PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK vs M/S RAHEJA DEVELOPERS LTD AND ORS on 12 March 2026

**FINAL ORDER**

1. This original application has been filed by the Applicant Bank i.e. Punjab National Bank (PNB), on 07.04.2021, through Ms. Meera Bai, AGM of applicant bank, being Authorized Officer of Applicant Bank, under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the Defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs. 319,34,00,463/- (Rupees Three Hundred Nineteen Crore Thirty Four Lakh Four Hundred and Sixty Three only) outstanding as on 20.02.2024 along with pendentelite and future interest with all costs & charges and other relief(s).

1.2 It is pertinent to note here that this OA bearing no. 638/2021 was originally filed before Ld. DRT-I, Delhi, however, in pursuance to Gazette Notification No. 4718 (E) dated 04.10.2022 issued by Government of India, Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, this case file was 

transferred by Ld. DRT-I, Delhi to this Tribunal in October 2022 and was numbered at TA-216/2022.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Applicant / PNB is a Bank constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. It is stated in the OA that recently, the Oriental Bank of Commerce (OBC) has amalgamated vide notification dated 04.03.2020 into PNB and by virtue of the notification all the rights and obligation of OBC is now taken over by PNB and eventually the OBC Branch Large Corporate branch Harsha House Connaught Place, New Delhi.

It is also stated in the OA that the present OA is being signed, verified and instituted on behalf of the Applicant Bank by Ms. Meera Bai, Manager of Applicant, being the authorized representative of the Applicant authorized vide General Power of Attorney dated 01.09.2003 and is fully conversant with the facts of the case and has been duly authorized and empowered by the Applicant to sign and verify the present application and take all necessary steps as may be necessary for effective adjudication of the present OA.

2.1 It is stated in the OA that the Defendant no. 1 herein is a Borrower to the Applicant, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, It is further stated that the Agreement of the Term Loan and Over Draft Limit was executed to the Defendant no. 1 at Large Corporate branch – Harsha Place, Connaught Place, New Delhi, the OBC amalgamated into PNB vide notification dated 04.03.2020. It is also stated that Agreement of the Overdraft Limit was executed to the defendant no. 1 at BO – Bikaji Cama Place, New Delhi and inter alia a branch office at Khanpur Delhi wherein the exclusive jurisdiction has been conferred at the Tribunals at New Delhi. Further, the said Agreement and other ancillary documents have been executed between the Applicant and the Defendant(s) at the office of the applicant at BO – Harsha Bhawan, Bikaji Cama Place and Khanpur at New Delhi. The details of loan documents, place of execution and date of execution is reflected in tabular form below:-

<thead> <tr> <th>Sl. No.</th> <th>Loan documents</th> <th>Place of execution of all documents</th> <th>Date of execution of all documents.</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>1.</td> <td>Overdraft A/c (Loan I)</td> <td>Bikaji Cama Place</td> <td>29.05.2014</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2.</td> <td>Term Loan (Loan II)</td> <td>Bikaji Cama Place</td> <td>29.09.2015</td> </tr> <tr> <td>3.</td> <td>Corporate/ Project Term Loan (Loan III)</td> <td>Harsha Bhawan, Connaught Place</td> <td>24.02.2015</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

**Brief Facts of Overdraft Facility and Term Loan issued by PNB**

2.2 It is stated in the OA that the Defendant no. 1 on 29.05.2014 approached the applicant bank for allowing an advance by way of overdraft upto the extent of Rs. 15.00 crore by way of enhancement of existing limit of Rs. 95.00 crore for meeting funds requirement for continuing and upcoming projects by executing the Overdraft Agreement dated 29.05.2014 and for the above purpose inter alia on the terms and conditions in the OD agreements and upon security of mortgage of the properties, as described in schedule of property in the said agreement and executed security documents in respect of the said facilities. The borrower and guarantor deposited title deeds of the properties in conformity with the Mortgage Deeds. Applicant bank has annexed the overdraft agreement dated 29.05.2014 in this regard.

