UNION BANK OF INDIA vs ANITA GOYAL on 7 August 2026

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant ban( on 20.10.2016 through Shri Siva Prasad N, Assistant General Manager ofthe applicant bank' under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs'2,68,75,847/- together with cost, charges and pendentellite and future interest @11.75olo 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 Corp Vehicle Loan Facility of Rs'11,00,000/- on 18'09'2012 for purchase of Verna car in the name of defendant no'1 and for the said loan guarantee was given by defendant no'2' The defendants executd all necessry loaning documents on 18.09.2012, 30'11'2011 and 26'04'2015' Again, at the request of defendants, the applicant bank sanctionedacreditfacilityofaCropVehicle(CVEHI)Loan of Rs.3.07 Crores on 31.122012 for purchase of 10 18 9\l

TANO.364of2024 2 Tonne trucks/trailers (all Ashok Leyland make)' The defendant no.1 executed all necessry loaning documents on 31.12.2012. The acknowledgement of debt dated 27.L0.2015 executed by defendant no'1' The defendant nos.1 and 2 had also mortgaged the properties i.e., (a). Property no. A-3/1, Second Floor, Paschim Vihar' New Delhi-110063, (b). Apartment no' A-10/510' Sahara Grace, M.G. Road, Gurgaon, Haryana' The said loans continued to remain regular till October-November' 2015 after which the defendants stopped making payments/installments towards clearing the said outstanding. The loan account no' CVEHI 120005 and. 120009 became NPA in March, 2016 and the applicant bank sent a demand letter dated 08'04'2016 recalling the entire loan. It is submitted that as a consequence of the aforesaidloanaccountbecomingNPAanddespitethe said notice dated 08'04'2016, the defendants failed to clear the loan, the applicant bank was constrained to serve a notice dated 25.04'2016 under Section 13 of the Securitization Act upon the defendans and calling upon the defendants to Rs.2,19,99,2021-. ln repay the entire loan of addition to the aforesaid, the applicant bank upon inquiry found that the defendant no.l forged and fabricated auction confirmation letters 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 properties that are neither owned nor mortgaged to Corporation Bank to show that defendant has purchased 3 properties i'e'' (a)' Property bearing No. C-25, South Extension Paft-l' New Delhi 110049 having plot size of 286 sq' yds' (b)' Residential House No.351-P, Sector 21-C' Faridabad (Haryana), having a plol sizq of 577'66 sq' yds'' (c)' qA

TANO.364of2024 3 Industrial plot No.203, Khasra No'1702, Jaat Road' Mundka Industrial Area, New Delhi, having a plot area of 3672q. meters. It is submitted that Kamal Kishore Goyal also agreed to sell the said properties to a third party (M/s Prashaan Commotrade h/t Ltd') on the basis of said forged letters and receipts and also used the demand draft issued by such third party for Rs'55,00'000/- to repay partially repay loans standing in the name of his wife. Defendant no.1 also showed that he had got the said demand draft of Rs'55 lacs received from the applicant bank. On the basis of aforesaid payment and promise to pay further Rs'14 crores by 31'10'2016' the defendant no.1 was able to get the bank to stay its action' However, when the aforesaid fraud of the said three propefties came to the knowledge of the bank on 04.10.2016, the applicant bank immediately flled 4 complaints with Economic Offence Cell, Delhi Police and is also fiting the present OA and other OAs to seek recovery and further seek urgent expafte orders from the Honble Tribunal. The aforesaid forgery and fraud committed by the defendants shows that they have defrauded and cheated the bank to the tune more than Rs.30 crores by forging RCs and NOCs and further used forged letterheads etc' of the bank to sell properties wofthmorethanRs'40croresbycheatingthirdparties and by using the forged documents purported to have been issued by the applicant bank' The extent of forgery and cheating clearly shows that the intent of defendant nos.1 and 2 is to leave the shores of India as they are amassing illegal money at such rapid pace by hook or crook and have been making false promises to the bank including one on humanitarian grounds of wedding of their daughter to delay the Bank from initiating steps to s).

TANO.364of2024 4 recover the money' If not, defendants restrained from leaving the country, are not the Present proceedings would be rendered meaningless' It is evident that the defendant nos.1 and 2 are on the verge of leaving India with all the money they have accumulated by cheating not only the applicant bank but other such third parties. The aforesaid fraud came to the knowledge of applicant when 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 andshowedhimlargenumberofdocumentspertaining to a property that according to him had been sold in auction to defendant and told him that these documents had been given to him by Kamal Kishore Goyal (in his capacity as Managing Director of Tirupati Translogistics h Ltd.). It is 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/auctionvalueforthesaidpropertiesand alsohavingreceivedthevalueofstampdutypayablefor registration of the Sale Deeds for the said propefties' It is further submifted 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

TA NO. 364 of2024 three ProPelties were moftgaged 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 that none of the above-mentioned lettersandreceipts(asmentionedinitemNos.5.l5(i)to

