PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK vs M/s Brilliance Impex on 15 September 2026

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant before DRT III, Delhi on 28.12.2015 and then transferred to DRT-I Delhi 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.4,02,46,749/- (Rupees Four crores Two lacs Forty Six thousand Seven hundred Forty Nine only) as on 28.12.2015 together with pendentelite and future interest @15.10% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing of this application till the date of realization and costs.

2. The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant no.2 as proprietor of M/s Brilliance Impex, being defendant no.1 in the business of trading of sanitary goods, hardware and electrical appliance etc. items along with defendant no.3 to 5 stood as guarantors vide loan application dated 07.01.2013, the applicant bank sanctioned Cash Credit limit aggregating Rs.450.00 lacs @Base Rate plus 5.5% interest rate per annum on 30.01.2013 against hypothecation of stocks, book debts and mortgage of properties owned by defendant no.2 to 5.

3. That in order to avail the credit facility, the defendant no.2 as proprietor of defendant no.2 submitted loan application dated 07.01.2013 and executed Letter of Sanction, Deed of Hypothecation of Goods and book debts to secure Cash Credit facility, Deed of Hypothecation of Movable Assets, Agreement for Hypothecation of Current Assets, Agreements of Guarantee (BH 191971 and 191972) in favour of applicant bank on 31.01.2013.

sd-

4. That in order to secure the loan facility, the defendant no.2 to 5 created equitable mortgage of following properties by depositing title deeds with the applicant bank on 31.01.2013 duly confirmed and acknowledged creation of mortgage vide letter dated 01.02.2013:-

- i. Residential Flat No.A-103, First Floor, Plot No.11, Block A, Eldeco Apartments, Sector-4, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, UP owned by defendant no.2;

- ii. Shop No.4, Ground Floor, Rama Market, out of 105 sq.yds, Municipal No.3405, Ward VI, Gali Hakim Baqa, Hauz Qazi, Delhi-110006 owned by defendant no.3 and 4;

- iii. Shop No.11, Bhagwati Market, Property No.2826, Gali Pipal Mahadev, Hauz Qazi, Delhi-110006 owned by defendant no.5.

5. It has been submitted that after availing the credit facility, the defendants failed to maintain financial discipline and adhere to the terms and conditions of loan agreements and account became irregular due to non-routing of sale proceeds through the account, non-submission of financial papers, non-availability of stock and overdue interest despite requests. The applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 27.01.2015 as per RBI guidelines but defendants did not make efforts to regularize the account, hence, the applicant bank has approached this tribunal for recovery of its dues.

6. The defendants executed and signed Balance Confirmation Letter dated 28.01.2015 towards the applicant bank.

7. Notices under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Sd- Interest Act 2002 was issued on 07.03.2015 to the defendants by the applicant bank and further issued possession notice u/s 13(4) dated 04.06.2015.

8. Vide order dated 04.09.2015, the DRT disposed of the SA no.242/2015 of the defendants as the bank accepted the offer of applicants to release title deeds of mortgaged properties against deposit of Rs.157.58 lacs. Accordingly, bank released the title deeds of mortgaged properties on 23.12.2015 as per DRT order after deposit of Rs.1.57 crores from the buyer. In the meantime, applicant bank filed OA No.770/2015 seeking restrain order on the mortgaged properties. Vide order dated 01.01.2016, DRT restrained the borrowers from alienating, selling, disposing etc. or creating third party interest in respect of mortgaged properties again which borrowers filed I.A. No.280/2016 which was dismissed on 14.12.2016 by the DRT. The borrowers filed Misc.Appeal no.196/2017 before Hon'ble DRAT, which was dismissed on 18.04.2019. The borrowers Sh.Kamal Dhingra, M/s Anurag Industries and Vipin Kumar, the buyers of properties in question filed Writ Petition (Civil) No.11986/2019 & CM Appl. 49075/2019, W.P.(C) 2048/2020 & & CM Appl. 7199/2020 and W.P.(C) 987/2020 & CM Appl. 3180/2020 respectively before the Hon'ble High Court, Delhi contended that after receipt of full amount, bank cannot obtain restrain order by filing application under Section 19 of RDDB Act before DRT seeking restrain orders on the properties in question. The Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 05.05.2025 observed that conduct of bank to include the properties in question which have already been released from mortgage, in the list properties for which restrain orders sought, is to say the least dishonest. Once the properties have been released from mortgage upon receiving the money, it was not open for Sd/- the bank to attach them as the petitions have already paid for the properties and set aside the order dated 18.04.2019 passed by Hon'ble DRAT dismissing Misc.Appeal No.196/2017 and upholding the order dated 14.12.2016 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissing IA No.280/2016.

9. The defendants during the process of redemption of properties offered OTS for Rs.275.00 lacs on 25.09.2015 against total dues of Rs.474.81 lacs plus interest w.e.f. 01.01.2015 which was pending.

