Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
YES BANK vs RPS ENGINEERS AND ORS on 14 August 2026
Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi
4th floor, Jeevan Tara Building,
Parliament Street, New Delhi
Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sharma
T.A. No. 2649 of 2022
Yes Bank Ltd.
Ground Floor, G-8, Preet Vihar,
Vikas Marg, Delhi-110092
Versus
1.
M/s RPS Engineers
A-45, Giri Marg, Mandawali
Delhi-110092
2.
Ms.Neetu Sood w/o Sh.Amit Sood
A-42, Giri Marg, Mandawali
Delhi-110092
Also at:
Ms.Neetu Sood w/o Sh.Amit Sood
A-45, Giri Marg, Mandawali
Delhi-110092
Applicant
Defendants
Present: Ms. Sonia Rawat, Counsel for the applicant bank Date of Reserve: 30.07.2026
Date of Pronouncement: 14.08.2026
FINAL ORDER
This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 31.082021 before DRT II Delhi and then transferred to DRT-I Delhi under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 read with Rule 8 of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 1993 against the defendants for recovery of Rs.46,68,722/- (Rupees Forty Six Lacs Sixty Eight
Page 1 of 4
Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty Two only) as on 23.07.2021 together with pendentelite and future interest @11.30% with monthly rests from 23.07.2021 till the date of its realization along with costs.
2. The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant no.1 registered as micro & small enterprise through its sole proprietress being defendant no.2, the applicant bank sanctioned Overdraft facility for working capital for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lacs only) on 19.02.0018 @11.00% rate of interest which was renewed from time to time lastly on 23.10.2020 reducing the credit limit to Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty lacs only) @11.30% interest per annum against exclusive charge of hypothecation of current assets and movable fixed assets covered under CGTMSE scheme.
3. That in order to avail the loan facility, the defendant no.1 through its proprietress submitted loan application and executed Facility Letter dated 19.02.2018 and Master Facility Agreement, Demand Promissory Note, Letter of Continuity of Demand Promissory Note, Deed of Hypothecation, Deed of Undertaking, Letter of Guarantee, Facility Renewal Letters, Letter of Continuing Guarantee dated 20.02.2018, Addendum Facility Letter dated 04.07.2020 and Addendum Facility Letter dated 23.10.2020 in favour of the applicant bank.
4. It has been submitted by the applicant that after availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of sanction either towards principle or interest despite several requests of the applicant. The applicant bank recall the credit facility vide recall notice dated 09.08.2021 for Rs.46,68,722/- along with interest and costs etc. but
Page 2 of 4
defendants failed to regularize the account. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this tribunal for recovery of its dues.
5. 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 30.01.2026, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as they have not appeared before the Tribunal nor written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have been filed.
6. In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Ashish Ranjan, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents such as Power of Attorney, Facility Letter, Master Facility Agreement, Demand Promissory Note, Letter of Continuity of D.P.Note, Deed of Undertaking, Deed of Hypothecation, Letter of Guarantee, Facility Renewal Letter, Addendum Facility Letter dated 04.07.2020 and Addendum Facility Letter dated 23.10.2020, Letter of Continuing Guarantee, Recall Notice dated 09.08.2021, Statement of Account marked as Ex.AW-1/1 to Ex.AW-1/6.
7. 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 proved.
8. 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. sa-
Page 3 of 4
9. In the light of the above discussions, the Original Application deserves to be allowed.
ORDER
I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank within 30 days, jointly or severally, a sum of Rs.46,68,722/- (Rupees Forty Six Lacs Sixty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty Two only) as on 23.07.2021 together with pendentelite and future interest @11.30% per annum from the date of filing of this application till the date of realization along with costs, failing which the amount shall be recovered from hypothecated current assets and book debts etc. In case of default, the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable property of the defendants. (II) The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi. (III) Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 13.10.2026. (IV) Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be sent to all concerned free of cost. 5c( (GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI (Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 14.08.2026
Page 4 of 4
Loading citations and judicial treatment…