Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by the applicant bank for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,94,80,730 with interest against three respondents who failed to repay loan facilities and did not contest the case.
Directing respondents to pay Rs. 3,94,80,730 plus cost and interest at 13.35% p.a. jointly and severally within 30 days.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
)
Before susHILKUMARRASTOGI, Presiding officer Debts Recovety Tribunal-IlrDelhi
TA No.539 OF 2022
puNJAB NATTONAL BANK VS M/S KARTZMA rNC & oRs
Reserued on: 11.02.2026
Pronounced onz 27,O3-2026
Punjab NationalBank Vs.
-Applicant bank
Present: Mr. Prakhar,proxy for Mr. Sahas Basin Counsel appearsfor applicant bank. None for defendants.
FINAT ORDER
This original applicationhas been filed by the applicant bank,on 19.11.2020 through shri. Hoshiar Singh, ChiefManager of the applicantbank,under Section 19 ofthe RDB Act, 1993 againstthe defendants for recovery of asum of Rs.3,94,80,730 together with cost, charges andpendentellite and future interest @13.35olofrom date of filing of this o.A. till the realization infull.
2
TA NO. 539 of 2022
above saidfacility is secured byequitable mortgage ofindustrialPlovshed no.135, measuring 450 sq. Mtr,Phase-I,Industrial estate, Barhi Phase-I, Sonipat,HaryanaownedbyM/sKarizmalnc(Prop.sh. Jagmeet SinghRatra)and Equitablemoftgageon industrialpropefi bearing no' E-!7,Santgarh Extension,EastGaliNo.l,VillageChoukandi,Delhi ownedbY Sh. Jagmeet Singh Ratra'
4 On noticeby this Tribunal,defendantsput appearancethrough counsel and filed written statementbut failed to .file evidence.Thereafter, the €^
3
TA NO. 539of 2022
defendantsfailed to put appearancein the matter, despiteissuance of default notice. Accordingly, the defendantswere proceededagainstexpafteon LL.02.2026.
6.Afterperusingtherecords,thisTribunalisofthe view thatthe applicant bank has proved its case beyondreasonable doubts'The evidenceand documentsRledbytheapplicantbanknotrebuttedby thedefendantsbynotplacinganyevidenceandthere isnoquestionofdisbelievingtheevidenceand documentsfiledbytheapplicantbankbaseduponthe written/ Printed docu ments'
Inthelightoftheabovediscussions,thepresentT.A. deseruesto be allowed'
ORDER
i.te
4
TA NO. 539 of 2022
File be consigned torecords.
SA Date ; 27.03.2026 (susHrL rut./lnn nn#ocl) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi
Thisjudgement hasbeen signed, dated and
pronounced in oPen court.
Date : 27.03.2026
gx (susHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFRCER DRT-II, Delhi
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant bank is entitled to recovery of dues against defaulting borrowers.
Whether the defendants are liable to pay the outstanding sum along with interest.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Punjab National Bank
M/s Karizma Inc
Sh. Jagmeet Singh Ratra
Smt. Manjeet Ratra
Sushil Kumar Rastogi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