10. In the written statement submitted on behalf of defendant no.1 to 5 that the claim amount is based on false, fabricated and manufactured documents by officers of bank in active connivance with each other, unfilled/blank documents obtained from defendants by exercising misrepresentation, commercial duress and coercion. Further, no opportunity was given to peruse the alleged papers before signing told the papers were routine in nature and proper documentation will be done later which was used to create fabricated cause of auction. The claim of bank is barred by limitation under the law and no amount is due from defendants and no stamp duty as prescribed under the law has been affixed on the alleged documents hence not admissible in evidence. The applicant bank has not filed complete statement of accounts and not filed complete set of documents, deliberately concealed from this tribunal. The applicant bank failed to give the exact date of declaring the account as NPA in accordance with RBI guidelines as contained in Section 2(O) of Securitization Act not informed the defendants before classification. The defendant requested for regularization of the account after liquidating entire overdue amount in term of RBI guidelines but no heed was paid and Sd- adamant not considered any request for restructuring of the accounts. Further, no alleged personal guarantee were executed at any point of time and is ab-initio cannot form the basis for fastening of any alleged liability against the defendants and held them liable. The allegation of defendants in defaulted in repayments of alleged facilities granted are concocted and false and bank has failed to give due credit of amount deposited from time to time after alleged date of NPA. Further, signature of defendants got on undated and unfilled printed performs, stamp papers, filling by hand subsequently without mandate of defendants, application not filed by duly authorized person, agreements not reliable / admissible not time given to read the documents. The defendants alleged that applicant bank not produced true and complete statement of account, loan applications, sanction letters of alleged facilities granted, charged interest & expenses at exorbitant rates, wrongful charges debited, interest variations, no debt dues from defendants. As per Contract Act 1872, debt is to be recovered from principal debtor either primarily by the creditor or finally by the guarantor, DRT has no jurisdiction to proceed against guarantor. In view of above, defendants prayed to dismiss the OA with heavy costs and grant any other relief.

11. The defendants have challenged the statement of account of the bank but this Tribunal is of the view that statement of account is duly certified under Section 4 of the Bankers Books of Evidences Act and the same cannot be challenged unless specific entry is pointed by the defendants. Hence, the said objection is not maintainable and the same is hereby rejected. The application has been moved by applicant on 28.12.2015 and defendants executed balance confirmation on 28.01.2015, which is within the period of limitation, hence claim of bank is valid.

sd-

12. The witness of the applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments made in this O.A. The evidence lead by the applicant bank which consists of mainly written / typed documents have gone unchallenged and there is no question of disbelieving the same based upon the documents. This Tribunal has also observed that not an iota evidence has been led by the defendants against the claim of the applicant bank and has made only submission on fact as stated in the written statement evidence. That in the civil proceedings it cardinal principle, that whosoever alleges a fact he/she has to prove in the court of law by leading evidence mere assertion are not sufficient and nowhere defendants have denied about the availment of the loan.

13. Heard and perused the pleadings. Apparently, defendants no.1 to 5 have raised the objections that the applicant bank has got signed the blank documents from them while granting the loan facilities. This Tribunal has gone through the documents which are duly filled and executed by the defendants no.1 to 5 and this Tribunal is of the view that plea of blank documents is no plea in the eyes of law as has been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of "Indian Bank Vs. Cheese Wafers (India) Pvt. Ltd. It was held if the defendants have not filed any complaint before higher authorities of the bank or filed any complaint before police authorities.....". Thus, the plea of blank documents is not maintainable after filing of the suit and the same is rejected. The bank issued demand notice after declaring the account as NPA on 27.01.2015 due to overdue interest, non-routing of sale transactions thru the accounts and defendants acknowledged the balance confirmation towards bank on 28.01.2015, there is no question of borrowers not informed the account status. The defendants also approached for redemption of properties by Sd- offering OTS for Rs.275.00 lacs on 25.09.2015 and filed SA before this tribunal for release of title deeds of properties against deposit of Rs.157.58 lacs, hence all the contentions are baseless and found no merits.

14. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Tribunal is of the view that the defendants have failed to convince this Tribunal and this Tribunal do not find any merit and reject the various contentions of the defendants as baseless.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.4,02,46,749/- (Rupees Four crores Two lacs Forty Six thousand Seven hundred Forty Nine only) as on 28.12.2015 together with pendentelite and future interest @15.10% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing of this application till the date of realization along with costs failing Sd- which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stocks, book debts, and mortgaged properties viz:

1. i. Residential Flat No.A-103, First Floor, Plot No.11, Block A, Eldeco Apartments, Sector-4, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, UP owned by defendant no.2;

2. ii. Shop No.4, Ground Floor, Rama Market, out of 105 sq.yds, Municipal No.3405, Ward VI, Gali Hakim Baqa, Hauz Qazi, Delhi-110006 owned by defendant no.3 and 4;

3. iii. Shop No.11, Bhagwati Market, Property No.2826, Gali Pipal Mahadev, Hauz Qazi, Delhi-110006 owned by defendant no.5.

In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties 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 13.11.2026.

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

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

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 15.09.2026