Allowed

Axis Bank v. M/S Visual Acoustic Corporation LLP

DRT22 Jun 2026TA/720/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an application filed by Axis Bank under Section 19 of the RDB Act for recovery of Rs. 20.88 crores. Proceeding ex-parte against absconding borrowers and guarantors, the court directed joint and several payment within 30 days with interest.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent 1 to 4 to pay jointly and severally Rs. 20,88,54,785.01 with interest within 30 days and issued a Recovery Certificate.

Axis Bank versus M/S Visual Acoustic Corporation LLP — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

Before SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI, Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi

¶2

TA No.720 OF 2022

¶3

A)fiS BANK LTMTTED VS M/S VTSUAL & ACOUSTTC CORPORATION LLP & ORS

¶4

Reserued on : 19.05.2026 Pronounced on =^22.06.2026

¶5

Axis Bank Limited -Applicant bank Vs.

¶6

M/s Visual & Acoustics Corporation LLP

¶7

Mr. Amarjit Singh Kalra

¶8

Mrs. Surinder Kaur Kalra

¶9

Mr. Surinder Singh Kalra 5. Indian Bank - Defendants

¶10

Present Mr. Sagar Diwan, Counsel appears for applicant bank. Defendants are exparte, since, L2.LL.2024.

¶11

FINAL ORDER

¶12

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 10.08.2020 through Mrs. Sonal Gupta, Assistance Vice President of the applicant bank, under Section 19 of the RDB Ad,.1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.20,88 ,54,785.0L together with cost, charges and pendentellite and future interest @9.70o/o from date of filing of this O.A. till the realization in full.

¶13

The brief facts of the case are that the defendant no.l had been availing the working capitat limit of Rs.13 Crores from Bank of Baroda and requested the applicant bank for taking over the said limit by way of enhancement in the same and accordingly the applicant bank vide its sanctiglletter dated 18.12.2015 fi'\

¶14

¶15

TA NO. 720 of 2022

¶16

took over the said limit of Bank of Baroda to the tune of Rs.13 Crores and enhanced the same up to Rs.22 Crores. The aforesaid facilities were duly secured by (i). Exclusive hypothecation charge on present and future current assets of the defendant no.l. (ii). Exctusive hypothecation charge over present and future movable fixed assets (expect vehicle) of the defendant no.1. (iii). Equitable mortgage over Industrial Property (Factory Land and Building) constructed on Plot Comprised in Khasra No.93.13/Min, measuring 842.81 sq. mtrs. Village Mundka, Nangloi, Delhi-110041 in the name of defendant no.2. (iv). FDR/IP of balance amount to make minimum collateral security coverage (IP+CM) pf a0^o/o. (iv). Pledge of RD account in the name of defendant no.1 with monthly deposit of Rs.5 Lacs. (v). Personal guarantee of defendant nos.2 to 4. The defendant nos.2 to 4 being the designated partners of the defendant no.l firm executed all necessary loaning documents on 22.L2.20t5. The defendant nos.2 to 4 stood as guarantors and executed separate deed of guarantee dated 22.L2.2015 in favour of the applicant bank. Again, at the request of defendant no.1, the applicant bank enhanced the said limit from Rs.22 Crores to Rs.25. Crores, vide sanction letter dated 08.03.2017. The defendant nos.2 to 4 being the designated^partners of the defendant no.1 firm executed all necessary loaning documents on 29.04.20L7. The defendant nos.2 to 4 stood as guarantors and executed separate deed of guarantee dated 29.04.20L7 in favour of the applicant bank. It^is submitted that the Indian Bank had also^granted certain facilities to the defendant no.1 and accordingly the borrower requesteg lf applicant bank for 9)''

¶17

¶18

TA NO. 720 of 2022

¶19

extension of pari passu charge in favour of Indian Bank also and accordingly vide its sanction letter dated L4.L2.20L7, the applicant bank modified its earlier sanction thereby extending pari passu charge with respect to current assets in favour of the Indian Bank. Again, at the request of defendant no.l, the applicant bank renewed the existing limits of Rs.25 Crores, vide Ietter dated 14.06.2018. In the said sanction, the working capital facilities were duly secured by current assets on first pari passu charge with defendant no.5 (Indian Bank). However, the charge on movable fixed assets as well as equitabte mortgage and FDR and Pledge on RD to the tune of Rs.4,90,00,000/- were created in favour of the applicant bank exclusive. It is submitted that no relief is being sought against the defendant no.5 as the defendant no.5 is pari^passu charge holders along with the applicant bank in respect of only current assets.

¶20

It is fufther submitted that the defendants enjoyed and utilized the Loan facilities, 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 30.06.2019. The applicant bank serued a^demand notice dated 06.11.2019 to the defendants^{but failed to} recover the same. Thus, the^present O.A.fl-.A.^is preferred by the applicant bank to recover its dues.

¶21

On notice by this Tribunal,^{defendantsfailed to} put appearance at all, despite^publication. AccordinglY, ,^tt'

TA NO. 720 of 2022

the defendants

were proceeded against expafte

¶26

on 12. tL.2024.

¶27

The applicant bank has filed evidence by way of affidavit of Mrs. Sonal Gupta, Assistance Vice President of the applicant bank as Annexure A-1 to Annexure A- 54, which have gone unchallenged and un-rebutted. Hence, the case of the applicant stands fully established against the defendants with respect to nonpayment of outstanding amount.

¶28

After perusing the records, this Tribunal is of the view that the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. The evidence and documents filed by the applicant bank not rebutted by the defOndants by not placing any evidence and there is no question of disbelieving the evidence and documents filed by the applicant bank based upon the written/pri nted docu ments.

¶29

In the light of the above discussions, the present T.A. deserues to be allowed.

¶30

ORDER

¶31

I hereby allow this T.A. of the applicant bank and direct the defendant nos.l to 4 to pay^jointly and severally to the applicant bank within 30 days from today, a sum of Rs.20 ,88,54,785.01 along with cost, expenses and interest @9.700lo from the date of filing of this O.A. which has become T.A till the date of realization.

¶32

In case of failure to deposit the above amount within the stipulated period, the same shall be recovered from the sale o[hypgthecated assets and the A

¶33

¶34

TA NO. 720 of 2022

¶35

sale of moftgage property i.e., Industrial Propefi (Factory Land and Building) constructed on Plot Comprised in Khasra No.93.13/Min, measuring 842.81 sq. mtrs. Village Mundka, Nangloi, Delhi-l10041. In case of short fall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of personal movable and immovable assets of the defendant nos.1 to 4.

¶36

Recovery Ceftificate be issued forthwith and be sent to Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi.

¶37

The registry of this Tribunal is hereby directed to issue free copy of the order and send the same to both the pafties.

¶38

Pafties are directed to appear before the Ld. Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi on 24.08 .2026. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

¶39

File be consigned to records. ---;',-".-.---,=\r9tr -^-.$ Date z 22.06.2026 (SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI)

¶40

PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

¶41

This judgement has been signed, dated and

¶42

pronounced in open couft.

¶43

Date :22.06.2026

¶44

(SUSHIL KUMAR PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

Axis Bank v. M/S Visual Acoustic Corporation LLP

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Axis Bank v. M/S Visual Acoustic Corporation LLP

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