UNION BANK OF INDIA vs KAMAL KISHORE GOYAL on 7 August 2026

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 20.10.2016 through Siva Prasad N' Assistant General Manager of the applicant bank, under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,46,49,4491- together with cost, charges and pendentellite and future interest @t4.25o/o p.a. from date of filing of this O'A' till the realization in full.

2. The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendants, the applicant bank sanctioned a Housing Loan Facility of Rs.1,50,00,000/- in 2006 for purchase of Apartment no. A-10/510, Sahara Grace, MG' Road' Gurgaon, Haryana and the defendants executed all necessa ry loa ni n g docu ments onlT .02'2006, 04'02'2009 and 31.01.2012' Again, at the request of defendants, the applicant sanctioned a Crop Vehicle (CVEHI) Loan Facility of Rs.2.70 Crores on November,20!l for purchase of 10 Eighteen Tonne trucks/trailers (all Ashok Leyland make)' s'{

TANO. 1379 of2022

The defendants executed all necessary loaning documents on 30.11.2011 and 01'03'2014' The defendants had also mortgaged by equitable mortgage propefties i.e., (a). Propefi no. A-3/1, Second Floor, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-l10063. (b)' Apartment no' A- 10/510, Sahara Grace, M'G. Road, Gurgaon, Haryana' The said loan continued to remain regular till November, 2015 after which the defendants stopped making payments/installments towards clearing the said outstanding. The loan account no. CVEHI 110008 became NPA in March, 2016 and the applicant bank sent a demand Letter dated 08.04'2016 recalling the entire loan and calling upon the defendants to repay the entire loan' Those as a consequence of the aforesaid loan account becoming NPA and despite the said notice dated 08.04.2016, upon the defendants failing to clear the loan, the applicant bank was constrained to serue a notice dated 25.04.2016 under Section 13 of the Securitization Act upon the defendants' Upon finding discrepancies in the loan account no' CVEHI 110003 of 2011 in as much as the defendant nos.l and 2 (as Directors of Tirupati Translogistics h/t Ltd) had submitted 27 forged Registration Certificates in respect of 27 vehicles which were found to be owned by some third parties, the applicant bank also applied for inspection of RCs in respect of these 10 vehicles to Transport Registration Authority, Gurgaon. After a great deal of follow-up, the Branch Head upon inspection of RCs at the Registration Authority, Gurgaon was shocked to find that all the 10 vehicles had been sold by the defendants by forging No Objection Certificates on behalf of applicant bank whereas the applicant did not even have knowledge of this sale. Despite best eff-ofts, the Authority while (), TA NO. 1379 of2022

furnishing copies of RCs (which showed these vehicles having been sold to third parties by defendants) failed to furnish copies of NOCs furnished in case of 10 vehicles. The defendants have forged and fabricated NOCs in respect of all 10 vehicles wotth value of Rs'3'5 Crores and have submitted these forged NOCs to affect the said transfer prior to March, 2016' This sale has been affected to Sai Logistics Ltd and the trucks now stand hypothecated to Yes Bank Ltd' Therefore, the applicant bank has been deprived of its security for all the 10 vehicles and repayment of loan and shows defendants have no intention of repaying the loan. In addition to the aforesaid, the applicant bank upon inquiry found that the defendant no.1 forged and fabricated auction conflrmation lefters and receipts in favour of defendant alleged to have been issued by Corporation Bank by forging Bank's Letterhead, stamp and signatures in respect of propefties that are neither owned nor mortgaged to Corporation Bank to show that defendant has purchased 3 properties i.e', (i). Property bearing No' C-25, South Extension Part-1, New Delhi 110049 (hereinafter also referred to as "South Extension Propefi" having plot size of 286 sq' yds' (ii)' Residential House No.351-P, Sector 21-C, Faridabad (Haryana), having a plot size of 577.66 sq. yds. (iii)' Industrial plot No.203, Khasra No.1702, Jaat Road, Mundka Industrial Area, New Delhi, having a plot area of 3672 sq' meters' It is submitted that one Mr. K.B. Saraogi approached the Zonal Head of Delhi North Shri Ashok Chandra, Deputy General Manager at the Zonal Office of Corporation Bank and showed him large number of documents pertaining to a property that according to him had been sold in auction to defendant and told him that these documents c.-\

