PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK vs M/S SNACKS AND MORE on 30 May 2025

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant ban( on 04.07.20t6 through Sh. Rohit Kumar, Senior Manager of the applicant bank, under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.46,01,311/- together with pendentellite and future interest i.e., present effective rate with monthly rests as regards the Cash Credit Limit Term Loans, besides 2o/o p.d towards penal interest from date of filing of this O.A. till the realization in full.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the request of defendant no.1, through i\ nrglrietor i.e., defendant CA

TA NO. 178512023 2 no.2, the applicant bank sanctioned a Cash Credit Limit of Rs.17.00 lakhs, vide sanction letter dated 24.06.2071 (initially Cash Credit was sanctioned of Rs.10 lakhs and enhanced subsequently on 04.06.2013), Term Loan Facility of Rs.10 lakhs, vide sanction letter dated 22.09.201L and Term Loan Facility of Rs.10 lakhs, vide sanction letter dated 04.06.2013. After Loan/Limit was sanctioned, various documents including hypothecation of assets to secure term, loan, agreement of guarantee, hypothecation of goods and book debts to secure cash credit facility, hypothecation of movable assets forming part of fixed/block assets, hypothecation bond, authority for insurance, agreement, term loan agreement, letter confirming giving effective possession of the stocks and goods hypothecated, Memorandum of deposit of title deed and letter of continuity were also executed by the defendants. The defendant nos.1 and 2 also executed various other documents. To secure the aforesaid Cash Credit Limit Facility and Term Loans as advanced by the applicant bank in favour ofthe defendant nos.1 & 2, the defendant no.4 created equitable mortgage in favour of the applicant bank by deposit of original title deeds with respect to the immovable Property Bearing No. P-73, First Floor with roof rights, area measuring approx. 65 sq. yds. Paft of Khasra No.117 & 118, situated in the village Bindapur, Colony Known as V'rjay Vihar, Uttam Nagar, Najafgarh Road, Delhi-l 10059.

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 4>

TA NO. 1785/2023

letters, but there was no response from the defendants, hence the account was classified as NPA on 30.09.2014. Therefore, the applicant bank served a demand notice dated 08.10.2014 and legal demand notice dated 18.03.20f 6 to the defendants but failed to recover the same. Thus, the present O.Afl-A is preferred by the applicant bank to recover its dues.

4. On notice by this Tribunal, the defendant nos. 1 and 2 put appearance through counsel and filed written statement and evidence. The defendant no.4(ii) put appearance through counsel but failed to file written statement and evidence. The defendant no.3 and defendant no.4 (i) & (iii) faibd to put appearance at all.

5. In their written statement the defendant nos. 1 and 2 have denied the facts mentioned in the OA. It is submitted that the limits were sanctioned to the defendant no.1 as per the own averments of the applicant bank. No letter, communication or notice has ever been received by the defendants from the applicant bank regarding the sanction of alleged limits or alleged default in the alleged accounts having been committed by the defendant no.1. The present original application is filed without any cause of action against the defendant no.l as the defendant no.l never stood as guarantor for the advancement of the credit facilities by the applicant bank to the defendant no.l in the present case as claimed by the applicant bank. It is further submitted that the applicant bank has misused certain documents, which had been signed by the defendant and also forged the signatures and used blank documents. The applicant bank is required to give the copies of all supporting alleged documents in support of the claim towards the defendant no.1 and all <-\

TA NO. 1785/2023 4 such other documents though the defendant denies all the allegation, all the averments, as made by the applicant bank. It is submitted that the applicant bank has charged and debited interest and various other miscellaneous charges and incidental expenses at the rate and amounts which are manifestly illegal, harsh and exorbitant. It is further submitted that the applicant bank has arbitrarily and with malafide intention manufactured the statement of account, which is contrary to the documents filed along with the original application. It is submitted that most of the entries in the statement of account are fictitious and have been incorporated by the applicant bank to suit their convenience and to inflate the outstanding amount. It is submitted that the bank officials had got a series of papers, unfilled printed performas blank letter heads signed in blank by exercising misrepresentation, commercial duress and without even giving an opportunity to read or understand the nature and contents of the said paper got signed in blank/unfilled and undated under the guise of guarantee form. The applicant bank has filed and relied upon the photoopies of the alleged loan and alleged manufactured guarantee documents along with other documents, which is not permissible under the law and as such the claim of the applicant bank qua the defendant is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. It is further submitted that the defendant no.1 has availed one CC(Hyp) limits of Rs.10.00 Lakhs in 2011 and in which huge amount has also been paid. It is fufther submitted that the defendant no.1 has also availed Term Loan of Rs.10.00 lakhs in 2011 and in which also huge sum has been paid off. The defendant no.1 has not taken any additional term loan facility in +

TA NO. t78s12023 s 2013 and also did not avail any enhancement of CC (H) Limit in 2013 to Rs.17.00 lakhs. The said additional sanction and withdrawal is the fraudulent act of applicant bank and defendant no.3. The said amount of Rs.7.00 lakhs was transferred in the account of M/s Mahashakti Enterprises through debit note despite the fact that the defendant no.1 has no business dealing. The amount withdrawn from term loan account was also through debit note and transferred in account which is unknown to defendant no.l. The said debit note is unsigned or contains forged signature of defendant no.1. It is prayed that this Honble Tribunal may dismissed the O.A filed by applicant bank along with cost.

