Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. M/S Pearl Appliances Pvt. Ltd.

DRT21 Feb 2026TA/49/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal passed a final order allowing the original application filed by Bank of Baroda. The court directed the absent defendants to jointly and severally pay the outstanding loan amount, interest, and costs within 30 days, or face recovery from their secured and unsecured assets.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs.1,58,01,445/- with interest and costs within 30 days; Recovery Certificate to be issued for enforcement against their assets.

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Pearl Appliances Pvt. Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

T.A. NO. 49 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.49 of 2022

¶5

Bank of Baroda

¶6

(e-Dena Bank)

¶7

Asset Recovery branch, 1st Floor, Gopala Tower, Rajendra Place, New Delhi-110008 Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s Pearl Appliances Pvt.Ltd. A-84, G.T.Karnal Road Industrial Area Delhi-110033

¶10

Sh.Dinesh Soni s/o Render Soni Director of defendant no.1

¶11

R/o 18/3, Shakti Nagar, Delhi-110007

¶12

Sh.Jitender Soni @Jateinder Soni

¶13

s/o Jagir Singh Soni

¶14

Director of defendant no.1 &

¶15

Sole Proprietor of Raman Scientific Sales Corporation R/o C-2/32, Model Town-III, Delhi-110009

¶16

Defendants

¶17

Present: Mr. Arun Aggarwal, Counsel for applicant bank

¶18

Date of Reserve: 03.02.2026

¶19

Date of Pronouncement: 21.02.2026

¶20

FINAL ORDER

¶21

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 27.06.2016 before DRT III Delhi, and then transferred to DRT-I Delhi under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 against the

¶22

T.A. NO. 49 of 2022

¶23

defendants for recovery of Rs.1,58,01,445/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Eight Lacs One Thousand Four Hundred Forty Five only) as on 26.06.2016 along with interest @12.25% per annum with monthly rests in Cash Credit Account and @18.45% per annum with monthly rests qua non-fund based facility from 27.06.2016 till the date of realization along with costs.

¶24

The brief facts of the case are that the applicant bank sanctioned Cash credit facilities of Rs.100.00 lacs on the request of defendant no.1 through its directors being defendant no.2 & 3 which was enhanced to Rs.125.00 lacs (Rupees One Crore Twenty Five Lacs only) and LC/bank Guarantee facility of Rs.50.00 lacs on 16.052013 against hypothecation of stock and book debts as well as mortgage of property being Khasra No.1021, Khata No.401/132 admeasuring 13 Biswa situated at Village Siraspur, Delhi owned by defendant no.3 as sole proprietor of M/s Rama Scientific Sales Corporation as per Board Resolution of defendant no.1 dated 22.03.2013. The defendant no.1 availed bank guarantee of Rs.20.00 lacs in favor of NSIC on 03.02.2014.

¶25

In order to avail the loan facilities, the defendant no.1 through its directors executed Demand Promissory Note, Letter of Continuity, Agreement of Hypothecation, Letter of General Lien and Set off, General Undertaking, Undertaking qua maintaining net worth, Undertaking / declaration of not a Defaulter, Request for Disbursal, Agreement for Interest, Consent, Affidavits, Undertaking qua publication of name and Power of Attorney in favour of the applicant bank on 12.08.2013. The defendant no.2 & 3 also executed letter of guarantee and letter of general lien and set off on 12.08.2013.

¶26

T.A. NO. 49 of 2022

¶27

That in order to secure the credit facilities, the defendant no.3 visited applicant bank on 12.08.2013 and executed Memorandum of entry for extension of existing mortgage of property being Shop on Ground Floor without roof rights, Khasra No.1021, Khata No.401/132 admeasuring 13 Biswa situated at Village Siraspur, Delhi and produced Form P6 for 2003-04 and also executed affidavit, indemnity bond, certified copy of property, self-attested copy of electricity bills with the applicant bank.

¶28

The applicant bank got its charge registered with ROC and received Form GAR7 and Form 8 dated 11.09.2013 for confirmation of registration of charge on 14.09.2013 for Rs.175.00 lacs.

