PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK vs M/s AVI Fabrics Pvt Ltd on 16 September 2026

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 06.02.2015 through Shri. Hemant Kumar Arvind, Principal Officer of the applicant under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.12,06,49,8941-. The details of the above said amounts are as under: a sum of Rs.9,32,41,136 in the cash credit facility along with pendente lite and future interest at contractual rate which is at present @16.500/o per annum monthly rest, a sum of Rs.2,63,00,595.- in !99, loan facility along $r with pendente lite and future interest at contractual rate which is at present @17.25olo per annum monthly rest and a sum of Rs.11,08,163 in the car loan along with pendente lite and future interest at contractual rate which is at present @12.75olo per annum monthly rest 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 defendant no.1 through its director defendant no.3, the applicant bank sanctioned a CC Hypothecation Limit i.e., (i). CC Stock Facility of Rs.350 Lacs and (ii). CC Book Debts facility of Rs.100 Lacs, vide sanction lefter dated 07.05.2010. The defendant no.1 executed all necessary loaning documents on 08.05.2010. The defendant nos.2,3 & 5 on 08.05.2010 executed agreement of guarantee also to secure the liability of the debt of defendant no.1. The above-mentioned cash credit facilities were at the relevant time collaterally secured by the defendant no.1 by creating equitable mortgage of the immovable property situated at A-28, situated at UPIDC Industrial Estate, M.G. Road Industrial Area, Phase-2, Distt. Ghaziabad (U.P) with the applicant bank on 04.05.2010. The said facilities were also collaterally secured by the defendant no.5 by creating equitable mortgage of immovable property situated at Vacant Plot situated at D-348, Govindpuram, Ghaziabad (U.P) in the name of defendant no.5 with the applicant bank on 22.04.2010. Again, at the request of defendant no.1, the applicant bank enhanced the existing CC Limit of Rs.350 Lacs to Rs.600 Lacs and Fresh grant of Term Loan of Rs.300 Lacs and Fresh ILC/FLC Limit of Rs.100 Lacs with in CC E\ I

Limit of Rs.600 Lacs, vide sanction letter dated 2t.09.2011. The defendant no.1 through defendant no.2 executed all necessary loaning documents on 2L.09.201. The defendant nos.2,4,5 & Shri Arun Verma, Director of M/s Hotel Rajhans tut Ltd execute agreement of guarantee dated 21.09.2011. Shri Arun Verma, Director of M/s Hotel Rajhans tut Ltd created equitable mortgage of the property situated at Khasra No.822 &.824, Daulatpur, Meerut Road (U.P) with the applicant bank on 21.09.2011. At the request defendant no.1 & Late Shri Vijay Kumar Mittal, the applicant bank substituted the property of defendant no.6 i.e., D-209, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi-110052 and released the propefi of M/s Hotel Rajhans tut Ltd i.€., property situated at Khasra No.822 & 824, Daulatpur, Meerut Road (U.P) on O6,.01,-201aiqan, nt the requestofdefendant no.1. the aoplicant bank sanctioned on 06.01.2012. Again, at the request of defendant no.l, the applicant bank sanctioned a Vehicle Loan of Rs.5.9B Lacs, vide sanction letter dated 07.01.20t2. The above said vehicle which was financed b the applicant bank on 07.01.2012 was hypothecated with the bank in addition of existing and fresh collateral securities. The guarantee of Shri. Arun Verma was also released by the applicant bank. Again, at the request of defendant no.l, the applicant enhanced a Cash Credit (hypothecation of stock) Facility of Rs.700 Lacs, Term Loan (renewed) of Rs.300 Lacs and ILC/ FLC Limit of Rs.100 Lacs- Total Loal facility of Rs.1000 Lacs, vide sanction letter dated 09.04.2012. The defendant nos.l & 2 executed all necessary loaning documents 10.04.2012. Again, at the request of defendant no.1, the applicant bank sanctioned-A Car Loan Facility of (,\ t

Rs.13.50 Lacs. vide sanction letter dated 16.4.2012 against the hypothecation of Innova 2.5 V (E4)7S. The defendant no.2 executed all necessary loaning documents on 10.04.2012.