6. The applicant bank and defendant nos.1 have filed their respective evidence and exhibited the documents.

7. Heard the Ld. Counsel of the applicant bank and perused the record.

8. The Ld. of the defendant has not appeared for arguments and therefore, the contention raised by the defendants in the written statement is being considered.

9. The main contention of the defendant no.1 & 2 in the written statement is that the original application has not been signed, verified and instituted by duly authorized person of the bank. Therefore, the OA is not maintainable. From perusal of the record it is clear that the OA has been filed by the Authorised Officer of the bank who is fully competent to sign, veriff and present the present OA. Therefore, the contention of the defendants has no force. eI

TA NO. 178512023 6

10. The next contention of the defendant no.1 & 2 is that the limit were sanctioned to defendant no.1 as per own averments of the applicant bank. No letter communication or notice has been received by the defendant regarding the sanction of the loan, therefore, it is clear that the loan has not been sanctioned and disbursed to the defendant no.1 and action of the applicant bank is totally illegal and against the RBI guidelines. But the contention of the defendants has no force. From the perusal of the record it is clear that the borrower has duly filled allthe documents regarding the sanction of the loan and after due inquiry the loan was sanctioned to the borrower and the amount was also disbursed in the account of the borrower' Therefore, the contention of the defendants that the sanction of the loan is illegal is totally against the facts of the case'

11. The next contention of the defendants is that the defendant no.1 has never stood as guarantor of the credit facilities. It is submitted that the documents are forged and fabricated and the documents filed at a later stage were used by the bank as the documents of the guarantee and therefore, the OA of the applicant is liable to be dismissed. It is also submitted that signatures of the blank papers has been obtained and therefore, all the documents are false and fabricated' From perusal of the record it is clear that the defendant has admitted the signing of the documents' The defendants are businessman and well educated persons. Therefore, it cannot be presumed that they will sign blank papers. More over the original documents has been deposited with the bank for taking guarantee of the loan. In such circumstances the contention of the defendants has no force. O.,

TA NO. 178512023 7 L2. The next contention of the defendants is that the applicant bank is charging exorbitant rate of interest and has not followed the guidelines issued by the Honble Supreme Court in Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra. In this regard I have perused the record. From perusal of the record it is clear that the bank has charged the rate of interest as per agreement entered into between the parties and therefore, there is no violation of any mandate given by the Honble Supreme Court in Central Bank of India Vs' Ravindra.

13. The next contention of the defendants is that the statement of account has not been signed by the authorized person and statement of account is not as per payments made by the defendants. From perusalof the statement of account it is clear that it has been maintained as per Banker's Book of Evidence Act and no specific entry has been denied by the defendants' Therefore, the contention of the defendants has no force. L4. 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 bank has proved his case against the defendants and therefore, the defendants are liable to pay jointly and severally the amount claimed by the applicant bank and the OAfl-A of the applicant bank is liable to be allowed. In the light of the above discussions, the present TA deserves to be allowed.

ORDER

1) I hereby allow this T.A. of the Applicant Bank and direct the defendant nos. 1,2, land defendant no. 4 (i) t^

TA NO. 178512023 8

(ii) & (iii) to pay jointly and severally to the applicant bank within 30 days from today, a sum of Rs.46,01,31U- along with cost, expenses and interest @74.75o/o from the date of filing of this O.A which has become TA till the date of realization. However, the liability of LRs of deceased defendant no.4/Smt. Chanchal Sharma is limited to the extent of property/assets inherited by them from deceased Smt. Chanchal Sharma. The defendant no.3/Shri Shiv Narain Sharma as LR of deceased Smt. Chanchal Sharma is also liable to pay to the applicant bank the amount to the extent of assets inherited by him from deceased Smt' Chanchal Sharma.

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 propefi bearing No. P-73, First Floor with roof rights, area measuring approx. 65 sq. yds' Part of Khasra No.117 & 118, situated in the village Bindapur, Colony Known as Vijay Vihar, Uttam Nagar, Najafgarh Road, Delhi-110059. In case of short fall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of the personal movable and immovable assets of the defendant nos. 1,2, 3 and defendant no. 4 (i) (ii) & (iii).

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. S\.2

TA NO. 1785/2023 9

5) Parties are direct to appear before the Ld. Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi on 30.07.2025. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. File be consigned to records. e SA Date: 30.05.2025 (SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi This judgement has been signed, dated and pronounced in open couft. ....-j. /\ sA l"o'- Date :30.05.2025 (SUSHIL KUMA-R **iOnri PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi T