Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
YES BANK vs ARIHANT UDYOG on 23 December 2025
Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi
4th floor, Jeevan Tara Building,
Parliament Street, New Delhi
Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sharma T.A. no. 335 of 2022
Yes Bank Ltd.
Plot No.05, Block C,
Ashok Vihar Phase I, Delhi-11005
Versus
1.
M/s Arihant Udyog
Through its proprietress - Ms Babita Jain Sector 2K, 120, DSIDC Industrial Area Bawana, West Delhi-110039
2.
Ms. Babita Jain c/o Sh.Sanjay Jain
B-1/209, Sunrise Apartments,
Opposite Sachdeva School, Sector-13
Rohini, Delhi-110085
Applicant
Defendants
Present: Ms Sonia Rawat, Counsel for the applicant bank Date of Institution: 16.12.2025
Date of Pronouncement: 23.12.2025
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
FINAL ORDER
This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 16.07.2022 through Shri Anuj Trivedil authorized representative of the applicant bank under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 read with Rule 8 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal Rules 1993 against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.21,12,339/- (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Twelve Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Nine only) as on 27.04.2022 along with pendentelite and future interest @10.65% per annum with monthly rests from 27.04.2022 till the date of realization and costs.
2. The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant no.1 through its proprietress /guarantor being defendant no.2, the applicant bank sanctioned Overdraft facility for working capital for a total sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs only) on 05.07.2018 covered under CGTMSE scheme along with interest @12.50% per annum which was renewed on 21.10.2019 and 15.09.2020 @10.65% rate of interest.
3. That in order to avail the overdraft loan facility, the defendant no.1 through its proprietress submitted loan application and executed Demand Promissory Note, Letter of Continuity, Deed of Hypothecation and Letter of Guarantee on 10.07.2018.
4. It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions and despite several requests and reminders, the defendants failed to pay the outstanding dues and interest in time to the applicant bank. Ultimately, the applicant bank issued the recall notice dated 23.06.2022 calling upon the defendants to pay the entire outstanding dues to the applicant bank but the defendants did not clear the dues of the applicant bank therefore neglected to pay and hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.
5. Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite proper service the defendants have chosen to absent sd from the proceedings. As per order dated 03.10.2019, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte due to non-filing of written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets before this Tribunal.
6. In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Sh.Anuj Trivedi, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as Power of Attorney Ex.AW1/1, Master Facility Agreement, Demand Promissory Note, Letter of Continuity for Demand Promissory Note, Deed of Hypothecation Ex.AW1/2 (Colly), Letter of Guarantee Ex.AW1/3(Colly), Facility Renewal Letters Ex.AW1/4, Recall Notice Ex. AW1/5 (Colly) and Statement of Accounts Ex.AW1/6.
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,
9. In the light of the above discussions, the Original Application deserves to be allowed.
ORDER
allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank within 30 days, jointly or severally, a sum of Rs.21,12,339/- (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Twelve Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Nine only) as on 27.04.2022 along with pendentelite and future interest @10.65% per annum with monthly rest from 27.04.2022 till the date of realization and costs, failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of the immovable and immovable property of defendants. (II) The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi. (III) Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 20.02.2026. (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: 23.12.2025