¶29

The bank guarantee of Rs.20.00 lacs was invoked on 24.05.2015 which was remitted by way of RTGS by closure proceeds of FDR on 29.05.2015 without discharging remaining liability. It has been submitted by the applicant bank that the defendants failed to rectify the irregularities pointed out vide letter dated 10.07.2015 and credit facilities were not regularized despite various reminders. The applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 31.10.2015 as per RBI guidelines but the defendants made no efforts to clear the dues.

¶30

Notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 dated 02.12.2015 was issued which was replied by the defendant no.1 on 23.01.2016. The applicant bank vide letter dated 08.02.2016 replied to the objections and took symbolic possession of mortgaged property on

¶31

T.A. NO. 49 of 2022

¶32

22.02.2016 duly published in newspapers on 23.02.2016. The applicant filed application u/s 14 of SARFAESI Act before Ld. CMM and order is still awaited. During visit on 23.05.2016, no hypothecated stock and machinery were found and received communication on 16.06.2016 from defendant no.3 pleading resignation dated 28.10.2015 as director of defendant no.1. The applicant bank filed complaint before SHO Police Station Adarsh Nagar on 20.06.2016 for misappropriation / removal of hypothecated goods and machinery. The applicant bank received notice in IA No.1095 of 2016 with Diary No.123 of 2016 for appearing before Hon'ble DRT Delhi on 27.06.2016.

¶33

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite proper service, the defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 26.11.2025, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as they have not appeared before the Tribunal and even written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have not been filed by the defendants.

¶34

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of Affidavit of Sh. Kamala Devi Dubey, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents such as Memorandum, Sale Deed of Property, Partnership Deed, Retirement Confirmation, WILL, Death Certificate, Formalization of Dissolution of Partnership, Form 6, Affidavit, House Tax receipts, Memorandum for Extension, Letter dated 04.04.2013, Resolution, Pan Cards, Application Form, Issuance of BG/LC fvg NSIC, Extension of Mortgage, Sanction for Temporary Accommodation, Demand Promissory Note, Letter of Continuity, Agreement of Hypothecation, Undertakings, Letter of General Lien, General S•

¶35

T.A. NO. 49 of 2022

¶36

Undertaking, Undertaking of not a Defaulter, Request for Disbursal of Amount, Agreement for Interest, Consent of Borrower, Affidavits, Undertaking qua Publication of Name, Power of Attorney, Letters of Guarantee, Confirmation of Guarantee, Memorandum for Extension of Existing Mortgage, Khatoni in Form P6, Indemnity, Certified Cop of Sale Deed, Attested copy of Electricity Bills, Confirmation of ROC, Certificate, Covering Letter, BG fvg NSIC, Acknowledge of Liability, Auditors' Report, Letter for Regularization, Stock Statement, Reminders, Notices u/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, Representation, Symbolic Possession Letter, Minutes, Panchnama, Newspapers Publication, Application u/s 14, Visit Report, Letter to Defendants, Letter from Defendant no.3, MCA Report, Form DIR-12, Envelops, Complaint with SHO Adarsh Nagar Police Station, Certified Statement of Account, BG Statement, Certificate of Unapplied Interest, Certificate under Bankers' Book of Evidence Act and Power of Attorney of AR marked as Ex.AW-1/1 to Ex.AW-1/75.

¶37

10.^{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.

¶38

11.^{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.

¶39

12.^{In the light of the above discussions, the Original} Application deserves to be allowed.

¶40

T.A. NO. 49 of 2022

¶41

ORDER

¶42

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.1,58,01,445/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Eight Lacs One Thousand Four Hundred Forty Five only) as on 26.06.2016 together with interest @12.25% per annum with monthly rests from 27.06.2016 till the date of realization and costs as there is no outstanding is provided separately; failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from sale of hypothecated goods, book debts and mortgaged property being Shop on Ground Floor without roof rights, Khasra No.1021, Khata No.401/132 admeasuring 13 Biswa situated at Village Siraspur, Delhi. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶43

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

¶44

(III)^{Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery} Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 22.04.2026.

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 21.02.2026

Bank of Baroda v. M/S Pearl Appliances Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. M/S Pearl Appliances Pvt. Ltd.

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

Sakeena versus Cherpalcheri Cooperative Urban Bank

Jainy Jenson versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Abdul Sathar Pookkattil versus South Indian Bank

Punjab National Bank versus M/S S.F. Enterprises

Canara Bank versus Reeta Jain

Punjab National Bank versus M/S J.J. India