It is further stated that in continuity the Defendant no.1 for Overdraft limit against Mortgage IP for a sum of Rs. 115.0 crore for the purpose of upcoming Projects of Rs. 115.0 crore to the Defendant no. 1 has executed Overdraft agreement, created equitable mortgage & hypothecation of goods, Book Debts, movable assets & block assets, current assets, present assets and future assets. Having accepted the terms and conditions stipulated in the said Overdraft Agreement, agreed to enter into Overdraft Agreement dated 29.05.2015 and sanction of the availing an advances by way of Overdraft A/c 1514009300031421 with OD limit of Rs. 115.0 crore.

2.3 On 24.07.2015, Applicant Bank and Defendant no. 1 has executed addendum to overdraft agreement wherein the Applicant Bank has agreed to allow a loan facility by way of overdraft Limit of Rs.115.0 crore for meeting funds requirements for continuing and upcoming projects. On the terms and conditions mentioned therein and the charge over entire current and unencumbered fixed assets of the Defendant Company other than IPs not charged to applicant bank and these assets on which project specific line of credit have been obtained from other banks / FIs / body corporate / housing project specific line of credit have been obtained from other banks / FIs / body corporate / housing loan granted to flat buyers by other banks / FIs, personal & corporate guarantee & equitable mortgage of properties more fully described as foreshaid in Principal Deed i.e Overdraft Agreement dated 29.05.2015.

2.4 In the meanwhile, Borrower also applied with the Applicant Bank for Term Loan for setting up a Group Housing Project named "RAHEJA OMA at Sector 2A Dharuhera, Haryana". The bank vide its Sanction dated 29.09.2015 sanctioned the Term Loan of Rs. 55.0 Crore for setting up a Group Housing Project named "Raheja OMA at Sector 2A Dharuhera, Haryana", inter alia on the terms and conditions mentioned in Terms Loan Agreement dated 03.03.2016 and upon security of Mortgage of properties, corporate guarantee and personal guarantee.

In continuity the Defendant had executed against Project Term Loan for the purpose of upcoming Projects of Rs. 55.0 crore against the security suitable mortgage & hypothecation of goods, Book Debts, movable assets & block assets. Accordingly, after agreed to terms and conditions and entering into the agreement dated 03.03.2016 for Project Term Loan A/c 1514001C00000061 for an amount not exceeding Rs. 55.0 crore by the Defendant, the Applicant granted the sanction of Term Loan [details given in Para 5(5.11) of the OA].

As per the Agreement of Personal Guarantee dated 17.03.2016 and Agreement of Guarantee with respect to above mentioned term loan and overdraft limit was made by the Defendants no. 2 to 7 wherein the guarantors have agreed and consents jointly severally to pay the bank after demand in writing all the principal, interest, costs and expenses due payment of the amount due and payable to the bank in respect of the limits i.e. existing Overdraft Limit [details given in Para 5(5.12) of the OA].

It is also stated that on 17.03.2016 a General Counter Indemnity with Affidavit to avail working capital Limit

sanctioned and allowed to continue the existing limit of Rs. 150.0 crore with sub limit of Rs. 5.0 crore alongwith Overdraft Agreement, wherein Borrower is availing an advance for meeting funds required for continuing and uploading project on the terms and conditions mentioned in Overdraft Agreement dated 29.3.2015 and Addendum to Overdraft Agreement dated 24.07.2015 was given by the Defendant no. 1. Furthermore, Master Agreement for Inland Documentary Credit and Letter of Hypothecation contains other terms [as detailed in Para 5(5.13) of the OA].

It is also stated in the OA that on 17.03.2016, Agreement to Guarantee is made between M/s N.A. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Sh. Navin M. Raheja, Nirmal Raheja, M/s Standard Farms Pvt. Ltd., M/s Enkay Buidwell Pvt. Ltd., and the Applicant wherein the Guarantor(s) the Bank has agreed to allow to continue availing working capital limit Rs. 339.0 crore including Overdraft, Bank Guarantee and Term Loan to M/s Raheja Developers Ltd. hereinafter the Borrower(s) on the terms and conditions contained in overdraft agreement, term loan agreements and general counter indemnity and whereas the guarantor(s) has / have agreed to guarantee due payment of the amount due to the bank in respect of the said limits of Rs. 339.0 crore. Further more, in an Agreement of Guarantee by Sh. Navin M. Raheja, M/s Standard Farms Pvt. Ltd., M/s Enkay Buidwell Pvt. Ltd., M/s Raheja Builders Pvt. Ltd. wherein an affidavit is given by Naveen M. Raheja and there is an Letter of Hypothecation which clearly includes the present and future book debts consisting of lease rents / license / rentals fees due that may be due from time to time from lessor / tenants / license occupying the premises.

