UNION BANK OF INDIA vs M/s j.k sales corporation on 14 May 2025

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 10.11.2014 through Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Gupta, Branch Manager and the principal officer of the applicant bank, under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,57,46,673l- together with cost, charges and pendentellite and future interest @14.85 o/o p.a. frcm 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 the defendants, the applicant bank sanctioned a Cash Credit Facility of Rs.320.00 lacs for the working capital requirements, vide sanction letter dated 18.09.2013, against the Hypothecation of Stocks and Book Debts and equitable mortgage of Residential SFS Flat bearing no. 48A, Block no. BW,-und€r category-Ill, Ground c,)'

Floor, area 126 sq. mtrs., at Shalimar Bagh, Delhi by the defendant no.2. The defendant no.2 stood as guarantor. The defendants executed all necessary loaning documents on 18.09.2013.

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 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 classifled as NPA on 30.04.2014. Therefore, the applicant bank served a notice dated 03.06.2014 to the defendants, demanding the amount due as on that date, 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, the defendant no' 1 failed to put appearance at all, despite service' Accordingly, defendant no.1 was proceeded against the exparte on 07.02.2020' The appearance through counsel statement and evidence. defendant no.2 Put and filed written

5. In their written statement the defendant no'2 has denied the facts mentioned in the OA. It is submitted that the defendant no. 2 is the actual owner and in possession of the Flat No. BW-48/A, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi which was purchased by her from Ms. Satya Kapoor vide sale deed bearing Srl' No. 6226 dated 13.05.2011 registered at Sub- Registered VI-A, New Delhi. The husband of the defendant no. 2 namely Late Sh. Mahender Kumar Jain S/o late Sh. Om Prakash lain died on 15.10.2011. The intimation with reference to s)

TNr844/2023

the death of Late Shri Mahender Kumar Jain was duly recorded/registered before the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Central Zone, Lajpat Nagar on 18.10.2011. In the Second week of January 2015, the defendant No. 2 received a Show Cause notice issued by DRT-I, Delhi, wherefrom for the first time the defendant no. 2 came to know that Corporation Ban( Aali Branch has filed a recovery case against M/s J.K. Sales Corporation and defendant no. 2 alleging that M/s J.K. Sales Corporation avail the Overdraft limit (credit facility) to the tune of Rs.3.20 crores in the month of September 2013 and the defendant no. 2 was one of the guarantors. The defendant no. 2 in utter shock and dismay immediately approach the concerned bank and inquired about the alleged Overdraft limit (credit facility) and recovery proceedings, wherein she specifically intimated the applicant ban( that she never stood as a guarantor in the alleged fraudulent Overdraft limit (credit facility) transaction to the tune of Rs. 3.20 crores with reference to the current account of M / s J.K. Sales Corporation alleged to have been initiated on 18.09.2013. It is further submitted that the husband of the defendant Late Shri Mahender Kumar lain died on 15.10.2011 i.e. 2 years prior to 18.09.2013, thus the husband of defendant no. 2 could not have been a part of the alleged fraudulent transactions which is based upon forged and fabricated documents. It is submitted that the defendant is neither aware about M / s l.K. Sales Corporation nor have any concern with the said fraud Shri Mohender Jain. It is further submitted that the defendant no. 2 neither have any concern with the said forged and fabricated documents revealing the defendant no. 2 to be wife of Mohinder Jain nor have executed any of the alleged-_forged and fabricated E}

guarantee documents dated 18.09.2013. All the original papers, title deeds of the flat bearing No. BW- 48/A, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi were always in possession of defendant no. 2. The defendant no. 1 might have availed the said overdraft limit (credit facility) by furnishing forged, fabricated and bogus documents in connivance with the applicant officials. The defendant no. 2 tried her level best to collect the forged and fabricated documents from the applicant branch alongwith the actual photographs of the so called Mohender Jain (defendant no.1) so that the exact fraud can be revealed but despite best of her efforts she was not allowed to inspect the same. It is submitted that left with no option the applicant filed a Police Complaint before P.S. Sarita Vihar which was being registered as FIR No.275/15 uls 42014681471134lPC against the applicant, defendant no. 1 and various other unknown persons, the same is pending investigation before the concern I.O. It is submitted that how could a person get the proposal of cash credit limit sanction within a span of 1 day i.e., 18.09.2013 itself without even veriffing the facts or without conducting any kind of due diligence or title search or documents verification. It is further submitted that till date the applicant bank failed to produce even a single letter which they might have initiated for any kind of verification qua facts and documents, failing which the only inference which can be drawn considering the facts is that the applicant bank official acted fraudulently in- connivance with the defendant no.1 and few unknown person. It is submitted that the defendant no.2 is being innocent having no concern whatsoever in nature with the alleged transactions and cannot be blamed or made a scapegoat for the fraudulent ?q ofthe applicant bank.

TNt844/2023

It is further submitted that the signatures as reflecting in the documents filed by the applicant bank are forged and fabricated signature for which the defendant no.2 have already ledged an FIR. It is submitted that neither the defendant no.2 has executed any kind of alleged forged and fabricated documents nor she has availed any kind of alleged fraudulent credit facilities. It is prayed that this Honble Tribunal may dismiss the present OA.

6. The applicant bank as well as defendant no'2 have filed their respective evidence.

7. Heard the Ld. Counsels of both the parties and perused the record.

8. The main contention of the defendant no'2 is that as per due diligence/verification report dated 15'11'2012 the defendant no'l has applied for a loan of Rs'2'5 Crores whereas the amount of Rs.3.20 Crores was sanctioned which was not even applied. Therefore, the entire case of the applicant is suspicious. In this regard I have gone thorough the record. Merely because in the due diligence repoft there is a mention of Rs.2'5 Crores, if the loan is sanctioned for Rs.3.20 Crores there is nothing wrong' If the applicant bank was satisfied that the loan of Rs'3'20 Crores may be sanctioned and the defendant no'l has accepted the same, it cannot be said that the loan was not sanctioned or the entire transaction is bad in law' Therefore, on this ground the OA cannot be dismissed'

9. The next contention of the Ld. counsel of defendant no.2 is that the defendant no.2 is residing on the subject property and all the original documents regarding the subject property are with defendant no.2' It is submitted that the original documents of the subject property has never been depo-sited with the bank and the S}

defendant no.2 has never stood as guarantor of the loan. It is submifted that the document filed by the applicant bank are forged and fabricated. It is submitted that there are no signatures of Sonal Jain as well as Satya Kapoor on the alleged sale deed Ex.PW-1/10 A filed by the applicant bank. It is submitted that the photographs are also not of the Sonal Jain and therefore, it is proved that the alleged sale deed filed by the applicant bank is a forged sale deed and the original sale deed is with the defendant no.2. In this regard I have gone through the record. In the summary manner and only by comparing the signatures and photographs on the two sale deeds, one filed by the applicant bank and one filed by the defendant no.2 it cannot be said that the sale deed filed by the applicant bank is a forged document' If the document deposited with the bank is forged one, it was the duty of the defendant no.2 to file a proper case before the competent court for cancellation of the alleged sale deed. In the present case there is no evidence that the sale deed filed by the applicant bank is the forged and fabricated sale deed. This Tribunal cannot declare the sale deed filed by the bank as forged and fabricated sale deed merely by comparing signatures and photograph on the sale deed. Therefore, the contention of defendant no'2 has no force. From perusal of the record it is clear that all the documents have duly executed by defendant no.1 & 2 and there is a memorandum of deposit of the original documents by the defendants. Therefore, it cannot be said that the documents deposited with the bank is a forged and fabricated documents. The Ld' counsel of defendant no.2 has submitted that he has flled an FIR in this regard. Merely filing an FIR does not mean that the document is a forged document. FIR is the first information regarding the alleged crime and it is for th_e police or Investigating e) I i I

Officer to investigate the matter and come to the conclusion as to whether any forgery has been committed or not. The defendant no.2 has not filed any investigation repoft or the charge sheet filed by the Police Officer concluding that in the investigation it has been found that the document deposited with the applicant bank is a forged and fabricated document. Therefore, merely filing an FIR does not prove that the document is a forged and fabricated document.

