STATE BANK OF INDIA vs M/s. Takshila Retail Pvt. Ltd on 4 June 2025

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant banks, on 09'02'2016 through Shri R'K Maurya, Chief Manager, Shri Rajiv Jain' Chief Manager and Shri R' Parmeswaran, Chief Manager of the applicant banks, under Section 19 ofthe RDB Act' 1993 against the defendants for a total recovery of a sum of Rs.89,31,71,828.45 togelhgl d[- with cost, charges and I i

TA NO. 1777/2022 2 pendentellite and future interest @25olo from date of filing of this O.A. till the realization in full'

2. The brief facts of the case are that the defendant no.1 M/s Takshila Retail tut. Ltd', earlier known as M/s Blues'Clothing Company Limited, initially approached the applicants nos.2 & 3 as well as performa defendant no.8 for certain credit facilities amounting to Rs.85,40,00,000/- which was granted by the applicant nos. 2,3 & defendant no.8. The credit facilities were for the promotion of business and facilities including the working capital term loan and the other term loans' Thereafter, the defendant no.1 approached the applicant bank no.1 and sought for additional facilities in addition to what has been granted individually by the applicant no.2 and peforma defendant no'8' Consequently, the applicant nos. 1 to 3 along with the peforma defendant no'B collectively sanctioned a consortium loan amounting to Rs.128,40,00,000/- on 2g.O7.2OLt issued by the applicant no'1' The said credit facilities were modified from time to time and fi nally credit facilities amounting to Rs' 1 26, 55,00,000/- were granted jointly by the applicant nos'1 to 3 & peforma defendant no.8 bank and defendants proposed to repay the said various loans i'e', Cash Credit, Working Capital Term Loan, Funded Interest Term Loan and other Facilities by way of regular payments. The defendant executed all necessary loaning documents on 14'06.2013 and 13'06'2013' The total exposure given by the applicant nos' 1 to 3 along with peforma defendant no'8 granted to the defendant vide consortium loan documents were Rs.126,55,00,000/-. The defendant nos' 2 to 7 are the <)

TA NO. t77712022 3 guarantors to the financial facilities granted by the applicant nos.l to 3 as well and performa defendant no.8 to the defendant no.1 and in this regards they executed the deed of guarantees in favour of the applicant no.1 to 3 and performa defendant no'8 on 13.06.2013 and 14.06.2013. It is submifted that since the loan was a consortium and hence the loan documents were jointly executed by the applicant nos' 1 to 3 as well as performa defendant no'8 with the defendants. The applicant no.1 was lead bank for the purpose of execution of consortium loan documents and in this regard an interse Agreement dated 14.06.2013 was also executed amongst the applicant nos. 1 to 3 and performa defendant no'8' Before the execution of consortium loan documents, the applicant nos. 2 had earlier granted credit facilities for a sum of Rs.16,44,00,000/- for which the defendants executed separate and individual loan documents dated 26.03.2011. As on dated of execution of consortium loan documents dated 14'06'2013, the outstanding balance of the applicant bank in its Cash Credit Account (FWCL), Term Loan & WCDL were Rs'13'00'00'000/-' Rs.2,73,00,000/- & Rs.3,50,00,000/- respectively' However, the WCDL account stands adjusted and the present application of applicant no'2 is solely for the outstanding in One Cash Credit Account and three term loan accounts. Before the execution of consortium loan documents, the applicant nos'2 & 3 & performa defendant no.8 were the only banker to the defendant no.1 company and it joined only on29'07'2011 when the applicant no.1 bank issued the sanction letter dated 2g.O7.2OLt to the defendant no'l and thereafter initially disbursed the -cash rcredit and term loan <a, TA NO. 177712022 4 facilities amounting to Rs.43,00,00,000/-. The loan documents dated 25.08'2011 were executed by the defendants in favour of the applicant bank' The said facilities were renewed again vide sanction letter dated 14.09.2012 and to Rs.132,91,00,000/- again in terms of the consortium loan documents dated 14.06.2013. Before the execution of consortium loan documents, the applicant no.3 had earlier granted credit facilities for a sum of Rs.31,07,00,000/- for which the defendants executed separate and individual loan documents dated 30.12.2013 including the cash credit facility & term Loans' However as on date of execution of consortium loan documents dated 14'06'2013' the outstanding balance of the applicant bank in its Cash Credit account (FWCL), Term Loan, WCTL & FITL were Rs.11,75,00,000/-, Rs' 10'56'00'000/-' Rs.4,71,00,000/- & Rs'4,75,00,000/-' However' the peforma defendant no.8 has chosen to file a separate application before this Honble Couft on the basis of separate loan documents already executed by the defendant nos. 1 to 7 in favour of the performa defendant no'8. Hence, the present application has been filed by the applicant nos'1 to 3 and Union Bank of India has been merely made performa defendant into the same. The defendant company' being the mottgagor to the said various loans i'e'' Cash Credit' Working Capital Term Loan, Funded Interest Term Loan & other facilities also had mortgaged its properties i.e', (i). Room No'3 on First Floor' being Part of Property No. F-38, N'D'S'E', Part-I' New Delhi (Both Front Half Poftion and Rear Half Poftion)' in the name of Smt. Harsh Sehgal and Smt' Veena Sehgal' (ii) Part and Parcel of Basemen! -of- Commercial Property <,\

Bearing No. F-38, Private Shop No. B-1, South Extn.I, New Delhi-l10049, in the name of Sh' Dinesh Sehgal. (iii). All that is Part and Parcel of Farm House No.4, Situated at Khasra No.140, 143 and 214, Village Gadaipur, Tehsil Hauz Khas, New Delhi-l10049, in the name of Sh. Dinesh Sehgal (iv). Commercial Property Being Third Floor, situated at Property No' G-8, South Extn-1, New Delhi-110049 in the name of Sh' Dinesh Sehgal. (v). All that Part and Parcel of First Floor Second and Third Floor of the Commercial Property Bearing No. G-9, South Extension-I New Delhi-110049' admeasuring 250 Sq. Yds. Each Floor Along with 200 Sq. Ft at Ground Floor and Terrace Rights in the name of Sh. Dinesh Sehgal. The above mentioned properties are also mortgaged with the performa defendant no'8' It is submitted that in addition to mortgaging the aforementioned properties, the defendants had hypothecated to and in favour of the applicant nos'1 to 3, the stocks of luxury garments, accessories' home d6cor, Diamond Jewellery, Gold Jewellery' raw material, semi-finished goods, finished goods' consumable Stores, consumable spares' bills receivable, book debts, all movables' outstanding moneys, receivables, claims by way of refunds' bills' invoices, documents, contract, engagements' securities, investments, right and all assets and the applicant nos.1 to 3 had the first charge on all of them and as detailed in the Joint Deed of Hypothecation dated 14.06'2013 executed by the defendant no'l in favour of the applicant nos'1 to 3' The above mentioned movable properties were also hypothecated with the performa defendant no'8' It is fufther submitted that the financial fa;ilities jointly granted by SX

the applicant nos. 1 to 3 and performa defendant no.8 were revised from time to time and in terms of the loan documents executed by the defendants in favour of the applicant nos.1 to 3 & performa defendant no'8, lastly in 14.06.2013, the total financial facilities granted and disbursed to the defendant by the applicant nos'1 to 3 was Rs.41,92,00,000/-, Rs'19,23,00,000/- & Rs.31,07,00,000/- respectively. The breakup of various pending loans i.e', Cash Credit Limits, Term Loans' Working Capital Term Loam, Funded Interest Term Loan other facilities as disbursed to defendants by the applicant nos' 1 to 3 in term of loan documents dated 14.06.2013.