On 17.03.2016 in furtherance of this agreement the Defendant no. 1 for Overdraft Limit against Mortgage IP for a sum of Rs. 115.0 crore for meeting fund requirements for continuing and the purpose of upcoming Projects on the terms and conditions mentioned in Overdraft Agreement dated 29.05.2015 & Addendum to Overdraft Agreement dated 24.07.2015 of Rs. 115.0 crore to the Defendant no. 1 and has also executed created Equitable mortgage & hypothecation of goods, Book Debts, movable assets & block assets, current assets, present assets and future assets.

Furthermore, on 17.03.2016 Master Agreement for Inland Documentary Credit Facility upto a limit of Rs. 5.0 crore was executed by Defendant no. 1.

Moreover, letter of intent as well as letter of continuity dated 18.03.2016 was executed by defendants no. 1 to 7 in respect of aforesaid overdraft loan facility and term loan facility.

Further, on 17.03.2016 General Counter Indemnity Deed was executed by Defendant no. 1 in favour of Applicant Bank to continue the existing guarantee limit of Rs. 150.0 crore with LC sub limit of Rs. 5.0 crore.

2.5 It is also stated in the OA that on 08.03.2017 and on 18.04.2018 balance and security confirmation letter was executed by Defendant no. 1 in respect of Overdraft Loan facility as well as term loan facility.

**Brief Facts w.r.t. Corporate Term Loan issued by OBC nor PNB – 'Refer to as Loan-III'**

2.6 It is further stated in the OA that the Defendant no. 1 on 24.02.2015 also approached the OBC now PNB / Applicant herein for allowing an advance by way of Corporate Term Loan (fresh) of Rs. 90.0 Crore for the purpose to Payment of EDC / IDC and construction contractors by executing the Term Loan Agreement dated 24.02.2015 and for the above purpose inter alia on the terms and conditions in the Term Loan agreements and upon security of mortgage of aforesaid properties, as described in schedule of property in the said agreement and executed security documents in respect of the said facilities. The borrower and guarantor deposited title deeds of the properties in conformity with the Mortgage Deeds.

It is further stated that having accepted the terms and conditions stipulated in the said Term Loan Agreement, agreed to enter into Term Loan Agreement dated 24.02.2015 and in furtherance of the same, the Applicant grant and sanction of the availing an advances by way of Corporate Term Loan A/c 00077025004796 for a sum of Rs. 90.0 crore.

It is stated in the OA that on 24.02.2015 Defendant no. 2 executed Personal Guarantee agreement and on 03.03.2015 in further this agreement, the Defendants no. 3 & 4 executed Corporate Guarantee Agreement wherein the Applicant Bank agreed to allow the loan facility by way of Corporate Term Loan of Rs. 90.0 crore for meeting funds requirement for the purpose to Payment of EDC / IDC and construction contractors has confirmed creation of Equitable mortgage towards Corporate Term Loan Agreement.

It is also stated that on 02.07.2015 Credit Facilities sanctioned to Defendant Company was amended as per request of the Defendants vide Amendment Letter dated 02.07.2015 [details given in Para 5(5.23) of OA].

2.7 It is also stated in the OA that on 26.06.2017, Defendants no. 1, 2, 3 & 4 had executed letter of balance and securities confirmation against the aforesaid Corporate Loan.

2.8 It is further stated that on 07.02.2018 Applicant Bank had reviewed credit facilities sanctioned to the Defendant Company.

2.9 It is stated in the OA that vide its letter dated 31.03.2018 and 18.04.2018 Defendants no. 3 & 4 acknowledged their liability towards Corporate Term Loan vide letter of Balance & Confirmation.