(vi) of the OA) 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 him by defendant no'2 on 16'9'2016 when he had visited with a proposalto 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 h/t Ltd'" This Demand Draft had been handed over to him by Mr' Kamal Kishore Goyal towards paftial 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' PaschimViharBranch,NewDelhi.Theapplicantbank 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 aforementionedleftersandreceipts(asmentionedin para 5.15(i) to (vi) of the OA) in order to misrepresent and to make Shri K'B' Saraogi, Director of M/s Prashan

9. \

TANO.364of2024 6 Commotrade h . Ltd. believe that the aforesaid properties had been purchased by M/s' Tlrupati Translogistics h/t. Ltd. in an auction held by Corporation Bank, Paschim Vihar Branch, New Delhi' In addition to forging the above mentiond letters and receipts, Mr' Kamal Kishore Goyal had also given copies of three letters dated22.8.2016 allegedly issued and sent by him to the Chief Manager, Corporation Bank, Paschim Vihar Branch' New Delhi asking the bank to register the said propefties in favour of M/s' Prashan Commotrade tuL Ltd' These letters contained a stamp of the Chief Manager' Corporation Bank, Paschim Vihar Branch, New Delhi' These letters have also been forged as no such lefters have neither been received by Corporation Bank' Paschim Vihar Branch, New Delhi nor is the sbmp, 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)) 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 submifted 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 letters dated 22'8'2016 issued by Shri Kamal Kishore Goyal, M/s' Prashan Commotrade h . Ltd. had a paid a sum in excess Rs.8,00,00,000/- as part sale consideration for the three properties. It is submitted that defendant no'1 has clearly forged the aforementioned three letters and three receipts in order to establish to M/s' Prashan Commotrade h/t. Ltd. that Shri Kamal Kishore Goyal's company Tirupati Translogistics h/t Ltd had purchased the above-mentioned properties in an auction from s.l

TANO.364of 2024 Corporation Bank, Paschim Vihar Branch, New Delhi so as to fraudulently induce M/s. Prashan Commotrade M' Ltd to pay the sale consideration for the said properties' It is 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 properties now vested in TirupatiTranslogistics hrt Ltd" The signatures and stamp on the said letters are not of Corporation Bank, Paschim Vihar Branch, although the same is similar to the Bank's stamp. The letters dated 22'08'2016 allegedly issued to the Chief Manager, Corporation Bank' Paschim Vihar Branch, New Delhi contains reference to an enclosed Agreement to Sale dated 20'08'2016 to claim that the Corporation Bank has executed Agreement to Sell in respect of the said properties in favour of f irupati Translogistics h/t Ltd and/or executed by Tirupati Translogistics h/t Ltd in favour of M/s Prashaan Commotrade hlt Ltd. In addition to forging the above- mentioned letters and receipts, Respondent 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 Demand Draft had been issued bY 120009. This M/s. Prashan Commotrade h/t' Ltd' for purchase of stamp papers and in order to convinced M/s. Prashan Commotrade h/t' Ltd' that he had deposited the Demand Draft for purchase of stamp-papers, Shri Kamal Kishore Goyal has fraudulently qI

TANO.364of2024 8 forged the stamp and signatures of Chief Manager, Corporation Ban( Paschim Vihar Branch, New Delhi to show that he had deposited this Demand Draft towards payment of stamp- duty on behalf of M/s' Prashan Commotrade tut. It is further submitted that this letter dated 02.09.2016 was never submitted to either the Paschim Vihar Branch of Corporation Bank or to Zonal Head. By using the above-mentioned forged letters and receipts Shri Kamal Kishore Goyal has not only cheated M/s. Prashan Commotrade h/t' Ltd. and induced them to part with a large amount going into several crores towards part sale consideration of properties mentioned above and in doing so has tried to sell properties that neither belong to defendants 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 letters 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 GoyaUdefendant no'2' In addition to the above said Demand Draft of Rs'55 Lakhs defendant no.1 had also deposited a further sum of Rs.13.5 Lakhs towards part payment of the loan of his wife Smt. Anita Goyal/defendant no'2. It is submitted that defendant no.1 & 2 being borrower and guarantor for the loan facility are jointly and seyerally liable to clear their q)

TANO.364of2024 9 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 written statement and the right to file written statement of defendants was closed vide order dated 27'09'2018'

4. The applicant bank has filed evidence by way of affidavit of Sh' Chandi Kumar, Chief Manager of the applicant bank as Paper No'1 to Paper No'124' which have gone unchallenged and un-rebutted' Hence' the case of the applicant stands futty 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. In the light of the above discussions' the present T'A' deserves to be allowed'

ORDER

1) I hereby allow this T'A' of the applicant bank and direct the defendant nos'1 and 2 to pay jointly and severally to the applicant bank within 30 days from today' a sum of Rs.2,68,75,8471- alongwith cost' expenses and interest @11.75olo from the date of filing of this O'A' which has become T.A till the-date of realization' s\ based upon the written/Printed

TANO.364of2024 10

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 properties (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. In case of short 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 pafties.

5) Parties 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. grl Date : 07.08.2026 (susHrl KUMAd nnsrocl) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi This judgement has been signed, dated and pronounced in oPen court. s) (SUSHIL KUMARRASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi Date : 07.08.2026