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 no'1 to 3 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' Therefore, the applicant nos'1 to 3 serued a demand notice dated 29.08.2014 and the applicant no'1 flnally issued a separate loan recall noUce dated 04'09'2015 and addendum notice dated 30'01'2016 to the defendants but failed to recover the same Thus' the present O'AffA is preferred by the applicant bank to recover its dues'

4. On notice by this Tribunal, the defendants put appearance through counsel' The defendant no' 1to 7 have filed written statemeft and evidence'

9A I I I l I I I I I I I I I i I I I

TA NO. 177712022 7

5. In their written statement the defendant nos. 1 to 7 have denied the facts mentioned in the OA' It is submitted that the applicant bank has obtained blank documents from the defendants which have been subsequently flled up without their consent or knowledge. The applicant bank has standard printed forms of contract and when the blank spaces are filled in, an alleged contract is presumed to come in existence. The defendants had no choice or right in the matter of altering any terms and conditions of the printed forms furnished by the applicant bank' It is further submifted that the alleged personal guarantees claimed to have been executed by the defendants as alleged guarantee agreements are not maintainable' Getting signature of a Director on the alleged personal guarantee agreement is in itself violative of the mandatory legal provisions legislated under the provision of the companies Act and the Indian Contract Act. The consent of the Directors is obtained by undue influence by the applicant bank, therefore' the terms contained in personal guarantee agreement are voidable at the option of the Directors' It is submifted that the original application does not disclose the arising of cause of action and the statement of account placed on record is neither complete nor certified in accordance with the relevant provision under the Bankers Book of Evidence Act' It is further submitted that the banks i.e., applicants and defendant no'B' however, knowing fully well that not offering the recommended terms of restructuring would lead the account to become sub-standard and drive the company out of business, did not offer such favorable terms and offered terms whicLr were not reasonable'

TA NO. t77712022 8 The applicants and defendant no'8 charged exorbitant rate of interest, charged interest during the moratorium period against the terms of restructuring' prematurely recovered mbney and charged interest at a rate which is not only higher that the rate charged/decided by the lead bank of the consortium' but also higher than the rate which was purportedly agreed. It is submitted that a request of restructuring of the entire debts was made to the applicant bank and also to other members of consortium on 19'06 '20t2 as clearly documented in the minutes of meeting dated 19.06.2012. However, the applicant and also other members of consortium kept delaying the matter on one pretext or the other' The defendant no'8 engaged the services of Dunn & Bradstreet, Information Service India hrt. Ltd. (D&B) to assess the viability of the defendant no'1 Company for the purpose of restructuring of existing loans in order to revive the company. The D&B has filed a debiled report in September 2012 on the request of the defendant no'8 with thorough feasibility study for the purpose of restructuring of loan. The said agency made several obseruations. However, the terms of restructuring were not as per the recommendations of D&B' It is further submitted that on or about the 30n March 2014 defendant no'8 (UBI) unlawfully withdrew Rs'62 lakhs from the cash credit account of Blues Jewellery Company (which account should have been closed or merged with the account of TRPL when TRPL acquired the business of Blues Jewellery Company on 30h September 2012) in order to save the account from becoming sub-standard. This, again was done without the consent of TRPL. Althougb, the business of Blues 1^