2.10 Thereafter, on 18.04.2018, Defendant no. 2 i.e. Mr. Navin M. Raheja on behalf of Defendant no. 3 i.e. M/s Standard Farms Pvt. Ltd. had executed Indemnity Agreement in favour of Applicant bank wherein the Defendant no. 3 has represented the Bank that the company is the own and possess the property Total Land measuring 3 kanal 8 Marla consisting of Land measuring 1 Kanal 7 Marla, being 1/4^th Share of total Land admeasuring 5 kanal 10 Marla, comprised in Mustatil No. 20; Killa No. 12/2(1-10), 12/3(4-0). On 18.04.2018, Defendants executed Memorandum of Confirmation / Extension of Mortgage by Deposit of Title Deeds in favour of the Applicant Bank.

2.11 It is stated in the OA that as per the terms and conditions of financing as well as security documents, the Defendant(s) are required to repay the principal along with interest to the Applicant. Since Defendant(s) committed deliberate defaults in payment of liabilities, interest and other charges as contained in the loan agreement, the Applicant Bank made requests and issued various letters and reminders to Defendants to regularize the account and to pay the dues to the Applicant Bank but the Defendant(s) failed to do the needful. At last, the loan Accounts of the Defendant no. 1 were classified as NPA on 01.10.2019 for Loan No. I & II and on 23.05.2018 for Loan No. III as per the guidelines of RBI. The particulars of the outstanding amount due and payable by defendant(s) to Applicant in respect of the said Loans as on 20.03.2021 are mentioned herein as under:- Loan I

<thead> <tr>

</tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>1.</td> <td>1514009300031421 (OD)</td> <td>115.0</td> <td>Rs. 124,43,16,1999.43/-</td> <td>Rs. 158,52,71,247/-</td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td>Total</td> <td></td> <td>Rs. 158,52,71,247/-</td> <td>Rs. 158,52,71,247/-</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

Loan II

<table border="1"> <thead> <tr>

</tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>1.</td> <td>151400IC00000061</td> <td>55.0</td> <td>Rs. 23,65,68,909.42</td> <td>Rs. 28,36,94,789.42</td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td>Total</td> <td></td> <td>Rs. 28,36,94,789.42</td> <td>Rs. 28,36,94,789.42</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

Loan III

<table border="1"> <thead> <tr>

</tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>1.</td> <td>00077025004796 (Term Loan)</td> <td>90.0</td> <td>Rs. 57,12,28,866.11</td> <td>Rs. 66,53,40,992.11</td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td>Total</td> <td></td> <td></td> <td>Rs. 66,53,40,992.11</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

2.12 It is also stated in the OA that in order to further secure the liability under aforesaid facilities & loan, the defendant no. 1 through its guarantor i.e. defendant no. 2 to 10 created equitable mortgage on by depositing with intention to secure the liabilities of defendant no. 1 to the applicant bank. The details of mortgaged securities is as under:-

<thead> <tr> <th>Name of the mortgagee</th> <th>Name of the mortgagor</th> <th>Amount secured</th> <th>Date of mortgage</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>PNB</td> <td>Navin M. Raheja / Defendant no. 2</td> <td>Corporate Term Loan – Rs. 90.0 crore, Overdraft Agreement, Term Loan Agreement and General Counter Indemnity – Rs. 339.0 crore</td> <td>25.02.2015 &amp; 17.03.2016</td> </tr> <tr> <td>PNB</td> <td>Standard Farms Pvt. Ltd. / Defendant no. 3</td> <td>Corporate Term Loan – Rs. 90.0 crore, Overdraft Agreement, Term Loan Agreement and General Counter Indemnity – Rs. 339.0 crore</td> <td>25.02.2015 &amp; 17.03.2016</td> </tr> <tr> <td>PNB</td> <td>N.A Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. / Defendant no. 4</td> <td>Corporate Term Loan – Rs. 90.0 crore, Overdraft Agreement, Term Loan Agreement and General</td> <td>24.02.2015 &amp; 17.03.2016</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

<tr> <td></td> <td></td> <td>Counter Indemnity –<br/>Rs. 339.0 crore</td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td>PNB</td> <td>Nirmal Raheja /<br/>Defendant no. 5</td> <td>Overdraft Agreement, Term Loan Agreement and General Counter Indemnity –<br/>Rs. 339.0 crore</td> <td>17.03.2016</td> </tr> <tr> <td>PNB</td> <td>Raheja Builders Pvt. Ltd. /<br/>Defendant no. 7</td> <td>Overdraft Agreement, Term Loan Agreement and General Counter Indemnity –<br/>Rs. 339.0 crore</td> <td>17.03.2016</td> </tr> </table>

Details of the properties mortgaged by the aforesaid defendants and title deeds of the said properties have been given in Para 5(5.32) of the OA.

