PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK vs Playmouth Multiventures Pvt. Ltd on 17 September 2026

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 02.08.2016 through Mr. Bechu Tiwari, Chief Manager and Principal Officer of the applicant under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,76,90,060/- along with pendentelite and future interest thereon @BR+z.solo per annum with monthly rests 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 nos.2 & 3, the applicant bank sanctioned a Cash Credit Facility of Rs.5.00 Crores for wor-(ng capital purpose to the s.

TANOl478l2022 2 defendant no.1, vide sanction letter dated 18.11.2014. It was, inter alia, covenanted that the credit facility would be primarily secured by hypothecation of stocks and book debts and hypothecation of moveable assets forming part of fixed/block assets; the credit facility would be collaterally secured by personal guarantee of defendant nos.2 to 4 as also mortgage by defendant no.2 of property bearing No.116/3, Masjid Road, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi-l10014 admeasuring about 133 sq. yards and Free Hold property at First Floor, property bearing No.116/3, Masjid Road, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi-l10014 admeasuring about 133 sq. yards was extended by defendant no.2. The defendant executed all necessary loaning document on t9.t1.2074 and 06.06.2015. The defendant nos.2 to 4 executed agreements of guarantee on'19. 1 1.20 14.

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 31.12.2015. The applicant bank served a demand notice dated 03.02.2016 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 no. 2 put appearance through counsel and filed written statement and evidence. The defendant nos.1,3 and 4 failed to put appearanqe- { all, despite service. 9A '.

TANOl478l2022

Accordingly, the defendant nos.1,3 and 4 proceeded against exparte on 25.09.20L7. were

5. In their written statement the defendant no.2 has denied the facts mentioned in the OA. It is submitted that the instant application is false, bogus and misconceived and is malaciously preferred against the defendant no.2 who herself is a victim of the criminal counter plot masterminded by the defendant's own brother being defendant no.4 along with other influential persons, in connivance with the Bank officials of the applicant bank, who had not only cheated and played fraud upon defendant no. 2 but has also siphoned off a huge amount of public money in connivance with each other. It is submitted that the instant application has been intentionally projected in a manner so as to create liability upon defendant no. 2, whereas the fact of the matter is that the defendant no. 2 has been made a scapegoat in not only this but other bogus loan transactions wherein taking advantage of her distressed condition, defendant no. 4 along with other influential people and officers of the applicant bank had roped defendant no.2 in such bogus loan transactions about which she was not aware until she had been serued with legal notices and harassed by relentless calls from the applicant bank. It is further submitted that the entire loan transaction has been executed at the instance of defendant no. 4 along with other influential persons, being Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, Mrs. Sunita Sharma, Mr. AnshulVarun and Mr. Pradeep Kumar Varun & Mr. Sheetal who are either seruing or had served as officers of the applicant bank and who have inter alia committed an act of cheat, fraud, forgery, criminal misappropriation and criminal breach Ctr..

TANOl478l2022 4 of trust through their criminal acts and deeds by falsely implicating defendant no.2 and siphoning off the huge amount of public money to a separate entity named F-bar & Lounge, being run by a company named Bravo Hotels Private Limited, thereby causing wrongful loss to defendant no. 2 and the applicant bank and causing wrongful gain to themselves. It is submitted that the signatures of defendant no.2 on the documents have been taken under an act of cheat and fraud by defendant no. 4 in connivance with the aforementioned persons and officers of the applicant bank and the defendant no. 2 has strong apprehensions that her signatures in such circumstances could have also been forged over the said documents upon which they have obtained huge amount of money, as loan from the Applicant bank for their ulterior benefit and wrongful gains and later on criminally misappropriated it. Thus, defendant no. 2 denies her signatures.so found on the documents as being forged or taken under an act of cheat and fraud. It is further submitted that the defendant no.2 is not aware about the existence or incorporation of the defendant no.1 company and therefore also refutes as being the Director of the said defendant no.1 company and approaching the applicant bank to obtain any such loan amount. It has now come to the knowledge of the defendant no. 2 that she has surreptitiously been made director of the defendant no. 1 company along with defendant no. 3 who is an employee of defendant no. 4, by stealthily obtaining her signatures over series of papers and documents by defendant no. 4 and which signatures either had been fraudulently taken or forged by the defendant no. 4 without the knowledge of defendant no. 2, taking advantage of the distres_sed*.condition and faith that €A, TANO/478/2022 5 defendant no. 2 reposed in defendant no. 4, owing to their brother-sister relationship. It has also now got into the knowledge of the defendant no. 2 that the entire loan amount has been siphoned off to aforementioned business entity by Defendant no.4 in conspiracy with other aforesaid persons which includes the officers of the applicant bank as well and despite being aware of the same, the applicant bank has miserably failed to take any action against their delinquent officers. It is submitted that the defendant no.2 vehemently denies being the owner of the propefi being freehold propefi bearing no. 116/3, area, measuring 133 sq. yds. situated at Jangpura Extension, New Delhi- 14. The defendant no. 2 further denies that the aforesaid property had never been transferred to her by defendant no. 4 and also denies the sale deed dated 06.10.2009 executed by defendant no. 4 in favour of her. The defendant no. 2 has strong asseftion that the defendant no. 4 through his malicious and crooked demeanour played an act of cheat fraud and deceit with the defendant no. 2; thereby taking undue advantage of the brother-sister relationship and got sanctioned huge amount of loan in name of defendant no.2. It is submitted that the applicant bank intentionally didn't carry out due diligence process effectively while sanctioning the loan amount and doesn't hold any legal validity. As the stamp paper used for the agreement of guarantee dated 06.06.2015 was of the date 10.06.2015 whereas the agreement of guarantee was executed in back date i.e. 06.06.2015 by the defendant no. 4 and the applicant bank. It is submitted that itself potray the malicious and deceitful acts of the applicant bank and the defendant no. 4. Further, the applicant bank was actively involved irlthe conspiracy hatching $r TANOl478l2022 6 amongst its officers, defendant no. 4 and other accused persons. This is further substantiated from the Income Tax returns of the defendant no. 2, which miserably fails the criteria of obtaining such a huge loan from the bank and in such circumstances, it is strange that as to how the applicant bank could be so negligent as to not conduct a proper scrutiny while sanctioning the huge loan amount to defendant no. 2 and which only points out to the fact that the said loan amount could not have been disbursed without the knowledge of the officers of the applicant bank who are themselves guilty of said fraud. It is submitted that the connivance of the officers of the applicant bank is apparent from the afore stated facts and now to save their officers from criminal proceedings, the applicant bank has maliciously saddled the entire liability upon the defendant No. 2. The applicant bank in order to save its officers have made defendant no. 2 liable for the entire loan transaction. It is further submitted that the Apex couft in many of its judgements had observed about the need for greater responsibility on the part of the Bank officers while discharging their public duties. The banks are instrumentality of the state and thus all administrative norms and principles of fair performance are applicable to them with equal force as they are to the government department, if not with a greater rigour. The arbitrary or irresponsible action of the banks would normally result in dual hardship. Firstly, it jeopardizes the interest of the bank and public funds are wasted and secondly, it even affects the borrower's interest adversely, provided such a person was acting bonafide. The financial institutions, namely the lenders owe a duty to act fairly and in good faith. There has to be a fair dealing betwee! _tE parties and the financing 9T

TANO/47812022 7 companies/institutions are not free to ignore performance of their obligation as a party to the contract. They cannot be free from it. It is incumbent upon such financial institutions to act fairly and in good faith. Further it cannot be a one-sided affair shutting out all possible and reasonable remedies to the other party, namely, borrowers and assume all drastic powers for speedier recovery of NPAs. It is submitted that the defendant no. 2 has immediately on being apprised of the fact has lodged a complaint against defendant no. 4 and other aforementioned influential people who are involved in this act of cheat and fraud before the Police station Economic Offence Wing (EOW), New Delhi in June 2016, however since the police was not taking action against the accused persons therefore, the defendant no. 2 has preferred an application before the Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket seeking a direction to the Police to register a FIR against defendant no. 4 and other accused persons, which is pending adjudication and the next date of hearing is ll.Ot.2OL7. It is further submitted that amongst the persons responsible for the said acts of cheat and fraud, the officers of the bank being Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma and Mr. Sheetal Garg, who are history sheaters and while serving at an impoftant designation in the applicant bank had committed various frauds in the applicant bank and against them the applicant bank had also lodged various FIRs. The same set of people along with defendant no. 4 had once again played fraud upon defendant no. 2 and the applicant bank, however the applicant bank has intentionally failed to take any measures against such bank officers and has very cunningly proceeded against defendant no. 2, who has been made a scapegoat in Jhis entire fraudulent loan g\

TANOI478/2022 8 transaction. It is submitted that AGM of the applicant bank Mumbai branch being Mr. Pradeep Kumar Varun and his son being Mr. Anshul Varun are also involved in the said act of cheat and fraud. Mr. Anshul Varun was also director in the company named Bravo Hotels Private Limited running an entity named 'F-bar & Lounge' and has recently resigned from the said company for obvious aforesaid reasons. These two accused persons in connivance with various bank officials of the applicant bank, defendant no. 4 and other aforesaid accused persons intentionally played fraud upon defendant no. 2, to run their entity named 'F-bar & Lounge' smoothly by siphoning off money in the name of defendant no.2. It is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may dismiss the present O.A.

6. The applicant bank and defendant no.2 have filed their respective evidence.

7. Heard the Ld. Counsel of applicant bank and perused the record. B. The main contention of the defendant no.2 is that she has been cheated by the defendant no'4 along with officials of the applicant bank and she was persuaded to put signatures on ceftain papers. On the basis of these papers the defendant no.4 along with the officials of the applicant bank and other defendants have cheated the defendant no.2 and siphoned off the public money. It is submitted that the defendant no.2 is not the director of the defendant no.1' It is also claimed that the defendant no.4 is the brother of the defendant no.2 and she has signed the papers under the influence of defendant no.4 being brother and under grab of love and affection. It is further submitted the defendant no.4 has never transferred t[qqoperty bearing no. 116/3, CT, TANOl478l2022 9 Jagat Pura Extension, New Delhi to the defendant no.2 and the sale deed is null and void. From pleadings it is clear that defendant no.2 is one of the directors of the company i.e. defendant no.1 and defendant no.4 is the brother of the defendant no.2. Therefore, it is quite possible that the defendant no.2 might be guarantee to a company of which she is director and her brother is also director in the company. Therefore, the contention of the defendant no.2 that she has been misrepresented or persuaded by the defendant no.4 and other persons cannot be accepted. The defendant no.2 is an educated lady and is one of the director of the company, which was running a restaurant and bar and therefore, it cannot be said that she has not signed the documents without verifying them. Therefore, the contention of defendant no.2 cannot be accepted. The defendant no.2 has submitted in the written statement that she has tried to lodge the FIR against the defendant no.4 and other persons. The FIR has not been lodged and she has filed a complaint before the Ld. CIM and it is said that the same is pending. The said complaint has been filed in the year 2017 and no evidence has been filed that an FIR has been lodged, therefore, it appears that the complaint made by the defendant no.2 against her own brother/defendant no.4 is merely ornamental and therefore, defendant no.2 has not pursued the same. If the FIR was not lodged, the defendant no.2 could file a complaint case and put all evidence before the Ld. Magistrate and the Ld. Magistrate may summon the accused after making preliminary inquiry under Section 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C. The defendant no.z has failed to do so and therefore, it is clear that the defendant no.2 has not made any sincere effort to mov_e against defendant no.4 $..,

TANOl478l2022 l0 and other persons under the various provisions of the IPC. The contention of the defendant no.2 that the sale deed executed by defendant no.4 in favour of defendant no.2 is null and void cannot be accepted and this Tribunal has no right to declare any registered sale deed as null and void. Therefore, the contention of defendant no.2 has no force.

9. From perusal of the entire evidence, it is clear that the defendants have failed to prove their case as claimed in the written statement. On the other hand, the applicant has proved his case against the defendants and therefore, the defendants are liable to pay the amount claimed by the applicant bank and the O.A of the applicant bank is liable to be allowed. In the light of the above discussions, the present O.Aff.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 within 30 days from today, a sum of Rs.5,76,90,060/- along with cost, expenses and interest @12.75o/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 properties i.e., (i)' Free hold property at Ground Floor, property bearing No.116/3, Masjid Road, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi-110014 admeasuring about 133 sq. yards and (ii). Free Hold property at First Floor, property bearing No.116/3, Masjid Road, Jangpura Etengion, New Delhi-110014 4J.

TANOl478l2022 I I admeasuring about 133 sq. yards. In case of short of fall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of personal movable and immovable assets of the defendant nos.1 to 4.

3) Recovery Certiflcate 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 direct to appear before the Ld. Recovery Offlcer, DRT-II, Delhi on 17.t1.2026. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. File be consigned to records. EI Date: 17.09.2026 (SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi This judgement has been signed, dated and pronounced in open court. -----,_s.\. , (susHrl KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFRCER DRT-II, Delhi Date :17.09.2026