3. It is further submitted that the defendants enjoyed and utilized the Loan facility, but failed to maintain the financial discipline and failed to repay the due amounts. The applicant requested the defendants to regularize the loan account by visits and letters, but there was no response from the defendants. Hence, the account was classified as NPA dated 10.07.2014. The applicant bank serued a demand notice dated ll.O7.2Ol4 to the defendants but failed to recover the same Thus, the present O.Aff.A. is preferred by the applicant bank to recover its dues.

4. On notice by this Tribunal, the defendant nos. 2 to 5 failed to put appearance at all, despite service. Accordingly, the defendant nos.2 to 5 were proceeded against expafte on 13.07.2015. The defendant no.1 failed to put appearance at all, despite publication' Accordingly, the defendant no.1 was proceeded against on 27.01.2016. The defendant nos. 6 to 8 put appearance through counsel. The defendant nos.6 & 7 have filed written statement and evidence. The defendant no.B failed to file written statement.

5. In their written statement the defendant no.6 has denied the facts mentioned in the OA' It is submitted that the applicant bank is alleging existence of the said debt against defendant no.6 arising out of some alleged mortgage. It is further submitted that there exists no alleged mortgage or debt against defendant no. 6 and the aforesaid alleged mortgage is under challenge 9J"'. .>

before the Hon'ble Additional District Judge' Delhi in the proceedings of Civil Suit bearing no' 94/15' Thesaidsuithasbeeninstitutedbythedefendantno. Tseekingdeclarationoftheallegedmortgageasnull& void and mandatory & permanent injunction against the applicant bank for restraining them to act on the basis ofthesaidallegedmortgage'Thesaidsuitispending adjudication and has already reached at an advanced stage where the evidence is being recorded of witnesses. It is submitted that when the very root (alleged mortgage & existence of a legal & valid debt against defendant no' 6 & ors') is under challenge before a civil court, the entire proceedings before this Hon'ble Tribunal would be futile' It is submitted that the presentmatterinvolvesdeepcriminalconspiracy, fraud,cheatingandforgerycommiftedbytheapplicant' its officers in collusion with defendant nos' L' 2' 3 & 4' In this respect an FIR bearing no' 89 of 2015 dated 20.01.2015 has been registered at Police Station Prashant Vihar, Delhi under section 420' 465' 467 ' 468' 477 &34 of the Indian Penal Code' 1860 pursuant to orderdatedl4.0l.2015passedbyHon,bleMetropolitan Magistrate, Rohini, Delhi in C'C' No' 11689/U14 under the provisions of Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973' The said FIR has been registered against the applicant, its officers and defendant nos' 1 to 4. It is submitted that investigation in the said FIR is pending and the same is being monitored by Hon'ble Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi' The Ld' Counsel of defendant no.6 has relied on the judgments i'e'' M/s Mardia Chemicals Ltd etc' vs Union of India & Ors'' 2004 (1) Bank CLR 641 SC and Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking +

TA NO/I8/2015 Corporation (2009) 8 SCC 646' The said Civil Suit is now fixed for hearing on 18'02'2017' It is submitted that the aforesaid civil suit is at its very advanced stage in which after completion of pleadings' issues for trial have been framed vide order dated 13'05'2015 and also plaintiff witnesses are being examined-in-chief' It is further submitted that the Hon'ble ADJ' Delhi vide its order dated 13.05'2015 was pleased to allow Application U/o. 39 Rule 1 & 2 of C'P'C' filed by defendantno.Tonthebasisofallegationsoffraud& forgery in the Suit and on the basis of statement given by Mr. A. Sethi, Chief Manager of applicant bank' thereby restraining applicant bank from taking possession of the property of defendant no'6 allegedly mortgaged with applicant bank on the basis of false and fabricated documents' It is submitted that the order passed U/o 39 Rule 1 & 2 C'P'C was challenged by the applicant bank before the Hon'ble High court of Delhi in FAO No. 260 of 2015 & FAO No' 265 of 2015' the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 14'03'2016 dismissed the appeal & upheld the order dated 13.05.2015 passed by Ld' ADJ' It is further submitted that aforesaid plaintiff witnesses whose statement was recorded on 28.08'2015, has clearly established the case of cheating, fraud and forgery as alleged by defendant no'7. It is submitted that the said plaintiff witness is Notary Public appointed by Government of India who has categorically stated in his examination- in-chief that the document relied upon by the applicant bank to allege purported mortgage of the properfy of defendantno'6isinfactaforgedandfabricated document which does not bear the actual and real signatures and stamp of tsid Notary Public' The said

