PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK vs GAURAV BHATIA on 16 December 2025

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant before DRT III, Delhi on 14.02.2012 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.55,68,324.23 (Rupees Fifty Five Lacs Sixty Eight Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Four & paisa Twenty Three only) as on 13.02.2012 together with pendentelite and future interest @14% per annum with monthly rests plus 2% penal interest from 13.02.2012 till the date of realization and costs.

2. The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant no.1 as proprietor of Gaurav International in the business of wholesale trading of Dry Fruits and Kirana items along with defendant no.2 to 5 as guarantors, the applicant bank sanctioned Cash Credit limit aggregating to Rs.175 Lacs on 28.07.2008 @13% interest per annum with monthly rests against hypothecation of stocks, book debts, receivables and mortgage of properties. The applicant bank sanctioned Adhoc limit for Rs.26.00 Lacs on 12.08.2008. On the request of the defendant no.1, the applicant bank restructured/converted the outstanding in CC limit account into WCTL, which was to be repayable in 82 EMIs of Rs.2,57,600/-. The defendants also agreed to pay penal interest @2% per annum in case of default or delay in repayment of interest/instalments.

3. That in order to avail the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendants submitted loan applications and executed Agreement for Hypothecation of Moveable Assets, Agreement for Hypothecation of Goods and book debts, Agreement of Guarantee, Supplementary Agreement, WCTL Agreement and Declaration with the applicant bank on 28.07.2008 in favour of applicant bank. The defendant no.1 executed Supplementary Agreement, WCTL Agreement and Declaration on 31.03.2009 and defendant no.2 to 5 executed Agreements of Guarantee.

4. That in order to secure the loan facilities, the defendants mortgaged following properties with the applicant bank: i. Ground Floor portion of built up property on land measuring 70 sq. mtrs. bearing plot no.55, Block-BFH, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088; ii. Shop no.474 at Ground Floor, being part of property no.694/449, Katra Ishwar Bhawan, Khari Baoli, Delhi-110006 (These 2 properties redeemed under OTS by DRT-III order); The defendant no.4 created equitable mortgage of property being Western Portion of First Floor of Built Up sd

Property with roof rights on land measuring 207 sq.yds bearing Plot No.14, Block-BT, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi by deposing Original Perpetual Lease Deed dated 10.03.1977 registered as Document No.2723, A.B.No.I, Volume No.3444 on Pages 190 to 195 on 30.03.1977 and Original Conveyance Deed dated 11.03.1997 registered as Document No.1945 in A.B.No.I, Volume No.298 on Pages 72 to 74 on 12.03.1997 and Original Gift Deed dated 15.06.2006 registered as Document No.8636 in A.B.No.I, Volume No.438, on Pages 72 to 78 on 15.06.2006.

5. It has been submitted that after availing the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendants miserably failed and neglected to pay the interest in the account and failed to maintain financial discipline as per terms and conditions despite various notices and reminders. The applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 31.05.2008 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. Notices under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 was issued on 01.06.2009 to the defendants by the applicant bank but they failed to clear the dues. Further, defendant no.1 approached the applicant bank for One Time Settlement but failed to pay entire OTS amount. Hence, the applicant bank withdrew OTS on 11.02.2011 and issued notices on 09.05.2009, 03.02.2012 alongwith Corrigendum dated 06.02.2012 to notice dated 03.02.2012 but defendants failed to clear the dues.

7. In the written statement submitted on behalf of defendant no.1 to 5 that the claim amount is not payable nor due, rate of interest not disclosed, penal interest charged, statement about interest rates charged from time to time and claim amount is illegal, unwarranted and incorrect. the defendant no.2 to 5 are close relatives and residing in same house but not associated with the business of defendant no.1, the defendant no.4 stood as guarantor who is housewife not associated with business and not mortgaged her property with the applicant bank. The defendant no.3 to 5 denied mortgaging their properties by depositing original title deeds, possession notice affixed illegally on 26.04.2011 and defendant no.3 and 4 filed SA against action of applicant bank in taking physical possession owned by them, obtained stay. The application not signed by authorized person, not disclosed the allegations made therein. The applicant bank not provided material particulars i.e. varying rates of interest, penal interest and capitalization thereof denied the statement of account entries, Application is based on false, fabricated and manufactured documents, each and every entry purported to be alleged statement of accounts is vehemently denied and disputed. Further, signature of defendants got on undated and unfilled printed performs, stamp papers, filling by hand subsequently without mandate of defendants, not time given to read the documents. In view of above, defendants prayed to dismiss the OA with heavy costs and grant any other relief.

8. The applicant bank vehemently denied the submissions of defendants and submitted that upon execution of fresh documents, no requirement to file previous documents or statement of account, no necessity to inform changed rate of interest linked with BPLR which are notified from to time. The OA filed by duly authorized person, holding power of attorney which is valid and binding. It is further submitted that as per Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Transcore matter that both actions can be initiated under Sarfaesi Action and RDDBFI Act

1993 and OA has been filed based on loan documents executed by defendants on various dates and maintained in due and regular course of banking business. It is submitted that defendant no.2 and 5 stood as guarantors and defendant no.3 to 5 mortgaged their respective properties as collateral security by depositing original title deeds. It is further submitted that defendant no.4 mortgaged her property for M/s Varun International as well as extended to cover credit facilities availed by M/s Gaurav International on 20.04,2009. The accounts have been transferred to reschedule WCTL account, hence the outstanding amount as on 31.03.2009 is Zero but defendants are liable to pay dues in newly opened WCTL account. The applicant bank issued demand notice not only to defendant no.1 but also to M/s S.S.Impex and M/s Varun International and SA No.322/2011 is being contested but defendants are employing all tactics to delay the quick disposal. The documents were duly filled, read-over duly explained to defendants who put their signatures voluntarily and consciously and statement of accounts provided periodically. In view of the above, applicant bank prayed to pass final order against the defendants, jointly and severally.

9. The defendants have also 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.

10. 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 Sd- 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.

11. Heard and perused the pleadings. Apparently, defendants no.1 to 4 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.

12. 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 contentions of the defendants as baseless.

13. The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments made in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the 5d- applicant bank is based on the documents and the same have been duly proved.

14. 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.

15. 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, jointly or severally, within 30 days, a sum of Rs.55,75,162/- (Rupees Fifty Five Lacs Seventy Five Thousand One Hundred Sixty Two only) together with. pendentelite and future interest @13% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing of this application till the date of realization along with costs failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stocks, book debts, and mortgaged property i.e Western portion of First Floor of Built-up property with roof rights on land measuring 207 sq. yards bearing Plot no.14, Block BT, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi- 110088. 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 13.01.2026. (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: 16.12.2025