TANO. 1379 of2022

had been given to him by Kamal Kishore Goyal (in his capacity as Managing Director of lirupati Translogistics M Ltd. It is further submitted that Mr' K'B' Saraogi after handing over those documents demanded an explanation from the Zonal Head as to why the Corporation Bank was not executing Sale Deeds in respect of the above- mentioned properties in favour of M/s Prashan Commotrade h/t. Ltd. despite having the entire sale consideration/auction value for the said properties and also having received the value of stamp duty payable for registration of the Sale Deeds for the said properties' It is submitted that Shri Siva Prasad N', Assistant General Manager, Branch Head of Corporation Bank' Paschim Vihar Branch, New Delhi was present as Mr' K'B' Saraogi had visited the branch first and Mr' Siva Prasad N' had immediately brought him to the Zonal Head as it was felt that the issue pertaining to three different properties and therefore could only be dealt with at the Zonal Office level of Corporation Bank. The Zonal Head was informed by Mr. Siva Prasad N. that none of these three properties were mortgaged with the Corporation Bank' Paschim Vihar Branch and therefore the question of the said properties being auctioned by the Corporation Bank' Paschim Vihar Branch, New Delhi had been arisen' Mr' Prasad further informed the Zonal Head of Corporation Bank me that none of the above-mentioned letters and receipts (as mentioned in item Nos' 5'15 (i) to (vi) had been issued by the Corporation Bank, Paschim Vihar Branch, New Delhi and that the letters, letterhead' signatures and stamp of Bank had all been forged by Shri Kamal Kishore Goyal (defendant no'2)' The Zonal Head of applicant bank also immediately remembered that a demand draft of Rs'55,00,000/- had been handed over to sd him by defendant no.2 on 16.9'2016 when he had visited with a proposal to settle all his N'P'A' accounts held with Corporation Bank and the Zonal Head had immediately called for the original demand draft and found that on the reverse of demand draft it was mentioned "as stamp paper cost by M/s' Prashan Commotrade Put. Ltd." This demand draft had been handed over to him by Mr. Kamal Kishore Goyal towards partial settlement of dues of the loan account of his wife Smt. Anita Goyal (defendant no.2). These loan accounts were held by Smt. Anita Goyal at the Corporation Bank' Paschim Vihar Branch, New Delhi. The applicant bank immediately realized that massive fraud and cheating had been perpetuated by Mr. Kamal Kishore Goyal and his wife Mrs. Anita Goyal defendant no'2 by forging the letterhead and stamp of Corporation Bank, Paschim Vihar Branch, New Delhi and using the same to issue the aforementioned letters and receipts (as mentioned in para 5.15 (i) to (vi)) in order to misrepresent and to make Shri K.B. Saraogi, Director of M/s Prashan Commotrade h/t. Ltd. believe that the aforesaid properties had been purchased by M/s. Tirupati Translogistics Art' Ltd' in an auction held by Corporation Bank, Paschim Vihar Branch' New Delhi. In addition to forging the above-mentioned letters and receipts, Mr' Kamal Kishore Goyal had also given copies of three letters dated 22'8'20LG allegedly issued and sent by him to the Chief Manager, Corporation Bank, Paschim Vihar Branch, New Delhi asking the Bank to register the said properties in favour of M/s' Prashan Commotrade hrt. Ltd' These letters contained a stamp of the Chief Manager, Corporation Bank, Paschim Vihar Branch, New Delhi' These lefters have also been forged letters have neither been received by s.) as no such

TANO. 1379of2022 6 Corporation Bank, Paschim Vihar Branch, New Delhi nor is the stamp, signatures on the stamp that of Corporation Bank, Paschim Vihar Branch, New Delhi. Similarly, the three letters and three receipts (mentioned in para 5.14(i) to (vi) of the OA) have neither been issued by the said Branch nor they do contain the signatures of any of the officers/staff members of the said Branch' It is submitted that Mr. K.B' Saraogi also told that on the strength of the aforesaid three letters and three receipts issued by Corporation Bank, Paschim Vihar Branch, New Delhi and the three lefters dated22.8.2016 issued by Shri Kamal Kishore Goyal, M/s. Prashan Commotrade h/t' Ltd' had a paid a sum in excess Rs'8,00,00,000/- consideration for the three propefties' of as part sale consideration for the three properties' The defendant no.1 has clearly forged the aforementioned three letters and three receipts in order to establish to M/s' Prashan Commotrade h . Ltd. that Shri Kamal Kishore Goyal's company Tirupati Translogistics M Ltd had purchased the above-mentioned properties in an auction from Corporation Bank, Paschim Vihar Branch, New Delhi so as to fraudulently induce M/s. Prashan Commotrade h ' Ltd to pay the sale consideration for the said properties' IT is further submitted that defendant no'1 has also created and forged letterhead, stamp of Chief Manager' Corporation Bank, Paschim Vihar Branch, New Delhi and the signatures (allegedly of some officers of the Branch) in order to claim that he had purchased these properties and paid the entire sale consideration for the same to Corporation Bank, Paschim Vihar Branch, New Delhi and further claim that the title of the said propefties now vested in Tirupati Translogistics M Ltd' The signatures and stamp on the said letters are not of Corporation