9A

TANO/I8/2015 Notary Public has also stated that the said document was neither executed in his presence nor attested by him. The defendant no' 6 has applied for obtaining the certified copy of examination -in-chief of aforesaid Notary Public (plaintiff witness) and the same will be placed on record before this Hon'ble Tribunal as and when the same is obtained' The application filed by applicant bank deserues to be dismissed merely on the sole ground of committing perjury before this Hon'ble Tribunal by the applicant bank in obtaining interim relief order dated 04.03'2015' It is submitted that after registration of the aforesaid FIR' defendant no'7 had immediately informed about the same to the applicant bank, its officials and other authorities vide e-mail dated

27. Ot.zlls.It is further submitted that the applicant bankanditsofficerswerecompletelyawareofthefact of registration of F.I'R containing serious allegations of fraud and forgery in respect of documents showing alleged moftgage of the property of defendants' In this respect the applicant bank has issued a letter dated 05.02.2015 to defendant no'7 with a copy of the same to the S.H.O, Police Station Prashant Vihar' stating ceftain clarifications regarding aforesaid F'I'R' From the above submissions it is crystal clear that the applicant bank had complete knowledge about the aforesaid FIR on 05.02.2015; however, on account of ulterior motives andfraudulentintentions'theyhavewilfully' fraudulently and deliberately not stated anything about the said F.I.R in the said application which admittedly was flled on 06'02'2015' Moreover' at the time of hearing of the said application on 04'03'2015 when the order granting interim relief to the applicant bank was passed, the applicant -b3nk fraudulently and eA

TA NO/l8/2015 deliberatelY did not disclose about the said F.I.R to the Hon'ble Tribunal and thereby obtained the saidorderdated04.03.2015byplayingfrauduponthe Hon.bleTribunal'Inthisrespect,theapplicantbankand its officers are liable to be prosecuted for committing the offence of perjury' The defendant no'6 reserves his right to file appropriate complaint against the applicant bank and its officers in this behalf' The applicant ban( since beginning has been indulging into fraudulent' criminal and illegal conduct against defendants' The purpofted/alleged mortgage of propefi of defendant no.6 as alleged by the applicant bank was in fact never createdinfavourofapplicantbank.Itisonlyonthe basis of forged documents, the applicant bank in collusion and criminal conspiracy with defendant nos' 1 to 4 is claiming right over the property of defendant no.6 under the guise of alleged moftgage' It is further submitted that the two forged agreements of guarantee both dated 10'04'2012 clearly proves the forgery, fraud and scam by the applicant bank and its officialsanddirector/officialsofM/s.AVIFabricsfut. Ltd. It is apparent from the perusal of the said two different Agreements of Guarantee both dated 10.04.2012 that the purported / forged signatures of Late Vijay Mittal as appearing on these two purported agreements are apparently and clearly different from each other. Moreover, the second Agreement of Guarantee(whichisallegedlyandpurportedlyexecuted by Late Vijay Mittal alone) does not bear the signatures ofanyofficialonbehalfoftheapplicant.Thepurported / forged signatures of Late VUay Mittal as appearing on each page of the second Agreement of Guarantee are clearly and apparentlV different from each other' It is e.\

submitted that there is no question of executing two different Agreements of Guarantee on the same day i'e' 10.04.2012' The existence of these two forged Agreements of Guarantee itself shows fraud and scam of the applicant bank, its officials and defendant nos' 1 to 4. It is submitted that the defendant no'6 has seen his deceased father Late Vijay Mittal writing and signing documents numerous times during his lifetime; therefore, the defendant no'6 very well recognizes the handwriting and signatures of Late Vijay Mittal' It is submifted that none of the documents enumerated above bear the genuine and real signatures and handwriting of Late Vijay Mittal' The real and actual signatures of Late Vijay Mittal are appearing on the conveyancedeeddated05.05.2003.Itisprayedthat this Hon'ble Tribunal may dismiss the present O'A'