10. The next contention of the Ld. counsel of defendant is that the affidavits allegedly executed by the Sonal Jain are undated and even not notarized. Therefore, it is said that the affidavits are forged documents as it does not bear the signature of Sonal Jain. Sonal lain does not live on the given address. In this regard I have gone through the affidavit filed by the bank. From perusal of the record it is clear that affidavit has been duly executed by the defendant no.2 and it cannot be said that there are no signatures of defendant no.2 on the affidavit' Therefore, on this ground the OA cannot be dismissed.

11. It is submitted that due diligence report is also false and fabricated. The husband of the defendant no'2 has expired on 15.10.2011' In the due diligence report the number of children of defendant no.1 has been mentioned as one, whereas the defendant no.2 and deceased husband has one Son and one Daughter and therefore, the due diligence report is forged and fabricated report' But the contention of the defendant has no force. Merely because the number of children has been mentioned incorrect in the due diligence repoG it cannot be said that the due diligence report is forged and fabricated. There are how many children of the defendant no.2 has nothing

to do with the sanction of the loan. Therefore, on this ground the OA cannot be dismissed.

12. It is further submitted that the husband of the defendant was carrying on the business in the name of Rural Water Supply company and the husband of defendant no.2 never proprietor of J.K.Sales Corporation and therefore, there was no occasion to take loan by the husband of the defendant no.2 for J.K.Sales Corporation' But the contention of the defendant no.2 has no force' From perusal of the record it is clear that Shri Mohinder Jain was proprietor of M/s J.K.Sales Corporation' Therefore, the contention of the defendant no'2 has no force.

13. The Ld. counsel of defendant no'2 has filed the judgement passed by the Hontle Allahabad High C-ourt in State Bank of India Vs. Om Narayan Aggarwal and Ors' AIR 2011 Allahabad page 169 and has submifted that as per judgement passed by the Honble Allahabad High Court it is the duty of the plaintiff to prove his case and in the present case the applicant bank has failed to prove his case. I have gone through the judgement submifted by the defendant no.2. I am totally in consonance with the law propounded by the Hontle Allahabad High Court in the above mentioned case. In the civil cases it is the duty of the plaintiff to prove his case. Therefore, this Tribunal has to see whether the applicant bank has proved his case on the basis of the evidence filed by the applicant bank' In this regard I have gone through the record. From perusal of the record it is clear that the defendant no.1 has applied for the loan and executed the loan documents. The defendant no.2 stood as guarantor and duly executed all the documents. All these documents have been duly O..

exhibited by the applicant bank. From perusal of the record it is also clear that the defendant no.2 has deposited the original title deeds of the subject property. From the record it is also clear that the loan was disbursed in the account of defendant no.l and defendant no.l utilized the loan and has also made repayment until the declaration of the account as NPA. Therefore, it is clear that the applicant bank has proved his case as per provisions contained in the RDB Act. On the basis of above discussion, the O.M.A of the applicant bank is liable to be allowed.

ORDER

1) I hereby allow this T.A. of the Applicant Bank and direct the defendant nos. 1 & 2 to pay jointly and severally to the applicant bank within 30 days from today, a total sum of Rs.3,57,46,6731- along with cost, expenses and interest @14.85o/o from the date of filing of this OA 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 sale of hypothecated assets and mortgaged property ResidentialsFS Flat bearing no.48A, Block no. BW, under category-Ill, Ground Floor, area 126 sq. mtrs., at Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. In case of shoft fall, the same shall be recovered frorn sale of personal movable and immovable assets of the defendant nos. 1 & 2.

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

I TNt844/2023 l0

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 direct to appear before the Ld. Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi on t4.07.2025. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. File be consigned to records. Date : 14.05.2025 Date : 14.05.2025 q d (susHrl KUMAR RASTOGT) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, De|hi ^-=---, This judgement has been signed, dated and pronounced in open couft. (gA i) (SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi T (