Bank, Paschim Vihar Branch, although the same issimilartotheBanKsstamp.Thelettersdated 22.08.2016 allegedly issued to the Chief Manager' Corporation Bank, Paschim Vihar Branch' New Delhi contains reference to an enclosed Agreement to Sale dated20.0s.20l6toclaimthattheCorporationBankhas executd Agreement to Sell in respect of the said properties in favour of Tirupati Translogistics hlt Ltd and/or executed by Tirupati Translogistics tut Ltd in favour of M/s Prashaan Commotrade hrt Ltd' In addition to forging the above-mentioned letters and receipts' defendant no'1 has used the demand draft No'053579 dated 02.09.2016 for a sum of Rs'55 lakhs to partly repay the loan advanced to his wife Smt' Anita Goyal (defendant no'2) towards loan account No' CVEHI- 120005 and 120009' This Demand Draft had been issued by M/s' Prashan Commotrade hlt' Ltd' for purchase of stamp papers and in order to convinced M/s' Prashan Commotrade hlt. Ltd' that he had deposited the demand draft for purchase of stamp-papers' Shri Kamal Kishore Goyal has fraudulently forged the stamp and signatures of Chief Manager, Corporation Bank' Paschim Vihar Branch, New Delhi to show that he had deposited this DemandDrafttowardspaymentofstamp.dutyonbehalf of M/s. Prashan Commotrade hlt' Ltd' It is submitted that this letter dated 02'09'2016 was never submifted to either the Paschim Vihar Branch of Corporation Bank or to Zonal Head. By using the above-mentioned forged lettersandreceiptsShriKamalKishoreGoyalhasnotonly cheated M/s' Prashan Commotrade h/t' Ltd' and induced them to paft with a large amount going into several crores towards paft sale consideration of properties mentionedaboveandind.o.rnosohastriedtosell 9\

properties that neither belong to Respondents and had never been sold by applicant bank because the same were neither mortgaged nor owned by the applicant bank. The defendants by forging the above documents has also cheated the Corporation Bank as they have forged lefters to show the same to have been issued by Corporation Bank thereby jeopardizing the name and goodwill of the bank and trying to implicate the Bank in an offence in which the bank has no role' The defendants have further cheated the Bank by handing over the above-mentioned demand draft of Rs'55 Lakhs by misrepresenting to the bank that this demand draft had been got issued by him and that he was depositing the same for clearing loan amount of his wife Smt' Anita Goyal/defendant no'2' In addition to the above said demand draft of Rs'55 Lakhs defendant no'1 had also deposited a fufther sum of Rs'13'5 Lakhs towards part payment of the loan of his wife smt' Anita Goyal/defendant no'2' The applicant informed the defendants vide letter dated 08'04'2016 that their account had become a Non-Pedorming Asset (NPA) and called upon the defendants to regularize the entire overdue within 15 days' However' the defendants failed to even respond to either the said letter or the repeated visit of the officers of applicant to defendants as also entreaties to defendants to regularize the account' The applicant further states that they have sent notice dated

25. O4.2OL6to the defendants calling upon them to clear the outstanding within 60 days and also file objections' if any, to the said notice' The defendants failed to even deposit any money and also submit any objections' Despite the aforementioned correspondence' the defendants failed to ma(e -any payment towards its g{

outstanding so as to regularize its account and take it out of the category of NPA' It is submitted that defendantno.l&2beingborrowerandguarantorforthe loan facility are jointly and severally liable to clear their outstanding' Therefore, the present O'A'ff 'A' is preferred by the applicant bank to recover its dues'

3. On notice by this Tribunal' defendants put appearance through counsel but failed to file wriften sbtement and the right to file wriften statement of defendants was closed vide order dated 31'05'2018'

4. The applicant bank has flled evidence by way of affidavit of Sh' Chandi Kumar' Chief Manager of the applicant bank as Paper No'1 to Paper No'99' 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.

5. 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 defendants by not placing any evidence and there is no question of disbelieving the evidence and documents filed by the applicant bank documents. based uPon the written/Printed In the light of the above discussions' the present T'A' deserues to be allowed'

ORDER

1) I hereby allow this T'A' of the applicant bank and direct the defendant nos'l and 2 to pay jointly and q^

l0 severally to the applicant bank within 30 daYs from today, a sum of Rs.3,46,4g,449/- atong with cost' expenses and interest @8'50o/o from the date of filing of this O.A. which has become T'A till the date of realization'

2) In case of failure to deposit the above amount within the stipulated period, the same shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated assets and the sale of mortgaged propefties (a)' Property no' A-3/1' Second Floor, Paschim Vihar, New DelhF110O63' (b)' Apartment no. A-10/510, Sahara Grace, M'G' Road' Gurgaon' Haryana. In case of shoft fall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of personal movable and immovable assets of the defendant nos'1 and 2'

3) Recovery Certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il' Delhi'

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

5) Pafties are directed to appear before the Ld' Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi on 07 '10'2026' Pending IAs, if anY, stand disPosed of' File be consigned to records' Date : 07.08.2026 This judgement has been pronounced in oPen court' .s) (susHrl rtjmnn nAsroct) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi signed, dated and sA (SUSHIL KUMAR,RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi Date : 07.08.2026