2.13 It is stated in the OA that the defendant no. 6, being the guarantor and defendant no. 8 & 9 being the director of Defendant no. 1 at the time when the cause of action arose in favour of the Applicant, and the statutory notice u/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, has been issued against them, therefore, they are also liable to clear the outstanding dues in the above mentioned loan facilities. Further, it is pointed out that even though the statutory notice u/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, has not been issued against the defendant no. 10, it has given guarantee w.r.t. to the Overdraft Facility and Term Loan Facility issued by the PNB, therefore, defendant no. 10 is also a Corporate Guarantor and is liable to pay the outstanding dues of the Applicant.

2.14 It is stated in the OA that due to the default in performance and observance of terms and conditions of covenants of the loan agreements by the defendant(s), the Applicant vide its notices dated 23.07.2018 and 05.02.2020 recalled the entire principal amount of the loan outstanding, including interest, penal interest, liquidated damages and all other charges falling due to the Applicant aggregating to Rs. 319,34,00,463/- as on 20.03.2021 together with further interest thereon at contractual rates and other charges.

The defendants no. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 10 are the guarantors had undertaken to repay the outstanding amounts in the aforesaid Loan Accounts i.e. from Loan No. I to III along with the interest and other charges accruing in the account of the said defendant no. 1. Therefore, the Applicant vide its letter dated 23.07.2018 and 05.02.2020 issued notice to the Defendants no. 1 to 9 and invoked the liability of the borrower and Corporate and personal guarantees of the guarantors and the defendants were called upon to pay the total outstanding dues as mentioned in the said Notices. It is also stated that the Defendants no. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 10 being the guarantors to secure the repayment of the outstanding dues of the Applicant against defendant no. 1 as described above, the liability of the Defendants no. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 10 in respect of the respective guaranteed loans to pay the principal amount along with interest and other charges is joint and several.

2.15 Since, the Defendants no. 1 to 10 have failed and neglected to repay their debts as demanded by the Applicant in the above mentioned notices, the Applicant sent Notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act dated 23.07.2018 and 05.02.2020.

2.16 It is further stated in the OA that the Defendants are deliberately not adhering to the terms and conditions incorporated in the agreement, despite of having knowledge of all the facts, the defendant(s) failed and neglected to fulfill their commitment and to maintain the financial discipline as mentioned above in the preceding paragraphs till date. Hence, the Applicant herein is constrained to approach this Hon'ble Tribunal to file this OA for recovery of its dues.

3. Notices of this O.A. were issued to the Defendants and the Defendants no. 1 to 7 & 10 and Defendant no. 9 appeared through their respective counsel(s) but did not chose to file any WS till date.

3.1 So far as, Defendant no. 8 is concerned, / Mohammad Yousuf Khan is concerned, he neither appeared before this Tribunal nor filed any WS.

3.2 It is also important to note here that Defendant no. 9 filed IA No. 1680/20022 under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure praying therein to pass an order for deletion of the name of the Defendant no. 9 from the array of Defendants & reject the OA against Defendant no. 9.

Vide order dated 15.01.2024 of this Tribunal, it was directed that the aforesaid IA will be decided at the time of the final disposal of this case. In these circumstances, this IA will be disposed off in subsequent paras while deciding the OA.

4. To prove its case, the Applicant Bank i.e. PNB leads its evidence by filling the affidavit of Ms. Meera Bai, AGM of Applicant Bank.

4.1 Ms. Meera Bai, Officer of Applicant Bank has placed reliance upon following documents:-

- (i) Copy of Power of Attorney executed by applicant bank in favour of deponent (Ex. A/1);

- (ii) Overdraft Agreement dated 29.05.2014 executed between Applicant Bank and Defendant no. 1 (Ex. A/2);

- (iii) Addendum to Overdraft Agreement dated 24.07.2015 (Ex. A/3)

- (iv) Agreements dated 03.03.2016 (Ex. A/4-colly);

- (v) Guarantee Agreement dated 17.03.2016 executed by defendants no. 2 to 7 (Ex. A/5);

- (vi) General Counter Indemnity with Affidavit dated 17.03.2016 (Ex. A/6);

- (vii) Agreement to Guarantee dated 17.03.2016 made between M/s N.A. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Sh. Navin M. Raheja, Nirmal Raheja, M/s Standard Farms Pvt. Ltd., M/s Enkay Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. and Applicant (Ex. A/7);

- (viii) Hypothecation of Goods, book debts etc. dated 17.03.2106 (Ex. A/8);

- (ix) Master Agreement dated 17.03.2016 for Inland Documentary Credit Facility upto a limit of Rs. 5.0 crore executed by Defendant no. 1 (Ex. A/9);

- (x) Letter of Intent as well as letter of continuity dated 18.03.2016 executed by Defendants no. 1 to 7 (Ex. A/10);

- (xi) Balance and Security Confirmation Letter dated 08.03.2017 & 18.04.2018 executed by Defendant no. 1 in respect of Overdraft Loan Facility as well as Term Loan Facility (Ex. A/11);

- (xii) Term Loan Agreement(s) dated 25.02.2015 (Ex. A/12-colly);

- (xiii) Agreement of Personal / Corporate Guarantee dated 24.02.2015 executed by Defendants no. 2 to 4 (Ex. A/13-colly);

- (xiv) Letter dated 03.03.2015 of Defendants no. 3 & 4 confirming creation of equitable mortgage (Ex. A/14);

- (xv) Amendment Letter dated 02.07.2015 (Ex. A/15);

- (xvi) Letter dated 07.02.2018 of Applicant Bank reviewing credit facilities sanctioned to the Defendant Company (Ex. A/16);

- (xvii) Letter of Balance & Confirmation dated 31.03.2018 & 18.04.2018 executed by Defendants no. 3 & 4 acknowledging their liability towards Corporate Term Loan (Ex. A/17);

- (xviii) Indemnity Agreement dated 18.04.2018 executed by Defendant no. 2 / Mr. Navin M. Raheja on behalf of Defendant no. 3 i.e. M/s Standard Farms Pvt. Ltd. in favour of Applicant Bank (Ex. A/18);

- (xix) Memorandum of Confirmation / Extension of Mortgage by Deposit of Title Deeds by the Defendants (Ex. A/19); 

- (xx) Loan Recall Notices dated 23.07.2018 and 05.02.2020 issued by the Applicant to the Defendant No. 1 (Ex. A/20);

- (xxi) Certified copy of the Statement of Account and the ledger extracts along with the certificate of interest of the applicants (Ex. A/21).

5. Heard and perused the entire record.

5.1 So far as, Defendants no. 1 to 7 & 10 are concerned, though they appeared through counsel but they did not chose to file any WS. Hence, the case of Applicant Bank remained uncontested by these defendants.

It is also pertinent to note here that during the pendency of this OA, it was informed by Ld. counsel for Defendants no. 1 to 7 & 10 that these defendants are before Ld. NCLT, Delhi and filed the relevant order(s) of Ld. NCLT, Delhi which clearly reveals that only Defendant no. 1 Company is before Ld. NCLT, Delhi where the CIRP proceedings are pending there. Hence, no final order can be passed by this Tribunal qua Defendant no.1 Company, at this stage.

However, it is directed that Applicant shall be at liberty to revive the OA qua Defendant no. 1 in case NCLT proceedings are quashed / withdrawn in future, in accordance with law.

It is also directed that in case Applicant Bank receives any amount from the CIRP proceedings pending qua Defendant No. 1 Company (Borrower Company), pending before Ld. NCLT, Delhi, it shall give due adjustment of the same in the recovery proceedings.

5.2 In the present case, Defendant no. 9 / Ravinder Zutshi appeared through counsel and filed IA No. 1680/2022 praying therein to pass an order for deletion of the name of the Defendant no. 9 from the array of Defendants & reject the OA against Defendant no. 9. It is also matter of record that vide order dated 15.01.2024 of this Tribunal, it was directed that the aforesaid IA will be decided at the time of the final disposal of this case. In these circumstances, this IA is hereby disposed off in following Paras:- **IA No. 1680/2022**

It is stated in IA that this OA is filed by the Applicant Bank for the recovery of Rs. 319,34,00,463/- against the Defendants, however, bare reading and perusal of the averments made in the OA, it shows that there is no privity of contract between the Defendant no. 9 and the Applicant. It is further stated that Defendant no. 9 was neither signatory of the Loan Agreement nor has executed / provided any guarantee to the Applicant. It is also stated that Defendant no. 9 joined Defendant no. 1 as independent director on 21.08.2015 and retired on 01.04.2018, hence, Defendant no. 9 being an independent director cannot be held personally liable for any act committed by the Defendant no. 1 or its promoters. It is stated in IA that it is apparent from the record that Defendant no. 9 has not signed any Loan Agreement, Agreement of Guarantee and Security Documents. In view thereof, there is no cause of action in favour of the Applicant and against Defendant no. 9. It is further stated that Applicant has unnecessarily and with malafide intention impleaded Defendant no. 9 despite the fact that Defendant no. 9 has played no role in availing loan from the Applicant by Defendant no. 1. Defendant no. 9, being an independent director is not even involved in the day to day affairs of defendant no. 1 company and, therefore, cannot be held personally liable for the financial liability of Defendant no. 1. In support of his contention, Defendant no. 1 has relied upon following :-

- (i) Judgment in the case of A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. A.P. Agencies, Salem of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as (1989) 2 SCC 163;

- (ii) Judgment in the case of ITC Limited Vs. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as (1998) 1 SCC 732;

- (iii) Judgment in the case of Arun Kumar Goenka & Ors. Vs. Canara Bank & Ors. of Hon'ble DRAT reported as MANU/DD/0087/2010.

Having heard Ld. counsels for the parties and after perusal of record, it is apparent from the record that Applicant Bank has impleaded Defendant no. 9 as Director of M/s Raheja Developers Ltd. (Defendant no. 1 herein) in this case and no security document namely Loan Agreement, Guarantee Agreement etc. has been signed / executed by Defendant no. 9 herein. Hence, Defendant no. 9, being director of Defendant no. 1, cannot be held liable for any amount due from Defendant no. 1 company towards Applicant Bank herein. In these circumstances, it is directed that the OA of Applicant Bank against Defendant no. 9 stands rejected and in the Recovery Certificate, the word "**Deleted vide Final Order**" against the name of Defendant no. 9 be written by the Registry without changing the serial numbers of Defendants.

With the above said observations, IA No. 1680/2022 stands disposed off accordingly.

5.3 So far as, defendant no. 8 is concerned, it neither appeared through any counsel nor filed any WS till date. Hence, the case of Applicant Bank remained uncontested by Defendant no. 8.

However, on perusal of record it is revealed that the Applicant Bank has impleaded Defendant no. 8 as Director of M/s Raheja Developers Ltd. (Defendant no. 1 herein) in this case and no security document namely Loan Agreement, Guarantee Agreement etc. has been signed / executed by Defendant no. 8 herein. Hence, Defendant no. 8, being director of Defendant no. 1, cannot be held liable for any amount due from Defendant no. 1 company towards Applicant Bank herein. In these circumstances, it is directed that the OA of Applicant Bank against Defendant no. 9 stands rejected and in the Recovery Certificate, the word **"Deleted vide Final Order"** against the name of Defendant no. 8 be written by the Registry without changing the serial numbers of Defendants.

5.4 So far as, Defendants no. 2 to 7 & 10 are concerned, in the absence of any defence, the case of Applicant Bank remained uncontested by these Defendants.

5.5 On the other hand, the witness of Applicant has fully corroborated the averments made in the OA. Even otherwise the whole case of the applicant is based on the documents and the witness has duly proved all these documents. The evidence filed by the Applicant gone unrebuted and there is no question of disbelieving the evidence lead by the Applicant and Applicant has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, the Applicant is entitled to recover the entire amount, as claimed in the OA from the defendants along with pendentelite interest i.e. @14% p.a. and costs as agreed between the parties.

5.6 In this OA, applicant has prayed to issue recovery certificate against defendants no. 1 to 10 wherein the defendant 1 is principle borrower and defendants no. 2 to 7 & 10 are personal / corporate guarantors and defendants no. 8 & 9 are the Directors of Defendant no. 1 Company.

So far as, Defendant no. 1 company / Borrower Company is concerned, since CIRP proceedings are already pending before Ld. NCLT, Delhi, hence, no final order can be passed by this Tribunal qua Defendant no.1 Company, at this stage.

However, it is directed that Applicant shall be at liberty to revive the OA qua Defendant no. 1 in case NCLT proceedings are quashed / withdrawn in future, in accordance with law.

It is also directed that in case Applicant Bank receives any amount from the CIRP proceedings pending qua Defendant No. 1 Company (Borrower Company), pending before Ld. NCLT, Delhi, it shall give due adjustment of the same in the recovery proceedings.

5.6.1 Further more, OA of Applicant Bank against Defendants no. 8 & 9 (Directors of Defendant no. 1 Company) stands rejected, as discussed above.

5.7 Consequently, OA No. TA/216/2022 is liable to be allowed in favour of the Applicant Bank and against Defendants no. 2 to 7 & 10 (being personal / corporate guarantors of Defendant no. 1 company) who are liable to pay the dues of the Applicant Bank along with costs and pendentelite & future interest @14% p.a., from the date of filing of present OA, till the date of payment in full.

ORDER

(i) TA No. 216/2022 stands allowed in favour of Applicant Bank and the Defendants no. 2 to 7 & 10 for a sum of Rs. 319,34,00,463/- (Rupees Three Hundred Nineteen Crore Thirty Four Lakh Four Hundred and Sixty Three only) along pendentelite and future interest @14% p.a. from the date of filing of the OA till its actual realization in full; along with costs of this OA. Now Defendants no. 2 to 7 & 10 are directed to pay to the Applicant Bank the aforesaid amount, within 30 days, failing which, the aforesaid amount shall be recovered by the Applicant from the sale of secured assets / mortgaged properties / hypothecated assets / stocks etc. belonging to the Defendants no. 2 to 7 & 10. Now Defendants no. 2 to 7 & 10 directed to pay to the Applicant the aforesaid amount, within 30 days, failing which, the aforesaid amount shall be recovered by the Applicant from the sale of secured assets / mortgaged properties / hypothecated assets / stocks etc. belonging to the Defendants no. 2 to 7 & 10. In case of shortfall, same shall be recovered from the movable and immovable assets of Defendants no. 2 to 7 & 10.

- (ii) Since, Defendant no. 1 company / Borrower Company is before Ld. NCLT, Delhi, hence, no final order can be passed by this Tribunal qua Defendant no.1 Company, at this stage.

However, it is directed that Applicant shall be at liberty to revive the OA qua Defendant no. 1 in case NCLT proceedings are quashed / withdrawn in future, in accordance with law.

It is also directed that in case Applicant Bank receives any amount from the CIRP proceedings pending qua Defendant No. 1 Company (Borrower Company), pending before Ld. NCLT, Delhi, it shall give due adjustment of the same in the recovery proceedings.

- (iii) Further more, OA of Applicant Bank against Defendants no. 8 & 9 (Directors of Defendant no. 1 Company) stands rejected, as discussed above, and in the Recovery Certificate, the word **"Deleted vide Final Order"** against the name(s) of Defendant(s) no. 8 & 9 be written by the Registry without changing the serial numbers of Defendants.

- (iv) It is also directed that the Applicant shall adjust the amount(s), if any, received from the defendants during the pendency of this case.


- (v) The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to the Recovery Officer-II, Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Delhi.

- (vi) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer-II, DRT-III, Delhi on 14.05.2026.

- (vii) Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be sent to all concerned free of cost.

File be closed and consigned to records.

A handwritten signature in blue ink, followed by a green rectangular stamp. To the right of the stamp, the date '12.03.2026' is handwritten in blue ink.

(SHIV KUMAR - I) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, DELHI

(Pronounced in open court) Dated: 12.03.2026