters, Affidavits, Recall Letters, Recall Notice, Reminder Letters, NPA Certificate, Tender Publication, Commodities Sold, Certified Statement of Account, Break Up Sheet and Balance and Security Confirmation marked marked as Page No.1 to 102.

¶26

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 approved.

¶27

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.

¶28

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

¶29

ORDER

¶30

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.1,31,28,065.82 (Rupees One Crores Thirty One Lacs Twenty Eight Thousand Sixty Five & paisa Eighty Two only) as on 31.05.2018 together with pendentelite and future

¶31

¶32

T.A. No. 3016 of 2022

¶33

interest @13.25% per annum from the date of filing of the application till the date of realization and costs; failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from hypothecated assets etc. In case of default/shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶34

(II) The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi.

¶35

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 29.06.2026.

¶36

(IV) Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be sent to all concerned free of cost.

¶37

sdr (GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶38

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 27.04.2026

Punjab National Bank v. Radhey Shyam Trading Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. Radhey Shyam Trading Company

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

Union Bank of India versus S S T Packaging Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Bank of India versus Ms Box Well Industries

Bank of Maharashtra versus Chandrashekhar Pundlik Jagtap

Bank of Baroda versus Anushka Jain Proprietor Ms Ur Choice

Canara Bank versus Mr R Markondaiah

State Bank of India versus Kavitha. N