TA NO. t777/2022

Jewellery Company's (which was a separate firm and also maintained accounts with UBI) was acquired in its entirety by defendant no. 1 (Takshila Retail M. Ltd.), UBI did not merge the bank account of Blues Jewellery Company with that of defendant no. 1 (Takshila Retail tut. Ltd). It, at its own discretion, changed the name of Blues Jewellery Co.'s account to Takshila Retail tut. Ltd. and operated two accounts by the same name in the same bank in the same branch (of the same facility type)' More importantly, UBI refused to release certain propefties (real estate) which were mortgaged only to UBI by Blues Jewellery Company prior to the acquisition of its business by defendant no. 1 (Takshila Retail h^' Ltd). UBI did not pass the charge over the said propefi to the other banks in the consortium either. UBI has maintained the account separately to illegally maintain singe charge over the aforesaid collateral that was mortgaged to it for loan for BJC and which collateral should have been released by it long ago. Also, UBI continued to recover interest on the account of Blues Jewellery Co' even during the moratorium period' The rate of interest was not as per the terms of restructuring and UBI charged interest on the said account even during the moratorium period pufting interest burden in on defendant no. 1 (Takshila Retail h/t. Ltd) and defeating the purpose of restructuring. It was clearly mentioned in the restructuring agreement that the account of Blues Jewellery Company would be merged with that of defendant no. 1 (Takshila Retail M. Ltd). The applicant bank has been fudging the loan accounts at their own whims and fancies without any permission, consent or authority from the defendants. The perusal 1x TA NO. 177712022 l0 of record would reveal that the applicant bank has purchased a cheque of Rs.2 crores on 30.06.2014 and transferred the said amount on its own to various loan accounts, purportedly to save the account from being classified as NPA. Ironically the said cheque of Rs.2 crores was again reversed by the applicant on 27.07.20L4, which is evident from the statement of account which is placed on record. It is further submitted that UBI inserted a bullet payment clause in its restructuring sanction advise knowing full well that the company would not be able to pay such a huge amount. Despite the request of defendant no. 1, it did not agree to remove the said bullet payment clause' The said bullet payment was for an amount of 5.85 and was to be recovered in September 2013 (even according to their own restructuring sanction advise dated 25.09.2012) or later when the sale of a propefi situated at 4, Sultanpur Farms, Gadaipur, New Delhi (farmhouse) was completed. In its new sanction advice dated March 2013, however, UBI changed the month of recovery from September 2013 to March 2013 and refused to make the necessary corrections. Therefore, then managing director of defendant no. 1 wrote a note in the sanction advise clearly stating the said amount shall be recovered in September 2013 or after the sale of farmhouse and not in March 2013. UBI, however, recovered the said amount in May 2013' Then, not only did it recover the amount prematurely, it recovered an amount of Rs.6.52 crores instead of Rs.5.85 crores' This caused further financial distress and cash shortage to the defendant no. 1. It is submitted that the amount claimed is excessive and exorbitant and requires modifications for which the qntire statement of account o,\

TA NO. 177712022 I I is necessitated to be placed on record' It is further submitted that property being Farm House No.4, situated at Khasra No.140, 143 and 214, Village Gadaipur, Tehsil Hauz Khas, New Delhi in the name of defendant no.3 has since been sold with the permission of members of consortium including the applicant Bank and the entire sale consideration of Rs'28 crores has been deposited which has been acknowledged by the members of Consortium including the applicant bank' Needless to mention that the said property was sold at the then market value of Rs.28 crores' The purchaser of the said propefi i'e. Ms. Renuka Munjal filed a Securitization Application in this regard filed by the purchaser being S.A. No.31 of 2015 which was carried in appeal before the Hon'ble DRAT against the interim relief being declined by the Tribunal' Before the Hon'ble DRAT, the purchaser deposited a sum of Rs'1l crores over and above Rs.28 crores already deposited with the applicant consortium bank and the matter was referred back to the DRT for adjudication' During the pendency of the said Securitization Application' the purchaser/applicant again offered to deposit another amount of Rs.l1 crores to complete Rs'50 crores as sought by the applicant consoftium bank' Consequently, the Securitization Application has been disposed off vide order dated 04'07'20t6 with directions that on receipt of the entire amount of Rs'50 crores, the bank was directed to release the charge on the propefi in favour of the applicant/purchaser' It is submitted that at the cost of repetition that pursuant to submission of the aforementioned proposal' M/s Dunn & Bradstreet (D&B) was appointed to conduct a Financial Feasibility Stu{y - restructuring of the <'\

I TA NO. 177712022 12 defendant No.1 Company and the said company has submifted its report which formed the basis for restructuring and has been heavily relied upon by the Members of Consortium in the consortium meetings' The report was one sided and completely in favor of the banks. As per the recommendation of the aforesaid Company (Dunn & Bradstreet) and as per the terms of restructuring offered by the bank, the principal amount in respect of loans was to be repaid during the so called moratorium period which defeated the entire purpose of moratorium period and the defendant No'1 did not get any relief and as a result became bankrupt due to the unethical and unfair practices and greed of the Applicants. The applicants and defendant no' 8 pressured and forced the defendant no' 1 to sell its brand assets and franchise rights and pay the money from such sales to the applicants and defendant no' 8 during the moratorium period, the defeating the entire purpose of restructuring' Such capital paid to the applicants and the defendant no' 8 could have been used for the company's working capital needs in order to revive it or gain adequate time foe finding a suitable equity investment' The defendant no' t however had to pay a huge amount during the moratorium period and from the sale of its brand assets and related rights' Due to the pressure exerted by the banks' the defendant no' t had to sell the franchise rights at a lower value due to the lack of time' Fufther' it could not leverage its License rights for the Italian brand' Cadini, due to the lack of capital due to the huge' unwarranted outflow to the banks including premature and unauthorized debits' In order to meet the requirements and recommendation of the aforesaid f"\

company who l3 had conducted feasibilitY report, the applicant met all its obligations including the sale of property being Farms House located at Sultanpur, Delhi as sold for Rs'28 Crores which was much higher than the market value and also many times higher than the circle rate of the property which was not more than 6 crores' However, the entire amount of sale consideration was deposited with the applicant bank. needless to reiterate that over and above Rs.28 crores another Rs'22 crores has been deposited by the purchaser to make the total deposit of Rs.50 crores. It is further submitted that the restructuring of the financial facilities of defendant no'1 was done in haste and was neither proper nor desirable and only a superficial attempt which has resulted in huge loss to the defendant no'1 and resultantly the defendant no.1 company could not revive' The applicant no.1 had been charging extremely exorbitant high renewal fee of Rs'45 lacs every year' The restructuring terms offered were completely one sided in favour of the applicant bank and defendant no'B' Despite repeated requests the applicant no'1 as lead Bank did not interyene to ensure that all banks followed the banking norms and adhered to the terms of restructuring. Furthermore, the bullet repayment clause in the restructuring terms was so unreasonable that it was impossible for the defendant no'1 to make such exorbitant bullet payment at the time when the defendant no.1 was faced with financial constraints' The moratorium period provided was a short period of approximately 14 months which was not sufficient for the defendant company to revive' Even during the moratorium period, the defendant no'1 was required to g'\ ..

TA NO. 177712022 t4 make huge bullet payments causing further financial distress. Fufther, Union Bank of India and Oriental Bank of Commerce continued to recover interest even during moratorium period; Principal repayments continued even during the moratorium period; Premature and excess amounts were recovered under the pretense of bullet payments by Union Bank of India; The bullet payments amounting to Rs'25'71 crores was included in the restructuring package by the members of consortium. The applicant no'3 also contributed in creating adverse 33 situation for the defendant Company and despite a superficial restructuring which could not revive the defendant company for the inactions of the applicants' As regards applicant no.3, on 3t.l2.2OLZ the defendant Company was supposed to make a bullet payment of 1'36 crores to the applicant no.3. the defendant no' 1 Company was going through a financial crunch, the applicant No.3 transferred a sum of Rs'28 lacs from the account of one Sh. Om Prakash Garg, who was totally unknown to the defendant No.1 Company and had no connection with him. The said amount of Rs'28 lacs were deposited in the account of defendant company through transfer and thereafter, the applicant no'3 under coercion and undue influence took a cheque from defendant No'1 in favour of Sh. Om Prakash Garg' This was done to save the account from becoming a non-performing asset' It is submitted that a bullet payment of Rs'6 crores was payable by defendant no'1 to applicant no'3 on 30.09.2013 as part of repayment schedule' The defendant no'1 though could not make such deposit' yet the applicant no.3 sought a letter from defendant Company and sanctioned a fresh unsecured loan of A

TA NO. 177712022 15 Rs.6 crores which led to further burden of interest on defendant no.1 company. The applicant no'2 did not restructure the term loan and cash credit loan account and did not provide for any moratorium period to the defendant no.1 company. Although the restructuring of applicant no.2 was also technically counted as restructuring but in effect no benefit was given to the defendant company as only a lefter of credit which was about to devolve was restructured superficially with a moratorium period of 3 months and no other accounts were restructured. The applicant no'2 has also contributed to the adverse situation of the account of defendant company. The applicant no'2 is also a paft of consortium which was restructured individually before the accounts with other members of consortium were restructured. The account was restructured as a result of devolvement of a letter of credit which had fallen due for payment' No moratorium period was provided to Defendant Company by applicant no'2' despite restructuring of account' Thus, when all other members of consortium restructured the account of defendant and provided the moratorium period, the defendant company was still made to service the account by making interest payment to applicant no'2' It is further submitted that all members of consortium' conspired against defendant Company, inter alia, by charging adhoc rates of interest, deducting adhoc account, not restructuring the not restructuring the accounts amounts accounts from its timely; properly, not adhering to terms of restructuring, by failing to pedorm the duties if a lead bank; by not adhering to the guidelines of RBI; by engaging in discriminatory and unethicaltanking practices; and by (A