6. In their written statement the defendant no'7 has denied the facts mentioned in the OA' It is submitted that the applicant bank is alleging existence of the said debt against defendant no' 7 arising out of some alleged mortgage' It is submitted that there exists no alleged mortgage or debt against defendant no' 7 and the aforesaid alleged mortgage is under challenge before the Hon'ble Additional District Judge' Delhi in the proceedings of Civil Suit bearing no' 94/15' The said suit has been instituted by the defendant no' 7 seeking declaration of the alleged moftgage as null & void and mandatory & permanent injunction against the applicant bank for restraining them to act on the basis ofthesaidallegedmoftgage'Thesaidsuitispending adjudication and has already reached at an advanced stage where the evidence is being recorded of g), witnesses. It is submitted that when the very root (alleged mortgage & existence of a legal & valid debt against defendant no' 7) is under challenge before a civil court, the entire proceedings before this Hon'ble Tribunal would be futile' It is submitted that the present matterinvolvesdeepcriminalconspiracy,fraud, cheatingandforgerycommittedbytheapplicant'its officers in collusion with defendant Nos' l' 2' 3 & 4' In this respect an FIR bearing no' 89 of 2015 dated 20.01.2015 has been registered at Police Station Prashant Vihar, Delhi under section 420' 465' 467 ' 468' 47t &.34 of the Indian Penal Code' 1860 pursuant to order dated 14.01'2015 passed by Hon'ble Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini, Delhiin c'c' No' 11689/u14 under the provisions of Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973' The said FIR has been registered against the applicant, its officers and defendant nos' 1 to4.ItissubmittedthatinvestigationinthesaidFlRis pending and the same is being monitored by Hon'ble Metropolitan Magistrate' Dethi' The Ld' Counsel of defendant no'7 has relied on the judgments i'e'' M/s Mardia Chemicals Ltd etc' vs Union of India & Ors'' 2004 (1) Bank CLR 641 SC and Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd vs Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation (2009) I SCC 646' The said Civil Suit is now fixed for hearing on 08'09'2015' It is submitted that the aforesaidcivilsuitisatitsveryadvancedstageinwhich after completion of pleadings' issues for trial have been framed vide order dated 13'05'2015 and also a plaintiff witness has been examined-in-chief on the last date of hearing i.e' on 28'08'2015 and now the matter is fixed for cross-examination of the aforesaid plaintiff witness on 08.09.2015' It is furt[9,r-s;Omitted that the Hon'ble 9r TA NO/l8/2015 ll ADl, Delhi vide its order dated 13'05'2015 was pleased to allow application U/o' 39 Rule 1 & 2 of C'P'C' filed by defendant no'7 on the basis of allegations of fraud & forgery in the Suit and on the basis of statement given by Mr' A' Sethi' Chief Manager of applicant bank, thereby restraining applicant bank from taking possession of the property of defendant no'7 allegedly mortgaged with applicant bank on the basis of false and fabricated documents' It is further submitted that the aforesaid plaintiff witness whose statement was recorded on 28'08'2015' has clearly establishedthecaseofcheating,fraudandforgeryas alleged by defendant no'7' It is submitted that the said plaintiffwitnessisNotaryPubticappointedby Government of India who has categorically stated in his examination-in-chief that the document relied upon by the applicant bank to allege purported mortgage of the property of defendant no'7 is in fact a forged and fabricated document which does not bear the actual and real signatures and stamp of said Notary Public' The said Notary Public has also stated that the said document was neither executed in his presence nor attestedbyhim.Thedefendantno.Thasappliedfor obtaining the certifled copy of examination -in-chief of aforesaid Notary Public (plaintiff witness) and the same will be placed on record before this Hon'ble Tribunal as and when the same is obtained' The application filed by applicant bank deserves to be dismissed merely on the sole ground of committing perjury before this Hon'ble Tribunal by the applicant bank in obtaining interim relief order dated 04'03'2015' It is submitted that after registration of the aforesaid FIR' defendant no'7 had immediately informed about-the same to the applicant g).'.

t2 bank, its officials and other authorities vide e- mail dated 25.01'2015' It is submitted that the applicant bank and its officers were completely aware of the fact of registration of F'I'R containing serious allegations of fraud and forgery in respect of documents showing alleged mortgage of the propefi of defendant no.7. In this respect the applicant bank has issued a letter dated 05'02.2015 to defendant no'7 with a copy of the same to the S'H'O, Police Station Prashant Vihar' stating certain clariflcations regarding aforesaid F'I'R' Fromtheabovesubmissionsitiscrystalclearthatthe applicant bank had complete knowledge about the aforesaid FIR on 05'02'2015; however' on account of ulterior motives and fraudulent intentions' they have willfully, fraudulently and deliberately not stated anything about the said F'I'R in the said application which admittedly was flled on 06'02'2015' Moreover,atthetimeofhearingofthesaidapplication on04'03.2015whentheordergrantinginterimreliefto the applicant bank was passed' the applicant bank fraudulently and deliberately did not disclose abbut the said F.I.R to the Hon'ble Tribunal and thereby obtained the said order dated 04'03'2015 by playing fraud upon the Hon'ble Tribunal' In this respect' the applicant bank and its officers are liable to be prosecuted for committing the offence of perjury' The defendant no'7 reserves her right to file appropriate complaint against the applicant bank and its officers in this behalf' The applicant bank, since beginning has been indulging into fraudulent, criminal and illegal conduct against defendantno.T.Thepurported/allegedmortgageof property of defendant no' 7 as alleged by the applicant bank was in fact never created in favour of applicant Sr>

bank. It is onlY on the basis of forged documents, the applicant bank in collusion and criminal conspiracy with defendant nos' 1 to 4 is claiming right over the property of defendant no'7 under the guise of alleged mortgage. It is submitted that the above mentionedalldocumentsareforged&fabricatedand the same do not bear the actual signatures of Late Vijay Mittal. The purported signatures of Late Vijay Mittal as appearing on the aforesaid documents are forged and the documents itself are forged & fabricated' It is prayed that this Honble Tribunal may dismiss the present O'A.

7. The applicant bank and defendant no'6 & 7 have flled their resPective evidence'

8. Heard the Ld' Counsels of both the parties and perused the record'

9. The main contention of the Ld' counsel of the defendantno.6,T&Sisthatthemortgageallegedto have been executd in favour of the applicant bank is a forged and fabricated document' It is submitted that Shri Vijay Mittal has never executed mortgage in favour of the applicant bank and therefore' the OA of the applicant is liable to be dismissed' On the other hand the Ld. counsel of the applicant bank has submitted that Shri Vijay Mittal has duly executed mortgage in favour of the applicant bank and the borrower secured a loan on the basis of the guarantee of Shri Vijay Miftal' It is submitted that the borrower has failed to maintain the financial discipline and therefore' the account of the borrower has become NPA and the applicant bank has issued demand notice to the borrowers and the guarantors. It is submitted that the moftgage in favour 9\,

TA NO/I8/2015 t4 of the applicant bank is a genuine mortgage' Therefore, the OA of the applicant may be allowed' Now this Tribunal has to see whether the alleged mortgage in favour of the applicant bank executed by Shri Vijay Mittal husband of Ms' Sushma Mittal' who is defendant no.7 is a valid mortgage and the guarantee deed executed in favour of the bank is a genuine document.Thecontentionoftheapplicantisthatthe applicant has filed a Civil Suit bearing no'94/2015 before the competent Civil Couft of Delhi and the Ld' Court of Additional District Judge has allowed the interim injunction of the defendants and has restrained the applicant bank from taking possession of the property. It is submitted that the officer of the applicant bank has himself given a statement before the Ld' Civil Couft that he will not dispossess the defendant without due process of law. Therefore, the applicant is bound by the statement made by the official of the bank' It is further submifted that in the suit bearing no'9412015 the disputed mortgage deed has been sent for hand writing expeft and the hand writing expeft has given a finding that the disputed signature is not of the person whose admitted signature has been flled' Therefore' it isclearthatthehandwritingreportclearlyshowsthat the alleged mortgage is a forged mortgage and the same has not been signed by Late Shri Vijay Mittal' It isalsosubmittedthatthepublicnotaryhasalsogiven evidence before the Ld' Civil Court that the alleged notary filed by the applicant bank has not been verified by him and the public notary is a forged and fabricated document. The public notary has given a statement that the notary does not bear the actual and real signatures and stamp of the .notary' Therefore' the c^

notarized document on the basis of which the loan has been given is also a forged and fabricated document. It is further submitted that the applicant has lodged an FIR against the accused person in relation to the alleged fraud and forgery and the anticipatory bail of accused persons has also been rejected by the competent Court. Therefore, it is submitted that the defendant no.6 & 7 has clearly proved that the alleged mortgage is forged and fabricated' In this regard I have perused the record. From perusal of the record it is clear that the defendant has filed a Suit no' 94120L5 before the Ld' Additional District Judge Delhi for declaration of the moftgage as forged and fabricated and also for permanent injunction' In the said Suit the defendant has clearly contended that the alleged mortgage has not been executed by Shri Vijay Mittal' the husband of the defendant' The Ld' Civil Court has heard the counsel of both the parties and has allowed the interim injunction and has restrained the respondent bank from dispossessing the defendants withoutdueprocessoflaw.InthisSuittheapplicant has moved an application for examination of the hand writing by a hand writing expert'The Ld' Civil Couft has allowed the application of the applicant and send the disputed signature on the mortgage for comparison withtheadmittedsignatureoflateShriVijayMittal. Shri D.K.Bhardwaj, Hand Writing Expert has filed his report along with evidence by way of affidavit and has submittedthatheisworkingashandwritingexpertand document examiner since 2008' He has further submifted that he has examined the disputed signature alleged to be written by ShriVijay Kumar Mittal marked as Q-1 to Q-24 and the aOg1$t' signature marked as il

A-1 to A-6. The expert has given his opinion and it was opinion of the hand writing expert that the disputed signatures are not wriften and signed by writer of admitted signatures' I have perused the hand writing report. From perusal of the report it is clear that in para no. A to H, the expert has given the reasons for his decision. In para no.1 to 5, the hand writing expert again given the reasons for his decision' I have considered the reasons given by the hand writing expert. From perusal of these reasons this Tribunal is of the view that the reasons are genuine and are liable to be accepted. As per provisions contained under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act if the Couft has to form an opinion regarding the hand writing of a person, the Court can call for the opinion of the expert and can base the judgement on the basis of the opinion given by the expert. I am of the view that the expert opinion given by expert Shri D'K'Bhardwaj is genuine and is based on established norms and therefore' is liable to be accepted. From perusal of the expert report it is clear that the expert Shri D'K'Bhardwaj has given a clear opinion that the disputed signatures of Shri Vijay Mittal on the mortgage deed is not of Shri Vijay Mittalt admitted signatures' Therefore, the contention of the defendant no.6 & 7 has force'

10. The next evidence filed by the defendant no'7 is the evidence by the notary public who is alleged to have notarized the documents by which the moftgage has been executed. The public notary has given an evidence before the Ld' Civil Court that he has not notarized the alleged documents and the alleged notarized documenB doe€ not bear his signature and s\

