Allowed

Punjab and Sind Bank v. M/S Madan Lal and Sons

DRT20 Jun 2026TA/58/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an application under Section 19 of the RDBFI Act for recovery of dues. The bank proved its case through documentary evidence regarding a sanctioned ODP facility and subsequent default. With respondents absent, the Tribunal directed payment of the principal, interest, and costs, with a power to recover shortfalls via asset sales.

What did the court decide?

Direct payment of Rs.22,59,765.80, pendentelite interest, and costs within 30 days; recovery to be effected by sale of hypothecated debts, mortgaged property, or other assets of respondents.

Punjab and Sind Bank versus M/S Madan Lal and Sons — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

T.A. No. 58 of 2023

¶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.58 of 2023

¶5

Punjab and Sind Bank 1/7287 and 1/7288, Main Babarpur Road East Gorakh Park, Shandara, Delhi-32

¶6

Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Madan Lal s/o Chander Bhan Proprietor of M/s Madan Lal & Sons R/o 4258, Gali Barna, Basti Ram Lal Pahari Dhiraj, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006

¶9

Mrs. Sharda Devi w/o Sh. Madan Lal R/o 4258, Gali Barna, Basti Ram Lal Pahari Dhiraj, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006

¶10

SH.Manish Kumar s/o Madan Lal R/o 4258, Gali Barna, Basti Ram Lal Pahari Dhiraj, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006 Defendants

¶11

Present: Sh.Gurpreet Singh Gulati along with Mr. Jhataklal Yadav (Nodal Officer), Counsels for the applicant bank Date of Reserve: 03.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 20.06.2026

¶12

FINAL ORDER

¶13

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 15.07.2020 under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.22,59,765.80 (Rupees Twenty-Two Lacs Fifty-Nine Thousand Seven Hundred SixtyFive and Paisa Eighty only) as on 30.06.2020 along with

¶14

T.A. No. 58 of 2023

¶15

pendentelite interest @11.95% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing of this application till the date of realization and costs.

¶16

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the defendant no.1 as proprietor of M/s Madan Lal & Sons, the applicant bank sanctioned ODP limit for Rs.15,00,000/(Rupees Fifteen Lacs only) on 11.07.2014 @11.95% interest per annum with monthly rests for business purpose against hypothecation of debts and assets along with mortgage of property no.3143, 3rd Floor, Barwala Chowk, Gali Zamandar, Ward No.XIII, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi. The defendant no.2 and 3 stood as guarantor for the ODP facility sanctioned by applicant bank in favour of defendant no.1. In case of default in repayment, the defendant agreed to pay penal interest @2% over the agreed rate of interest.

¶17

That in order to avail the ODP facility, the defendant no.1 as proprietor of M/s Madan Lal & Sons submitted loan application and executed Demand Promissory Note Form No.14(R), Form No.106 Waiver of right, Form No.342 Terms & Conditions, Form No.216, Form No.412, Form No.291, Form No.126, Form No.192(RR), Form No.200, Form No.199 and Agreement for Hypothecation of Debts and Assets all dated 11.07.2014 towards the applicant bank. The defendant no.2 and 3 executed Bank Guarantee Bonds - Form No.255(RR) and Deed of Continuing Guarantee in favour of applicant bank.

¶18

That in order to secure the loan facility, the defendant no.1 created equitable mortgage of Property bearing no.3143, 3rd^{Floor with roof rights, Barwala Chowk, Gali Zamandar, Ward} No.XIII, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi measuring 45.50 sq.meters and sd-

¶19

T.A. No. 58 of 2023

¶20

executed Form 84-A(R) dated 11.07.2014 by depositing Original Chain title deeds with applicant bank.

¶21

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions of sanction and committed default in repayment of the dues and regularize the account with the applicant bank. Ultimately, the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 30.06.2016 as per RBI guidelines and issued notice dated 15.07.2016 under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act but the defendants neglected the same and hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues. The defendant no.1 thru letter / communication to applicant seeking 30 days' time to clear the dues but failed to clear the entire dues as promised, hence the applicant bank has approached this tribunal for recovery of its dues.

¶22

The applicant bank took the physical possession of the mortgaged property on 18.12.2017 and put up for auction vide Tender cum E-Auction notice dated 12.05.2018 duly published in newspapers for reserve price of Rs.17.10 lacs but no bid was received.

¶23

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 12.09.2024, 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 defendant.

¶24

T.A. No. 58 of 2023

¶25

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Anoop Kumar Gupta, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents such as Power of Attorney Exh.PW1/1(OSR), Sanction Letter Exh.PW1/2, Promissory Note Exh.PW1/3, Form No.106 Exh.PW1/4, Form No.216 Exh.PWI/5, Form No.412 Exh.PW1/6, Form No.291 Exh.PW1/7, Form No.106 Exh.PW1/8, Form No.192(RR) Exh.PW1/9, Form No.200 Exh.PW1/10, Form No.199 Exh.PW1/11, Form No.255(RR) Exh.PW1/12, Form No.84-A(R) Exh.PW1/13, Sarfaesi Notice Exh.PW1/14, Postal Receipts Exh.PW1/15, Possession Notice Exh.PW1/16, Tender cum E- Auction Notice Exh.PW1/17, Statement of Account Exh.PW1/18, Certificate under Banker's Books Evidence Act Exh.PW1/19 and Letter dated 20.01.2018 Exh.PW1/20.

¶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

10.^{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

T.A. No. 58 of 2023

¶30

ORDER

¶31

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank within a period of 30 days, jointly or severally, a sum of Rs.22,59,765.80 (Rupees Twenty-Two Lacs Fifty-Nine Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty-Five and Paisa Eighty only) as on 30.06.2020 along with pendentelite interest @11.95% per annum with monthly rests from 10.07.2020 till the date of realization and costs; failing which the amount shall be recovered from sale of hypothecated debt and sale of mortgaged Property bearing no.3143, 3rd Floor with roof rights, Barwala Chowk, Gali Zamandar, Ward No.XIII, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi measuring 45.50 sq.meters. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶32

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

¶33

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 19.08.2026.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 20.06.2026

Punjab and Sind Bank v. M/S Madan Lal and Sons

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab and Sind Bank v. M/S Madan Lal and Sons

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

Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank) versus Ms Dolphin Electronics

Hitesh So Jaswant Gaupale versus Sitaara Housing Finance Limited Earlier Known as Sewa Grih Rin Limited

Mr Shivaraj Badigar and Another versus Jana Small Finance Bank Ltd.

Bank of Baroda versus Garvit

Bank of Baroda versus Shine Packaging

Hdfc Bank versus Ajay Pratap and Anr.