TA NO. 177712022 16 increasing its account which has resulted in flnancial depression, besides harassment and mental agony to the officials of defendant no'1 company' The applicant Banks including defendant no'8 have not acted as prudent bankers and while ignoring the lenders obligations, the applicants did not take the standard of care in maintaining the account and acted negligently, malafidely, and illegally while dealing with the account of defendant no'l' The applicant banks breach the implied covenants of goods faith and fair dealing. The applicants engaged in illegal, unfair and fraudulent banking practice while transferring the funds from third party accounts without the consent of the defendant company. The terms of inter-se agreement were not followed by the applicants and acted in defiance of all banking norms and RBI Guidelines. The agreements sought to be relied upon were known non- negotiable, adhoc, unfair' one sided' arbitrary, unreasonable and unconscionable' Therefore, the defendants are liable to be compensated to the tune of Rs.500 crores for the direct and indirect losses caused as a result of its actions' Had the banks restructured the accounts in good faith and then adhered to those terms of restructuring and not engaged in unwarranted, illegal and unethical banking practices, the defendant no' 1 company would have revived and attracted equity investment and reached new heights. It is submitted that Genesis Luxury Fashion Private Limited, defendant no' 1's biggest competitor at the time grew in a similar manner and received equity investment of sixty crores for a stake of about 25.5o/o valuing the company at about two hundred and fofi crores (Rsr]4,00,000,000)' A year 4).'.

TA NO. 1777/2022 17 later, it received an additional investment of Rs.75 crore from the same investor (L Capital)' The valuation of about Rs.240 crores of Genesis Luxury Private Limited was against a Revenue of about Rs'75 crores at a revenue multiple of about 3'2 times' Using the same revenue multiple, defendant no' l's estimated value at the time i.e. in FY 20t2lt3 can be estimated at about two hundred and seventy-two crores (Rs.27,20,000,000). Its related company and shareholder, Genesis Colors Private Limited is now eying an IPO of 650 crores' Similarly, it is estimated that the defendant no. 1 company would have achieved an IPO. It is estimated that the company would have grown and achieved a signiflcant increase in turnover, profits and valuation/market value and achieve a value of at least Rs.500 crores as of today' However, this could not be possible due to the actions and inactions of the banks as the company ran into liquidity and cash flow problems due to the unwarranted, illegal, huge, debits by the banks and their failure to restructure the accounts properly and in good faith. On this basis, the defendant no. 1 seeks compensation from the applicants and defendant no 8. The applicant Banks in the present OA are inter-alia claiming charge and seeking sale of the property at Village Gadhaipur, Tehsil Hauz Khas, New Delhi, which has since been released from charge by all members of consoftium and the entire sale consideration already stands paid and deposited with the applicants' The defendants are also denying the creation and/or extension of mortgage in favour of the applicants or any of the applicant/defendant no.8 on any of the immovable property as claimed in the Original Application' It is e\'

J TA NO. 177712022 l8 submitted that the applicant banks have not filed the complete statement of account and more particularly in compliance of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "CBI Vs' Ravindra". A cryptic statement of account filed by the applicant no.2 on record contains various unauthorized debit entries which are denied by the defendants' Even otherwise, the defendant's dispute the purported entries made in the statement of account as filed on record by the applicant banK being incorrect' It is prayed that this Hontle Tribunal may dismissed the present O.A. The defendants seek set off/adjustment against the alleged claim of the applicants in the present O.A., leaving nothing due and payable to the applicants pursuant to the claims of set-off which may kindly be allowed for an amount of Rs'500 crores with pendentelite and future interest @12olo P'a'

6. Both pafties have filed their respective evidence'

7. Heard the Ld' Counsel of both the parties and perused the record'

8. The main contention of the defendants is that the OA has not been signed and verified by the authorized person and there is no authorization in favour of Shri R.K.Maurya, who has signed the present OA' But the contention of the defendants has no force' The application has been flled by the authorized officer of the bank and in the affidavit it has been mentioned that he is working as Chief Manager of the bank and is the authorized representative of the bank' As per provisions contained under the Act' the Chief Manager can be the Authorised Officer to file the OA and 4['

TA NO. 177712022 19 therefore, the contention of the defendanB has no force.

requisite court fee has not been paid but from perusal of the report of the registry it is clear that sufficient court fee has been Paid'

10. The next contention of the defendant is that the applicant has not filed the complete statement of account at the Ume of filing of the OA' therefore' the OA is liable to be dismissed' From perusal of the record itisclearthattheappticantbankhasfiledthe SbtementofaccountalongwiththeoA,therefore,the contention of the defendants has no force'

11. The next contention ofthe defendants is thatthe applicant has got the signatures of the defendants on printed forms and blank spaces were fllled by the applicant bank and therefore' the same cannot be relied upon' It is further submitted that the defendants have to signed on the printed proformas and has no choice to negotiate the terms of the loan and therefore' the same cannot be relied upon' But the contention of the defendants has no force' The defendants are running a huge business and is engaged with banking transactions in day-to-day business activities' Therefore, it cannot be presumed that the defendants have signed the papers without going through the same' The defendants are well educated businessman' therefore, the contention of the defendants cannot be accepted' The contention that the defendant has no authority to negotiate the terms can also be not accepted' There are ceftain norms of the bank for granting loans' If any party 's agreed to such terms' q)

TANO. 1777t2022 20 only then the loan is sanctioned' therefore' there is no scope of any negotiation as the banks worrc under the guidelines issued by the RBI' Therefore' the contention of the defendants cannot be accepted'

directorcannotsigntheguaranteedocumentsin personal capacity as the company is a juristic person anddirectorcannotsigntheguaranteeagreement.It is further submitted that the signatures of the directors has been obtained by undue influence by the appticant bank. But the contention of the defendants has no force. The directors of the company cttn issue guarantee documents and can sign on behalf of the company' It cannot be presumed that directors were forced to sign the papers under influence' The defendants have never made any complaint regarding undue influence and forgery against the officials of the applicant but has availed the loan facility and has also paid the repayment for quite some time' Therefore' the contentions of the defendants are only afterthought and cannot be accePted'

applicant bank is charging exorbitant rate of interest against the mandate given by the Hontle Apex Court in Central Bank of India Vs' Ravindra' In this regard I have gone through the record' From perusal of the record it is crear that the app*cant bank is charging rate of interest as per agreement entered into between the parties' Therefore' there is no violation of any of the provisions of the agreement and the interest charged by the bank cannot be deemed to be exorbitant' S"\

TANO. 177712022 2r t4. The next contention of the defendants is that the applicant bank has not restructured the account in timely manner and therefore' he has to suffer a lot and the business has failed' It is further submitted that at thetimeofrestructuringtheapplicantbankhas forceablyaddedhugebulletpaymentintermsof restructuring and charged higher rate of interest' therefore, the action of the bank is ittegal' But the contention of the defendants has no force' The defendants have moved the proposal for the restructuring of the loan and the bank has taken decision in accordance with law and restructured the ban as per terms and conditions agreed between the parties. Therefore' it cannot be said that the terms of the restructuring were against the prudential norms' The terms and conditions of restructuring cannot be deemed to be unreasonable and therefore' no benefit can be given to the defendants'

15. It is further submitted by the defendants that the applicant bank has purchase a cheque--o,l Rs'2 Crores on 30'06'2014 and transferred the said amount to various loan accounts purportedly to save the account from being classified as NPA' Ironically the said cheque of Rs.2 Crores was again reversed by the applicant on 27 .07 '20L4'tt is suOmitted that this act of the applicant is totally against the norms of the bank and therefore' the OA is liable to be dismissed' I have gone through the statement of account but the act of the bank cannot besaidtobeillegalandtherefore,onthisgroundthe OA cannot be dismissed'

16. The next contention of the defendants is that during pendencry of the O& the moftgaged property 4,\ I i I I I I I I I I

has already been sold and substantial amount has beenreceivedbythebank.Therefore,itissubmitted that the amount may be adjusted towards the payment. The Ld' counsel of the applicant bank admitted that during pendency of the OA' mortgaged properties have already been sold and therefore' the bank has given due weightage of the receipt in the statement of account' Therefore' it is clear that the amount received from the sale of the properry may be adjusted in the statement of account and only the remaining amount may be recovered from the defendans' The Ld' counsel of the defendants has further contended that the applicant has not given the balance which is due as on date' On the other hand the Ld. counsel of the applicant has submitted that all the receipt has already been adjusted in accordance with procedure and therefore' the OA cannot be dismissed on this ground' Merely because the current statement of account has not been filed by the applicant bank at this stage the OA cannot be dismissed' But the applicant can claim the amount only after adjustment of the amount receipt from the sale of the propefties' t7. The next contention of the defendants is that all the mortgaged properties have already been sold by the bank but there is no evidence in this regard on the fileoftheoA.Therefore,itisdirectedthatifthe mortgaged properties have already been sold' the amount may be recovered from the personal propefties of the defendants and if any mortgaged property has still not been sold' the amount may be recovered from

)', edp the unsold moftgag cJ 'i

TANO. 177712022 23

18. 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 defendantsandtherefore,thedefendantsareliableto pay jointly and severally the amount claimed by the applicant bank and the OAIIA of the applicant bank is liable to be altowed' In the light of the above discussions' the present TA deserues to be allowed against defendant no'1 to 7'

ORDER

t) I hereby allow this T'A' of the Applicarrt Banks and direct the defendant nos' 1 to 7 to pay jointly and severally to the applicant no'1 bank within 30 days from today, a sum of Rs'39'25'35'467'77 along with cost' expenses and interest @14% from the date of fiting of this O.A which has become TA tilt the date of realization.

2) The defendant nos' 1 to 7 are directed to pay joinUy and severally to the applicant no'2 bank within 30daysfromtoday,asumofRs'18,72,06,220.10a1on9 with cost, expenses and interest @14olo from the date of filing of this O'A which has become TA till the date of realization.

3) The defendant nos' 1 to 7 are directed to pay jointty and severally to the applicant no'3 bank within 30 days from today, a sum of-Rs31'34'30'140'55 along t\

! TANO. 1777t2022 24 with cost, expenses and interest @14% from the date of fiting of this O'A which has become TA till the date of realization'

4) 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 sale of ProPerties i'e', (i). Room No'3 on First Floor, being Paft of ProPertY No. F-38, N.D'S'E', Part-I' New Delhi (Both Front Half Portion and Rear Half Portion) (ii) Part and Parcel of Basement of Commercial Propefi Bearing No. F-38, Private Shop No' B-1' South Extn.I, New Delhi-110049, (iii)' All that is Part and Parcel of Farm House No'4, Situated at Khasra No'140' 143 and 214, Village GadaiPur, Tehsil Hauz Khas' New Delhi- 110049, (iv). Commercial Property being at Third'Floor, Situated at ProPertY No' G-8' South Extn-l, New Delhi- 110M9 (v). All that is Part and Parcel of First Floor' Second and Third Floor of the CommerchI ProPertY Bearing No. G-9, South Extension-I' New Delhi-110049, admeasuring 250 Sq' Yds' Each Floor atong with 200 Sq. Ft at Ground Floor and Terrace Rights. If these properties have already been sold during PendencY of the OAfl-A, the shortfall maY be recovered from the sale of the Personal movable and immovable assets of the defendant nos. 1to 7'

Recovery Ceftificate be issued forthwith and be sent to Recovery Officer' Delhi. Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il'

4) The registry of this Tribunal is hereby directed to issue free copy of the order and send the same to both the Parties. 'i

TA NO. 177112022 25

5) Parties are direct to appear before the Ld' Recovery Officer, DRT-II' Delhion 04'08'2025' Pending IAs, if anY, stand disPosed of' File be consigned to records' , $\ -,1.r O';#|,[Y,HLMR" DRT-II, Delhi This judgement has been signed' dated and pronounced in oPen court' 9I .. t"ri?L!J,','|S,H8"" DRT-II, Dethi Date: 04.06.2025 Date :04.06.2025 T