TA NO/I8/2015 t7 seal. The applicant bank has not denied regarding the statement made by the public notary before the Ld. Civil Court. Therefore, the notarized documents on the basis of which the mortgage has been created also prove to be false and fabricated as the notary himself admitted that he has not notarized such documents and such documents does not bear his seal and signatures. Therefore, there is another evidence regarding the fabrication of the mortgage documents' It is also clear that the defendant no'7 has lodged an FIR with the police claiming that the accused person has fabricated the documents' The accused persons have applied for anticipatory bail and the same has been denied by the Ld. Additional Session Judge' Delhi' Therefore, it is clear that the defendant no'7 has discharged his duty of lodging an information against the persons who has committed forgery' Therefore' this Tribunal is of the view that the defendant no'6 & 7 has duly proved that the documents which are alleged to have been executed by Late Shri V'rjay Mittal are forged and fabricated documents and the applicant cannot proceed against the defendant no'6 & 7' The applicant bank has filed the affidavit of the officer of the bank claiming that these documents have been duly executed' The applicant bank has not filed any application for examination of the signatures of Late Shri Vijay Mittal so that he may counter the hand writing expert report filed by the hand writing expert in the Ld.Civil Court. Therefore, the hand writing expert report filed by the Ld. Hand Writing Expert is unrebutted and there is no ground to deny the same' For the sake of cautious I have also gone through the signatures which are alleged to have been made by Shri c\\

TA NO/18/20r 5

VUay Mittal and the admitted signatures of Late Shri Vijay Mitbl. On comparison this Tribunal is in consonance with the opinion of the expert Shri D.K.Bhardwaj and it appears that both the signatures are not of the same person. The other thing that doubts the execution of the mortgage is evidence of the public notary. Public notary is independent person and he is not anyway associated with the defendant no. 6 & 7. He is an independent witness and has given his evidence in the Civil Suit that the notarized documents do not bear his seal and signature. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the view that there is no ground to dispute the evidence of such an independent witness.

11. From perusal of the order passed on the anticipatory bail it is clear that the Ld. Additional Session Judge, Delhi has considered the contention of the accused and was of the opinion that the applicant is not the beneficiary of the amount received by loan. The Ld. Additional Session Judge was also of the opinion that Late Shri Vijay Mittal was not the director of the company, who has taken loan and there is no likelihood of a person to take guarantee of a loan which is not going to benefit Late Shri Vijay Mittal. Though it is a clear law that there is no necessity of any consideration for execution of guarantee' The loan given on the guarantee to the borrower shall be deemed to be a valid consideration. But there must be some reason as to why the guarantee has been given. A person who is not anyway associated with the company will not give any guarantee and the applicant bank has to satisfy the Tribunal as to why Late Shri €>

Vijay Mittal has given guarantee to a firm, who has secured loan from the bank' L2. In the light of the above, this Tribunal is of the view that the alleged mortgage deed executed by Late Shri Vijay Mittal in favour of the applicant bank is a forged and fabricated document and on this basis the OA cannot be allowed against defendant no.6, 7 & 8.

13. So far as the other defendants are concerned, the applicant bank has proved his case as per evidence filed by him. The other defendants have not filed any evidence on the basis of which the OA of the applicant may be dismissed. Therefore, the OAffA may be allowed against defendant no.1 to 5'

ORDER

1) I hereby allow this T.A. of the applicant bank and direct the defendant no.l to 5 to pay jointly and severally to the applicant within 30 days from today, a sum of Rs.12,06,49,894/- along with cost, expenses and interest @14.50o/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 i.e., (i). Factory and land building no A-28, situated at UPIDC Industrial Estate, M.G. Road Industrial Area, Phase-2, Distt. Ghaziabad (U.P). and (ii). Vacant Plot situated at D-348, Govindpuram, Ghaziabad (U.P), measuring 133.38 sq. mtrs. In case of short of fall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of personal movable and immovable assets of the defendant no.1 to 5. 1>

TA NO/18/2015 20

3) Recovery Certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to Recovery Offlcer, 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 direct to appear before the Ld' Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhion L6'LL'2026' Pending IAs, if any, stand disPosed of' File be consigned to records' SA Date: 16.09.2026 (SUSHIL'KUMAR'RASroGI) PRESIDING OFFICER This judgement has pronounced in oPen court. Date :16.09.2026 DRT-II, Delhi been signed, dated and SA ( susHrl K0-t'lnn AASToct) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi