INDIAN BANK vs M/S. VISUAL AND ACOUSTICS CORPORTAION LLP on 16 September 2026

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on L1.L2.2020 through Sh. Siva Kumar, Assistant General Manager/Principal Officer of the applicant bank, under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,85,11,503i- together with cost, charges and pendentellite and future interest @14.55olo 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 defendant no.1, the applicant bank sanctioned a Pacl<ing Credit with Sub-Limit of PCFC of Rs.6.00 Crores and Foreign Bill Purchase/Foreign Bill Discounting (FBP/FBD) with Sub-Limit of FCFBP/rcFBD of Rs'6.00 Crores, vide sanction letter dated 23.Lt.2017 - The above s said credit limits were secured by hypothecation of book debts and stocks both present and future lying at 93lt3,IndustrialArea Mundka, Udyog Nagar, New Delhi- 110041 or in transit or any other place belonging to the defendant no.1 firm on pari passu basis with other lender bank i.e., Axis Bank Ltd by way of prime security. The above said credit facilities were also secured by pledge of FDRs to the tune of 40o/o of the sanctioned limit i.e., Rs.4.80 Crores and recurring deposit as exclusive charge by way of collateral security in favour of the applicant bank. The defendant no.1 firm through its designated partners defendant nos.2 & 3 executed all necessary loaning documents on20.12.2077. Th defendant nos.2 to 4 had executed their personal and continuing guarantees in favour of the applicant bank on 20.L2.20L7 by having jointly executed agreement of guarantee dated 20.12.2077 in favour of the applicant bank. It is submitted that the defendant no.1 firm had provided letter dated 25.01.2018 of M/s Axis Bank Ltd to the applicant bank wherein modification in sanction terms was being conveyed to defendant no.1 firm. Accordingly, the applicant bank had also agreed to cede pari-passu charge over the present and future current assets including stocks of raw materials, finished goods, stores, consumable items, spares etc. in favour of the M/s Axis Bank Ltd, vide its letter dated 16.02.2018. It is submitted that moreover on the visit/inspection by the officials of the applicant bank in the month of June 2019 w.r.t. the registered office as well as residential address of the defendants, the same were found locked. On enquiry from neighborhood, it was informed that the residential house and office were closed for nearly 2 months. Further the notices of other banks were found pasted on the wall c.\

TANO.207 of2023

of the house. As such there were no hypothecated stocK in trade found available at the premises of the defendant no.1 firm and accordingly M/s. Axis Bank Ltd' with whom the applicant bank had shared pari passu charge over the hypothecated stocks/current assets is no longer a necessary party to the present OA and therefore is not impleaded in the Present OA'

3. It is further submitted that the defendants enjoyed and utilized the Loan facilities, but failed to maintain the financial discipline and failed to repay the due amounts' The applicant bank 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 30'06'2019' The applicant bank served a demand notice dated 14'11'2019 to the defendants but failed to recover the same Thus, the present O.A.ff.A' is preferred by the applicant bank to recover its dues.

4. On notice by this Tribunal, defendants failed to put appearance at all, despite publication' Accordingly, the defendants were 06.09.2023. proceeded against exPafte dated

5. fie applicant bank has filed evidence by way of affidavit of Mr. Shiva Kumar, Assistance General Manager of the applicant bank as Paper No'1 to Paper No'250' which have gone unchallenged and un-rebutted' Hence' the case of the applicant stands fully established against the defendants with respect to nonpayment of outstandingamount. -----1 9J.,.

6. 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 based upon the written/printed 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 to 4 to pay jointly and severally to the applicant bank within 30 days from today, a sum of Rs.5,85,11,503/- along with cost, expenses and interest @10.75olo 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 personal movable and immovable assets of the defendant nos.1 to 4.

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) Parties are directed to appear before the Ld. Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi on t6.11.2026. Pending IAs, if any, stand disPosed of. File be consigned to records. sA Date : 16.09.2026 (SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi This judgement has been signed, dated and pronounced in oPen coutt. Date : 16.09.2026 SA - ,-t l (SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi