Case details

Court: Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals · DRT Delhi (DRT 3)
Decided: 19 March 2026
Bench: Drat Kolkata
Case number: TMA/65/2022
Type: Judgment

Actions & My Vault

Save to My Vault

Ask Compass

Court copy / source

Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK (ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE) vs BEST TIXTILES LTD AND ORS on 19 March 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

**DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, DELHI**

**TA/65/2022**

**Punjab National Bank (Oriental Bank of Commerce) Vs.

Best Textiles Ltd. and Ors.**

Date : 19.03.2026

Item No. 15

1. 1. This matter is taken up by this Tribunal through Hybrid Mode.

2. 2. Today, captioned TA is listed for pronouncement of final order. Accordingly, final order prepared in separate sheets, signed and pronounced.

3. 3. File be closed and consigned to record room.

19.03.2026

(SHIV KUMAR - I)

PRESIDING OFFICER,

DRT-III, DELHI

**DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, DELHI**

**4<sup>th</sup> Floor, Jeevan Tara Building,**

**Parliament Street, New Delhi**

**PRESIDING OFFICER : MR. SHIV KUMAR - I**

**(TA No. : 65/2022)**

**Punjab National Bank**

**(e-Oriental Bank of Commerce)**

Large Corporate Branch

First Floor, Harsha Bhawan,

E-Block, Connaught Place,

New Delhi – 110001

(Name of Punjab National Bank was substituted in place of Oriental Bank of Commerce vide Order dated 11.12.2020

passed in IA No. 1566/2020)

** .....Applicant Bank**

**Versus**

1. **1. Best Textiles Limited (Borrower)**

(Formerly known as Spank Marketing & Services Pvt. Ltd.)

Having Registered Office :

B-85, Okhla Phase-II,

New Delhi – 110020

2. **2. Sh. Sanjeev Dhawan (Guarantor & Mortgagor)**

S/o Sh. Sushil Dhawan

111, 1<sup>st</sup> Floor, Asiad Village, New Delhi – 110016

3. **3. Smt. Anju Dhawan (Guarantor & Mortgagor)**

W/o Sh. Sanjeev Dhawan

111, 1<sup>st</sup> Floor, Asiad Village, New Delhi – 110016

4. **4. Sh. Sushil Dhawan (Guarantor & Mortgagor)**

S/o Sh. Ram Singh Dhawan

R/o C-2/27, Sector – 15,

Rohini, Delhi – 110085

![A green rectangular stamp or seal at the bottom of the page.](8cf6977d0b6385efc972295fd54a1375_9_img.webp)

**5. Smt. Shesh Dhawan (Guarantor & Mortgagor)**

W/o Sh. Sushil Dhawan

R/o C-2/27, Sector – 15,

Rohini, Delhi – 110085

**6. Best Global Limited (Guarantor)**

Having Registered Office :

B-85, Okhla Phase-II,

New Delhi – 110020

.....Defendants

**Date of Institution: 28.03.2018**

**Date of Pronouncement: 19.03.2026**

Counsels : Mr. S.K. Sharma & Mr. Vishesh Singh, for Applicant Bank.

Ms. Jayshree Shukla Das Gupta, for Defendants no. 2 to 6.

**Defendant no. 1 is before Ld. NCLT, Delhi.**

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

Decisions referred to

In this index

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

FINAL ORDER

1. This original application has been filed by the Applicant Bank i.e. Oriental Bank of Commerce (OBC), on 28.03.2018, through Mr. Rakesh Chander Sharma, Assistant General Manager of applicant bank, being Authorized Officer of Applicant Bank, under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 for recovery of following amount(s) as on 27.08.2018 :- Rs. 164,58,11,811.94 against defendants no. 1 to 6 along with pendentelitte and future interest at the rate as per list attached along with statement of account in respect of different credit facilities per annum compounded with monthly rests till the date of actual and final realization Rs. 14,36,854.37 against defendants no. 1 & 2 along with pendentelitte and future interest at the rate 10.20% in respect of Vehicle Loan Facility per annum compounded with monthly rests till the date of actual and final realization with all costs & charges and other relief(s).

1.2 It is pertinent to note here that this OA bearing no. 456/2018 was originally filed before Ld. DRT-II, 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-II, Delhi to this Tribunal in October 2022 and was numbered at TA-65/2022.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Applicant / OBC is a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 (No. 40 of 1980). It is also stated in the OA that the present OA is being signed, verified and instituted on behalf of the Applicant Bank by Sh. Rakesh Chandra Sharma, Assistant General Manager of Applicant, being the authorized representative of the Applicant Bank authorized vide Power of Attorney and is fully conversant with the facts of the case and has been duly authorized and empowered by the Applicant Bank 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 the Principal Borrower. It is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 which is formally known as Spank Marketing & Services Pvt. Ltd., which is engaged in the business of fabrics yarns & other textiles. It has obtained different types of financial facilities from the applicant bank from time to time. The defendants no. 2 to 5 are not only the guarantors of the Defendant Company but also they are the mortgagors of different securities, who have mortgaged such securities in favour of the Applicant or collaterals. The defendant no. 6 is the guarantor, who has executed Corporate Guarantee in favour of the applicant bank to secure the loan facilities extended by the applicant bank to the borrower. Hence, all these defendants no. 1 to 6 are jointly and severally liable to repay the outstanding dues to the Bank.

2.2 It is stated in the OA that in the month of August 2000, Defendant no. 1 approached and requested the M-Block Market, G.K. II, New Delhi branch of the applicant bank for grant of certain credit facilities to augment its above said business activity. Later on, the said Loan facility was transferred to E-Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi branch of the applicant bank.

The applicant bank considered the request and granted following Credit Limit vide Sanction Letter dated 03.08.2000 to the defendant no. 1 :-

<th>Amount<br/>(Rs. in Lakh)</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr>

<td>15.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2.</td> <td>FDBP/FUDBP</td> <td>15.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td>Total</td> <td>30.00</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

In this connection, the Board of Directors of Defendant no. 1 passed a Resolution dated 03.08.2000 whereby it resolved and decided to accept the terms and conditions as laid down in the sanction letter received from the applicant bank [details given in Para 5(5.4) of the OA].

In consideration of having granted the aforesaid credit facility to defendant no. 1 by the applicant bank, the defendants ![A solid green rectangular box.](f487d2be58fbfd4b7b0b27c63a35c1c7_9_img.webp)

executed the following loan documents for valuable consideration in favour of the applicant bank:-

- (i) LD-35- Packing Credit Agreement dated 04.08.2000;

- (ii) LD-15- Agreement regarding bills purchased / bills discounted and advanced against bills in course of collection dated 04.08.2000;

- (iii) LD-61- dated 04.08.2000.

- (a) Hypothecation of stock of raw-material, stock-in-process and finished goods / house furnishing;

- (b) Foreign documentary demand / usance bills having maximum usance of 120-days accompanied by airway bills / bills of lading and dawn under irrevocable letter of credit;

- (c) The personal guarantee of Sh. Sanjeev Dhawan, Smt. Anju Dhawan, Sh. Sushil Kuma Dhawan & Smt. Shesh Dhawan, who stood as guarantor for the due payment of the aforesaid credit facilities along with Bank charges and stipulated interest within stipulated period of time and they executed separate agreements of continuing guarantee each (LD-28- Agreements of Guarantee).

- (d) Besides the above, the facilities were secured by the equitable mortgage of following immovable properties, the details of which are as follows:-

- (i) Property no. C-2/27, Sector-15, Rohini, Delhi --110085 mortgaged by Sh. Sushil Kumar Dhawan & Smt. Shesh Dhawan.

- (ii) Flat No. A-5, First Floor, Sai Dhati Suraj Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Sai Baba Complex, CIBA Road, Goregaon (East), Mumbai – 400063 mortgaged by Sh. Sanjeev Dhawan

All the above said security interest (equitable mortgage as well as hypothecation) created by the defendants in favour of the applicant bank has been duly registered with the Registrar of Companies in Form 8.

2.3 It is further stated in the OA that in August 2001, Defendant no. 1 again approached the applicant bank and requested for enhancement of existing credit facilities to augment its business. The applicant bank acceded the request and sanctioned the same.

In this connection, the Board of Directors of Defendant no. 1 passed a Resolution dated 18.08.2001 whereby it resolved and decided to accept the terms and conditions as laid down in the sanction letter received from the applicant bank [details given in Para 5(5.9) of the OA].

In consideration of having granted the aforesaid credit facility to defendant no. 1 by the applicant bank, the defendants executed the following loan documents for valuable consideration in favour of the applicant bank:-

- (i) LD-32- Supplemental Agreement dated 20.08.2001;

- (ii) LD-61- dated 20.08.2001.

- (a) Hypothecation of stock of raw-material, stock-in-process and finished goods / house furnishing

- (b) Foreign documentary demand / usance bills having maximum usance of 120-days accompanied by airway bills / bills of lading and dawn under irrevocable letter of credit.

- (c) The personal guarantee of Sh. Sanjeev Dhawan, Smt. Anju Dhawan, Sh. Sushil Kumar Dhawan & Smt. Shesh Dhawan, who stood as guarantor for the due payment of the aforesaid credit facilities along with Bank charges and stipulated interest within stipulated period of time and they executed separate agreements of continuing guarantee each (LD-28-Agreements of Guarantee).

- (d) Besides the above, the facilities were secured by the equitable mortgage of following immovable properties, the details of which are as under:-

- (i) Property bearing no. C-2/27, Sector-15, Rohini, Delhi --110085 mortgaged by Sh. Sushil Kumar Dhawan & Smt. Shesh Dhawan.

- (ii) Flat No. A-5, First Floor, Sai Dhati Suraj Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Sai Baba Complex, CIBA Road, Goregaon (East), Mumbai – 400063 mortgaged by Mr. Sanjeev Dhawan

It is stated in the OA that the Defendants had signed / executed balance & security confirmation on 18.08.2001, whereby they had acknowledged their liability of Rs. 36,27,138/- as on 18.08.2011 and also declared all the securities including Mortgage offered and documents executed binding upon them.

2.4 It is stated in the OA that in September 2002, Defendant no. 1 again approached the applicant bank and requested for enhancement of existing credit facilities to augment its business. The applicant bank acceded the request and sanctioned the same.

In this connection, the Board of Directors of Defendant no. 1 passed a Resolution dated 30.09.2002 whereby it resolved and decided to accept the terms and conditions as laid down in the sanction letter received from the applicant bank [details given in Para 5(5.14) of the OA].

- (i) DOC-13- Supplemental Agreement dated 01.10.2002;

- (ii) DOC-4- Agreement for Overdraft dated 01.10.2002;

- (iii) DOC-1- Agreement of Hypothecation of Assets dated 01.10.2002.

- (a) Hypothecation of stock of raw-material, stock-in-process and finished goods / house furnishing

- (b) Foreign documentary demand / usance bills having maximum usance of 120-days accompanied by airway bills / bills of lading and dawn under irrevocable letter of credit.

- (d) Besides the above, the facilities were secured by the equitable mortgage of following immovable properties, the details of which are as under:-

- (i) Property bearing no. C-2/27, Sector-15, Rohini, Delhi —110085 mortgaged by Sh. Sushil Kumar Dhawan & Smt. Shesh Dhawan.

- (ii) Flat No. A-5, First Floor, Sai Dharti Suraj Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Sai Baba Complex, CIBA Road, Goregaon (East), Mumbai – 400063 mortgaged by Mr. Sanjeev Dhawan

It is stated in the OA that the Defendants had signed / executed balance & security confirmation on 01.10.2002, whereby they had acknowledged their liability of Rs. 51,50,766/- as on 30.09.2002 and also declared all the securities including Mortgage offered and documents executed binding upon them.

2.5 It is stated in the OA that in September 2003, Defendant no. 1 again approached the applicant bank and requested for enhancement of existing credit facilities to augment its business. The applicant bank acceded the request and sanctioned the same.

In this connection, the Board of Directors of Defendant no. 1 passed a Resolution dated 28.10.2003 whereby it resolved and decided to accept the terms and conditions as laid down in the sanction letter received from the applicant bank [details given in Para 5(5.19) of the OA].

- (i) DOC-13- Supplemental Agreement dated 28.10.2003;

- (ii) DOC-4- Agreement for Overdraft dated 28.10.2003.

- (a) Hypothecation of stock of raw-material, stock-in-process and finished goods / house furnishing

- (b) Foreign documentary demand / usance bills having maximum usance of 120-days accompanied by airway bills / bills of lading and dawn under irrevocable letter of credit.

- (d) Besides the above, the facilities were secured by the equitable mortgage of following immovable properties, the details of which are as under:-

- (i) Property bearing no. C-2/27, Sector-15, Rohini, Delhi —110085 mortgaged by Sh. Sushil Kumar Dhawan & Smt. Shesh Dhawan.

- (ii) Flat No. A-5, First Floor, Sai Dharti Suraj Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Sai Baba Complex, CIBA Road, Goregaon (East), Mumbai – 400063 mortgaged by Mr. Sanjeev Dhawan

2.6 It is stated in the OA that in June 2005, Defendant no. 1 again approached the applicant bank and requested for enhancement of existing credit facilities to augment its business. The applicant bank acceded the request and sanctioned the same.

In this connection, the Defendant no. 1 vide its Letter dated 15.06.2005 accepted the terms and conditions as laid down in the sanction letter received from the applicant bank.

It is stated in the OA that the Defendants had signed / executed balance & security confirmation on 15.06.2005, whereby they had acknowledged their liability of Rs. 63,70,204/- as on 14.06.2005 and also declared all the securities including Mortgage offered and documents executed binding upon them.

2.7 It is stated in the OA that in September 2006, the Defendant no. 1 again approached the applicant bank and requested the renewal-cum-enhancement of existing credit facilities to augment its business. The applicant bank acceded the request and sanctioned the same vide Sanction Letter dated 26.09.2006.

In this connection, the Board of Directors of Defendant no. 1 passed a Resolution dated 03.10.2006 whereby it resolved and decided to accept the terms and conditions as laid down in the sanction letter received from the applicant bank [details given in Para 5(5.27) of the OA].

- (i) DOC-13- Supplemental Agreement dated 03.10.2006;

- (ii) DOC-1- Agreement of Hypothecation of Assets dated 03.10.2006;

- (iii) DOC-380 Common Agreement dated 03.10.2006.

- (a) Hypothecation of stocks in trade;

- (b) Foreign documentary demand / usance bills having maximum usance of 90-days accompanied by airway bills / bills of lading and dawn under irrevocable letter of credit / confirmed orders only.

(d) Besides the above, the facilities were secured by the equitable mortgage of following immovable properties, the details of which are as under:-

- (i) Property bearing no. C-2/27, Sector-15, Rohini, Delhi —110085 mortgaged by Sh. Sushil Kumar Dhawan & Smt. Shesh Dhawan.

- (ii) Flat No. A-5, First Floor, Sai Dharti Suraj Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Sai Baba Complex, CIBA Road, Goregaon (East), Mumbai – 400063 mortgaged by Mr. Sanjeev Dhawan [details given in Para 5(5.29)(d) of the OA].

It is stated in the OA that the Defendants had signed / executed balance & security confirmation on 03.10.2006, whereby they had acknowledged their liability of Rs. 1,36,07,183/- as on 30.09.2006 and also declared all the securities including Mortgage offered and documents executed binding upon them.

2.8 It is stated in the OA that in June 2007, the Defendant no. 1 again approached the applicant bank and requested for renewal-cum-enhancement of existing credit facilities to augment its business. The applicant bank acceded the request and sanctioned the same vide Sanction Letter dated 29.06.2007.

In this connection, the Board of Directors of Defendant no. 1 passed a Resolution dated 02.06.2007 whereby it resolved and decided to accept the terms and conditions as laid down in the sanction letter received from the applicant bank [details given in Para 5(5.32) of the OA].

- (i) DOC-1- Agreement of Hypothecation of Assets dated 02.07.2007;

- (a) Hypothecation of stocks in trade;

- (b) Foreign documentary demand / usance bills having maximum usance of 90-days accompanied by airway bills / bills of lading and dawn under irrevocable letter of credit / confirmed orders only.

(d) Besides the above, the facilities were secured by the equitable mortgage of following immovable properties, the details of which are as under:-

- (i) Property bearing no. C-2/27, Sector-15, Rohini, Delhi —110085 mortgaged by Sh. Sushil Kumar Dhawan & Smt. Shesh Dhawan.

- (ii) Flat No. A-5, First Floor, Sai Dharti Suraj Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Sai Baba Complex, CIBA Road, Goregaon (East), Mumbai – 400063 mortgaged by Mr. Sanjeev Dhawan

- (iii) Property no. F-111, First Floor, Asian Village, (Khel Gaon), New Delhi mortgaged by Sh. Sanjeev Dhawan & Smt. Anju Dhawan.

It is stated in the OA that the Defendants had signed / executed balance & security confirmation on 03.10.2006, whereby they had acknowledged their liability of Rs. 3,28,36,776/- as on 30.06.2007 and also declared all the securities including Mortgage offered and documents executed binding upon them.

It is also stated that all the above said security interests (Equitable Mortgage as well as Hypothecation) created by the Defendants in favour of the applicant bank has been duly registered with the Registrar of Companies and the document evidence the registration (Form 8) is annexed by the applicant bank.

2.9 It is stated in the OA that in December 2007, the Defendant no. 1 again approached the applicant bank and requested for enhancement of existing credit facilities to augment its business. The applicant bank acceded the request and sanctioned the same vide Sanction Letter dated 19.12.2007.

In this connection, the Board of Directors of Defendant no. 1 passed a Resolution dated 01.12.2007 whereby it resolved and decided to accept the terms and conditions as laid down in the sanction letter received from the applicant bank [details given in Para 5(5.36) of the OA].

- (i) DOC-13- Supplementary Agreement to secure credit / loan facilities dated 24.12.2007.

- (a) Hypothecation of stocks in trade including export bills in hand (ready for shipment);

- (b) Foreign documentary demand / usance bills having maximum usance of 90-days accompanied by airway bills / bills of lading and dawn under irrevocable letter of credit / confirmed orders only.

- (d) Besides the above, the facilities were secured by the equitable mortgage of following immovable properties, the details of which are as under:-

- (i) Property bearing no. C-2/27, Sector-15, Rohini, Delhi —110085 mortgaged by Sh. Sushil Kumar Dhawan & Smt. Shesh Dhawan.

- (ii) Flat No. A-5, First Floor, Sai Dharti Suraj Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Sai Baba Complex, CIBA Road, Goregaon (East), Mumbai – 400063 mortgaged by Mr. Sanjeev Dhawan

- (iii) Property no. F-111, First Floor, Asian Village, (Khel Gaon), New Delhi mortgaged by Sh. Sanjeev Dhawan & Smt. Anju Dhawan.

It is stated in the OA that the Defendants had signed / executed balance & security confirmation on 24.12.2007, whereby they had acknowledged their liability of Rs. 8,38,39,653/- as on 22.12.2007 and also declared all the securities including Mortgage offered and documents executed binding upon them.

It is also stated that all the above said security interests (Equitable Mortgage as well as Hypothecation) created by the Defendants in favour of the applicant bank has been duly registered with the Registrar of Companies and the certificate of registration of mortgage is annexed by the applicant bank.

2.10 It is stated in the OA that in July 2008, the Defendant no. 1 again approached the applicant bank and requested to sanction fresh Term Loan facility to augment its business. The applicant bank acceded the request and sanctioned the Term Loan Facility in favour of defendant no. 1 vide Sanction Letter dated 02.07.2008.

In this connection, the Board of Directors of Defendant no. 1 passed a Resolution dated 07.07.2008 whereby it resolved and decided to accept the terms and conditions as laid down in the sanction letter received from the applicant bank [details given in Para 5(5.44) of the OA].

- (i) DOC-5- Agreement of Term Loan dated 25.10.2008.

- (ii) DOC-5- Agreement of Term Loan for immovable Property dated 25.10.2008.

- (a) Equitable mortgage of Property bearing no. B-85, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi;

- (b) The personal guarantee of Sh. Sanjeev Dhawan, Smt. Anju Dhawan, Sh. Sushil Kumar Dhawan & Smt. Shesh Dhawan, who stood as guarantor for the due payment of the aforesaid credit facilities along with Bank charges and stipulated interest within stipulated period of time and they executed separate agreements of continuing guarantee each (DOC-11-Agreements of Guaranteee).

- (c) Besides the above, the facilities were secured by the equitable mortgage of following immovable properties, the details of which are as under:-

- (i) Property bearing no. C-2/27, Sector-15, Rohini, Delhi —110085 mortgaged by Sh. Sushil Kumar Dhawan & Smt. Shesh Dhawan.

- (ii) Flat No. A-5, First Floor, Sai Dharti Suraj Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Sai Baba Complex, CIBA Road, Goregaon (East), Mumbai – 400063 mortgaged by Mr. Sanjeev Dhawan

(iii) Property no. F-111, First Floor, Asian Village, (Khel Gaon), New Delhi mortgaged by Sh. Sanjeev Dhawan & Smt. Anju Dhawan.

2.11 It is stated in the OA that in April 2009, the Defendant no. 1 again approached the applicant bank and requested to renew-cum-enhance Loan facility to augment its business. The applicant bank acceded the request and sanctioned the following credit facilities in favour of Defendant no. 1 vide Sanction Letter dated 18.04.2009:-

<th>Amount<br/>(Rs. in Lakh)</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr>

<td>600.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2.</td> <td>FDBP/FUDBP</td> <td>200.00</td> </tr> <tr>

<td>150.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>4.</td> <td>Letter of Credit (Import/Inland)</td> <td>100.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td>Total</td> <td>1050.00</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

In this connection, the Board of Directors of Defendant no. 1 passed a Resolution dated 20.04.2009 whereby it resolved and decided to accept the terms and conditions as laid down in the sanction letter received from the applicant bank [details given in Para 5(5.48) of the OA].

(i) DOC-13- Supplementary Agreement to secure credit / loan facilities dated 24.04.2009;

- (ii) DOC-1- Agreement of Hypothecation of Assets dated 24.04.2009;

- (iii) DOC-38- Common Agreement dated 24.04.2009.

- (a) Hypothecation of stocks of raw material, stock in progress, finished goods, other current assets;

- (b) Foreign documentary demand / usance bills having maximum usance of 90-days accompanied by airway bills / bills of lading and dawn under irrevocable letter of credit / confirmed orders only.

- (c) Hypothecation of stocks and receivables;

- (d) Documents of title to goods in case of LC on DA basis;

- (e) The personal guarantee of Sh. Sanjeev Dhawan, Smt. Anju Dhawan, Sh. Sushil Kumar Dhawan & Smt. Shesh Dhawan, who stood as guarantor for the due payment of the aforesaid credit facilities along with Bank charges and stipulated interest within stipulated period of time and they executed separate agreements of continuing guarantee each (DOC-11- Agreements of Guarantee).

- (f) Besides the above, the facilities were secured by the equitable mortgage of following immovable properties, the details of which are as under:-

- (i) Property bearing no. C-2/27, Sector-15, Rohini, Delhi —110085 mortgaged by Sh. Sushil Kumar Dhawan & Smt. Shesh Dhawan.

- (ii) Flat No. A-5, First Floor, Sai Dharti Suraj Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Sai Baba Complex, CIBA Road, Goregaon (East), Mumbai – 400063 mortgaged by Mr. Sanjeev Dhawan

- (iii) Property no. F-111, First Floor, Asian Village, (Khel Gaon), New Delhi mortgaged by Sh. Sanjeev Dhawan & Smt. Anju Dhawan.

[details given in Para 5(5.50)(f) of the OA].

It is stated in the OA that the Defendants had signed / executed balance & security confirmation on 24.04.2009, whereby they had acknowledged their liability of Rs. 11,64,72,883.52 as on 31.03.2009 and also declared all the securities including Mortgage offered and documents executed binding upon them.

It is also stated that all the above said security interests (Equitable Mortgage as well as Hypothecation) created by the Defendants in favour of the applicant bank has been duly registered with the Registrar of Companies and the certificate of registration of mortgage is annexed by the applicant bank.

2.12 It is stated in the OA that in October 2010, the Defendant no. 1 again approached the applicant bank and requested to renew-cum-enhance credit facility to augment its business. The applicant bank acceded the request and sanctioned the following credit facilities in favour of Defendant no. 1 vide Sanction Letter dated 07.10.2010:-

</tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr>

<td>8.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2.</td> <td>FDBP/FUDBP</td> <td>4.00</td> </tr> <tr>

<td>3.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td>Total</td> <td>15.00</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

In this connection, the Board of Directors of Defendant no. 1 passed a Resolution dated 08.10.2010 whereby it resolved and decided to accept the terms and conditions as laid down in the sanction letter received from the applicant bank [details given in Para 5(5.54) of the OA].

- (i) DOC-13- Supplementary Agreement to secure credit / loan facilities dated 18.10.2010;

- (a) Hypothecation of stocks of raw material, stock in progress, finished goods, other current assets;

- (b) Foreign documentary demand / usance bills having maximum usance of 90-days accompanied by airway bills / bills of lading and drawn under irrevocable letter of credit / confirmed orders only.

- (c) Hypothecation of stocks and receivables;

- (d) The personal guarantee of Sh. Sanjeev Dhawan, Smt. Anju Dhawan, Sh. Sushil Kumar Dhawan & Smt. Shesh Dhawan, who stood as guarantor for the due payment of the aforesaid credit facilities along with Bank charges and stipulated interest within stipulated period of time and they executed separate agreements of continuing guarantee each (DOC-11-Agreements of Guarantee dated 18.10.2010).

- (e) Besides the above, the facilities were secured by the equitable mortgage of following immovable properties, the details of which are as under:-

- (i) Property bearing no. C-2/27, Sector-15, Rohini, Delhi --110085 mortgaged by Sh. Sushil Kumar Dhawan & Smt. Shesh Dhawan.

- (ii) Flat No. A-5, First Floor, Sai Dharti Suraj Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Sai Baba Complex, CIBA Road, Goregaon (East), Mumbai – 400063 mortgaged by Mr. Sanjeev Dhawan

- (iii) Property no. F-111, First Floor, Asian Village, (Khel Gaon), New Delhi mortgaged by Sh. Sanjeev Dhawan & Smt. Anju Dhawan.

(iv) Property no. B-85, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi mortgaged by Best Textiles Limited.

2.13 It is stated in the OA that in March 2012, the Defendant no. 1 again approached the applicant bank and requested to renew-cum-enhance existing credit facility to augment its business. The applicant bank acceded the request and sanctioned the following credit facilities in favour of Defendant no. 1 vide Sanction Letter dated 27.03.2012 :-

</tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr>

<td>12.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2.</td> <td>FDBP/FUDBP</td> <td>5.00</td> </tr> <tr>

<td>4.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td>Total</td> <td>21.00</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

In this connection, the Board of Directors of Defendant no. 1 passed a Resolution dated 09.04.2012 whereby it resolved and decided to accept the terms and conditions as laid down in the sanction letter received from the applicant bank [details given in Para 5(5.58) of the OA].

(i) DOC-13- Supplementary Agreement to secure credit / loan facilities dated 10.04.2012;

- (a) Hypothecation of stocks of raw material, stock in progress, finished goods, other current assets;

- (b) Foreign documentary demand / usance bills having maximum usance of 90-days accompanied by airway bills / bills of lading and drawn under irrevocable letter of credit / confirmed orders only.

- (c) Hypothecation of stocks and receivables;

- (e) Besides the above, the facilities were secured by the equitable mortgage of following immovable properties, the details of which are as under:-

- (i) Property bearing no. C-2/27, Sector-15, Rohini, Delhi --110085 mortgaged by Sh. Sushil Kumar Dhawan & Smt. Shesh Dhawan.

- (ii) Flat No. A-5, First Floor, Sai Dharti Suraj Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Sai Baba Complex, CIBA Road, Goregaon (East), Mumbai – 400063 mortgaged by Mr. Sanjeev Dhawan

- (iii) Property no. F-111, First Floor, Asian Village, (Khel Gaon), New Delhi mortgaged by Sh. Sanjeev Dhawan & Smt. Anju Dhawan.

It is stated in the OA that the Defendants had signed / executed balance & security confirmation on 10.04.2012, whereby they had acknowledged their liability of Rs. 36,34,08,869.49 as on 09.04.2012 and also declared all the securities including Mortgage offered and documents executed binding upon them. .

2.14 It is further stated in the OA that in August 2013, the Defendant no. 1 again approached the applicant bank and requested to renew cum enhance existing credit facility to augment its business. The applicant bank acceded the request and sanctioned the following credit facilities in favour of Defendant no. 1 vide Sanction Letter dated 30.08.2013 :-

</tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr>

<td>25.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2.</td> <td>FDBP/FUDBP (against order)</td> <td>25.00</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

<td>10.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>4.</td> <td>Bill Purchase Limit</td> <td>150.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>5.</td> <td>Forward Contract Limit</td> <td>10.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td>Total</td> <td>220.00</td> </tr> </table>

In this connection, the Board of Directors of Defendant no. 1 passed a Resolution dated 04.09.2013 whereby it resolved and decided to accept the terms and conditions as laid down in the sanction letter received from the applicant bank [details given in Para 5(5.63) of the OA].

- (i) DOC-13- Supplementary Agreement to secure credit / loan facilities dated 05.09.2013;

- (a) Hypothecation of stocks of raw material, stock in progress, finished goods, stores & spare and receivables;

- (b) Hypothecation of paid stocks meant for export;

- (c) Foreign documentary demand / usance bills having maximum usance of 90-days accompanied by airway bills / bills of lading and drawn under irrevocable letter of credit / confirmed orders only.

- (d) Hypothecation of stocks and receivables;

- (e) Foreign Documentary Demand / Usance Bill having maximum usance of 180-days accompanied by airway bills / bills of lading evidencing shipment of goods dealt in by the borrower and drawn against confirmed orders;

- (f) The personal guarantee of Sh. Sanjeev Dhawan, Smt. Anju Dhawan, Sh. Sushil Kumar Dhawan & Smt. Shesh Dhawan, who stood as guarantor for the due payment of the aforesaid credit facilities along with Bank charges and stipulated interest within stipulated period of time and they executed separate agreements of continuing guarantee each (DOC-11-Agreements of Guarantee dated 05.09.2013).

- (g) Besides the above, the facilities were secured by the equitable mortgage of following immovable properties, the details of which are as under:-

- (i) Property bearing no. C-2/27, Sector-15, Rohini, Delhi --110085 mortgaged by Sh. Sushil Kumar Dhawan & Smt. Shesh Dhawan.

- (ii) Flat No. A-5, First Floor, Sai Dharti Suraj Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Sai Baba Complex, CIBA Road, Goregaon (East), Mumbai – 400063 mortgaged by Mr. Sanjeev Dhawan

- (iii) Property no. F-111, First Floor, Asian Village, (Khel Gaon), New Delhi mortgaged by Sh. Sanjeev Dhawan & Smt. Anju Dhawan.

It is stated in the OA that the Defendants had signed / executed balance & security confirmation on 05.09.2013, whereby they had acknowledged their liability of Rs. 192,91,25,270.20 as on 03.09.2013 and also declared all the securities including Mortgage offered and documents executed binding upon them.

2.15 It is also stated in the OA that in November 2013, the Defendant no. 1 again approached the applicant bank and requested to sanction a Vehicle Loan for Rs. 16,90,000/- for purchasing new Honda Accord Card vide Loan Application. The applicant bank considered its request and sanctioned the same vide sanction letter dated 29.11.2013.

In this connection the Board of directors of Defendant no. 1 passed a Resolution dated 29.11.2013, whereby it resolved and decided to accept the terms and conditions as laid down in the sanction letter received from the Applicant Bank.

In consideration of having granted the aforesaid credit facility to defendant no. 1 by the applicant bank, the defendant no. 1 executed the following loan documents for valuable consideration in favour of the applicant bank:-

- (i) DOC-5- Agreement of Term Loan dated 29.11.2013;

- (ii) DOC-38- Common Agreement dated 29.11.2013;

- (iii) DOC-35/5.1 – General Power of Attorney dated 29.11.2013.

It is further stated that the said facility was secured by :-

- (a) Hypothecation of Honda Car Accord purchased with the financial assistance provided by the Applicant Bank.

- (b) The personal guarantee of Sh. Sanjeev Dhawan, who stood as guarantor for the due payment of the aforesaid credit facilities along with Bank charges and stipulated interest within stipulated period of time and they executed separate agreements of continuing guarantee each (DOC-11-Agreement of Guarantee dated 29.11.2013).

2.16 It is further stated in the OA that in March 2014, the Defendant no. 1 again approached the applicant bank and requested for restructuring credit facilities to augment its business. The applicant bank acceded the request and sanctioned the following credit facilities in favour of Defendant no. 1 vide Sanction Letter dated 29.03.2014 :-

</tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr>

<td>10.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>3.</td> <td>Bill Purchase Limit</td> <td>25.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>4.</td> <td>Working Capital Term Loan</td> <td>80.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>5.</td> <td>Bill Purchase Limit (FUDBP against LCs and after acceptance)</td> <td>70.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>6.</td> <td>Forward Contract Limit</td> <td>10.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td>Total</td> <td>220.00</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

In this connection, the Board of Directors of Defendant no. 1 passed a Resolution dated 31.03.2014 whereby it resolved and decided to accept the terms and conditions as laid down in the sanction letter received from the applicant bank.

- (i) DOC-13- Supplementary Agreement to secure credit / loan facilities dated 31.03.2014;

- (ii) DOC-15 – Agreement for Working Capital Term Loan dated 31.03.2014;

- (iii) DOC-38- Common Agreement dated 18.10.2014.

- (a) Hypothecation of stocks of raw material, stock in progress, finished goods, stores & spare and receivables;

- (b) Hypothecation of paid stocks meant for export;

- (c) Foreign documentary demand / usance bills having maximum usance of 90-days accompanied by airway bills / bills of lading and drawn under irrevocable letter of credit / confirmed orders only.

- (d) Foreign Documentary Demand / Usance Bill having maximum usance of 180-days accompanied by airway bills / bills of lading evidencing shipment of goods dealt in by the borrower and drawn against confirmed orders;

- (f) Besides the above, the facilities were secured by the equitable mortgage of following immovable properties, the details of which are as under:-

- (i) Property bearing no. C-2/27, Sector-15, Rohini, Delhi —110085 mortgaged by Sh. Sushil Kumar Dhawan & Smt. Shesh Dhawan.

- (ii) Flat No. A-5, First Floor, Sai Dharti Suraj Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Sai Baba Complex, CIBA Road, Goregaon (East), Mumbai – 400063 mortgaged by Mr. Sanjeev Dhawan

- (iii) Property no. F-111, First Floor, Asian Village, (Khel Gaon), New Delhi mortgaged by Sh. Sanjeev Dhawan & Smt. Anju Dhawan.

2.17 It is further stated in the OA that in June 2014, the Defendant no. 1 again approached the applicant bank and requested for sanction of an adhoc limit of Rs. 6.00 Crore to augment its business. The applicant bank acceded the request and sanctioned the following credit facilities in favour of Defendant no. 1 vide Sanction Letter dated 23.06.2014.

- (i) DOC-13- Supplementary Agreement to secure credit / loan facilities dated 24.06.2014;

- (a) Hypothecation of stocks of raw material, stock in progress, finished goods, stores & spare and receivables;

- (b) Hypothecation of paid stocks meant for export;

- (c) Hypothecation of entire fixed assets of the company present as well as future except those specifically charged to other banks / institution;

- (e) Besides the above, the facilities were secured by the equitable mortgage of following immovable properties, the details of which are as under:-

- (i) Property bearing no. C-2/27, Sector-15, Rohini, Delhi --110085 mortgaged by Sh. Sushil Kumar Dhawan & Smt. Shesh Dhawan.

- (ii) Flat No. A-5, First Floor, Sai Dharti Suraj Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Sai Baba Complex, CIBA Road, Goregaon (East), Mumbai – 400063 mortgaged by Mr. Sanjeev Dhawan

- (iii) Property no. F-111, First Floor, Asian Village, (Khel Gaon), New Delhi mortgaged by Sh. Sanjeev Dhawan & Smt. Anju Dhawan.

(v) Property No. 573/23, DLF Colony, Rohtak, Haryana mortgaged by Sh. Sushil Kumar Dhawan.

[details given in Para 5(5.78) of the OA].

It is stated in the OA that the Defendants had signed / executed balance & security confirmation on 24.06.2014, whereby they had acknowledged their liability of Rs. 204.8 crore as on 19.06.2014 and also declared all the securities including Mortgage offered and documents executed binding upon them.

2.18 It is further stated in the OA that in March 2015, the Defendant no. 1 again approached the applicant bank and requested for sanctioning the following credit facilities to augment its business. The applicant bank acceded the request and sanctioned the following credit facilities in favour of Defendant no. 1 vide Sanction Letter dated 20.03.2014 :-

</tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr>

<td>25.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2.</td> <td>Additional Packing Credit</td> <td>13.89</td> </tr> <tr> <td>3.</td> <td>Packing Credit under Gold Card Scheme</td> <td>1.82</td> </tr> <tr> <td>4.</td> <td>Cash Credit Limit</td> <td>10.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>5.</td> <td>Bill Purchase Limit<br/>(FDBP/FUDBP against Order)</td> <td>10.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>6.</td> <td>Working Capital Term Loan</td> <td>79.73</td> </tr> <tr> <td>7.</td> <td>Bill Purchase Limit<br/>(FUDBP against LCs and after acceptance)</td> <td>30.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>8.</td> <td>Forward Contract Limit</td> <td>10.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td></td>

In this connection, the Board of Directors of Defendant no. 1 passed a Resolution dated 08.04.2015 whereby it resolved and decided to accept the terms and conditions as laid down in the sanction letter received from the applicant bank.

It is further stated that the above mentioned credit facilities were secured by the defendants as follows:-

- (a) Hypothecation of stocks of raw material, stock in progress, finished goods, stores & spare and receivables;

- (b) Hypothecation of paid stocks meant for export;

- (c) Foreign documentary demand / usance bills having maximum usance of 90-days accompanied by airway bills / bills of lading and drawn under irrevocable letter of credit / confirmed orders only.

- (f) The corporate Guarantee of Best Global Ltd. i.e. defendant no. 6, who stood as guarantor for the due payment of the aforesaid credit facilities along with Bank charges and stipulated interest within stipulated period of time. (DOC-11- Agreements of Guarantee dated 08.04.2015). In this connection, the Board of Directors of defendant no. 6 passed Resolutions dated 08.04.2015 whereby they resolved and decided to grant corporate guarantee on behalf of company for the above said limit sanctioned in favour of Defendant no. 1.

- (g) Besides the above, the facilities were secured by the equitable mortgage of following immovable properties, the details of which are as under (the memorandum of deposit of title deeds LTR-22 is annexed with the OA) :-

- (i) Property bearing no. C-2/27, Sector-15, Rohini, Delhi --110085 mortgaged by Sh. Sushil Kumar Dhawan & Smt. Shesh Dhawan.

- (ii) Flat No. A-5, First Floor, Sai Dharti Suraj Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Sai Baba Complex, CIBA Road, Goregaon (East), Mumbai – 400063 mortgaged by Mr. Sanjeev Dhawan

- (iii) Property no. F-111, First Floor, Asian Village, (Khel Gaon), New Delhi mortgaged by Sh. Sanjeev Dhawan & Smt. Anju Dhawan.

- (v) Property No. 573/23, DLF Colony, Rohtak, Haryana mortgaged by Sh. Sushil Kumar Dhawan.

[details of properties as well as their respective title deeds have been given in Para 5(5.82)(g) of the OA].

It is stated in the OA that the Defendants had signed / executed balance & security confirmation on 02.04.2015, whereby they had acknowledged their liability as on 31.03.2015 and also declared all the securities including Mortgage offered and documents executed binding upon them.

2.19 It is stated in the OA that the defendants had not maintained financial discipline and violated the terms and conditions of the sanction letters. They had also stopped furnishing the stock statements and routing sale through Applicant Bank as such the loan account had become irregular. The applicant bank requested the Defendants no. 1 to 6 time and again to regularize their account but they deliberately failed to regularize the same. Thus, the account was declared as NPA on 31.12.2015 as per the directives of the Reserve Bank of India and the Applicant Bank issued recall notices dated 02.11.2016 under Section 13(2) of Securitization Act, 2002. Moreover, the Applicant Bank issued demand notice dated 21.03.2018 through its counsel.

2.20 Since, the Defendants no. 1 to 6 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. 2 to 6 appeared through their counsel and filed a Common WS.

3.1 So far as, Defendant no. 1 is concerned, it neither appeared before this Tribunal nor filed any WS.

3.2 In their common WS, defendants no. 2 to 6 have raised following main objections:-

The answering defendants have given details of UCP 600 which came into effect on 01.07.2007 which are the latest revision of the Uniform Customs and Practice that govern the operation of Letter of Credit (details given in Para 6 to 15 of WS).

The main grievance of defendants no. 2 to 6 is that even after receiving acceptance from the Issuing Bank via SWIFT message, the applicant bank failed to take steps to ensure that the LC terms are honoured by the Issuing Bank and instead claimed the said amount from the Defendants by allegedly showing it in the category of fresh sanctioned limits (FDBP/FUDBP and WCTL), which were neither sanctioned nor disbursed at any point of time. Further more, admittedly the bills were duly honoured and therefore, all rights and obligations vested in the Negotiating Bank.

Answering Defendants have given the year wise turnover and breakup of turnover of the Defendant no. 1 from 2003-2004 to 2013-2014 (as detailed in Para 20 of the WS). Moreover, details of profit is also given in Para 21 of the WS. These defendants have also admitted availment of loan facilities as well as enhancement of credit facilities by the applicant bank (details given in Para 23 & 24 of the OA) but it is stated that between 2000 to 2012 there was marginal increase in the value of facilities sanctioned and the same was upto the maximum extent of Rs. 21.0 crore.

The main objection of answering defendants is that the conduct of applicant bank is contrary to banking principle and UCP 600. It is stated that the bills were duly discounted for which heavy charges were levied by the applicant bank from time to time. Therefore, on presentation of LC and documents, the Company was no longer part of the transaction as it became a self-liquidity advance. It is also stated that admittedly the LCs were duly accepted by Monarch Global via SWIFT, which has been acknowledged and admitted by the applicant bank, therefore, the said liability could not have been levied on the Defendant no. 1 company as the same would be contrary to the LC terms.

(ii) Next objection of defendants no. 2 to 6 is that the applicant bank has failed to provide a break-up of the alleged calculated suit amount of Rs. 164,58,11,811.94 as on 27.03.2018. Moreover, the applicant bank has charged exorbitant interest. Further more, in the said interest rate calculation, total 6 accounts have been shown excluding the Vehicle Loan Account. But no Statement of Account has been filed for Account Nos., as detailed in Para 130 of OA, as well as Vehicle Loan. In addition to this, the Statement of Accounts filed commences from 2015 & 2016 when admitted no loan was sanctioned or renewed at this stage. It is also stated that the certificate filed under Section 2A of the Bankers Book Evidence act refer to total 11 loan accounts, however, the interest calculation charge refer to 7 loan accounts and the alleged Statement of Account have been filed for 3 loan accounts.

- (iii) The answering defendants have also taken a plea that the claim against the guarantors is not maintainable as the defendants did not agree for repayment of principal amount arising out of any of the loan facility availed by the defendant no. 1 company.

- (iv) Defendants no. 2 to 6 have taken a plea that the alleged claim with regard to mortgage over Rohak Property (owned by defendant no. 4 herein) was given as security for loan facility availed in June 2014 of One Time Packing Credit to the tune of Rs. 20.0 crore and the said facility already stands fully adjusted as per terms of the sanction. It is also stated that defendant no. 4 did not sign any other document extending the alleged mortgage over Rohtak property for any other facility availed by the Defendant no. 1 Company. Therefore, the applicant bank cannot claim charge on the said property.

- (v) Defendants no. 2 to 6 have also raised an objection that the instant OA is hopelessly barred by limitation.

- (vi) In their WS, answering defendants have stated that admittedly the transactions undertaken by the Defendant no. 1 company were through Letters of Credit and the same were also duly discounted, therefore, the same was not the liability of the Borrower Company.

- (vii) Next objection of the answering defendants is that the Bill Purchase Limit of Rs. 150.0 crore as mentioned in the Sanction Letter dated 30.08.2013 is nothing but the conversion of duly accepted LCs into a credit facility availed by Defendant no. 1, however, the same was not the liability of the defendant no. 1 and was due from the Issuing Bank. It is also stated that the applicant bank has failed to plead specifically as to what specific circumstances prevailed which resulted in enhancing the facilities from Rs. 21.0 crore to Rs. 220.0 crore which clearly shows malafide of the applicant bank. In this regard the notings of the applicant bank in its Memorandum and other circumstances as pleaded in the WS further establish that no enhancements were granted.

- (viii) Defendants no. 2 to 6 have also raised an objection that the answering defendants signed the agreements under misrepresentation and false assurance of the applicant bank, therefore, no benefit can be claimed from the terms thereof.

- (ix) Defendants no. 2 to 6 have also taken a plea that the alleged acknowledgement(s) of debts were signed by the answering defendants under misrepresentation of facts, however, the said amount(s) were neither due nor payable by the Principal Borrower and therefore, could not be claimed from the answering defendants.

In nutshell, the answering defendants no. 2 to 6 have denied the averments made in the OA and made a request to dismiss the OA against the defendants.

3.3 Defendants no. 2 to 6 have also filed copy of certain documents along with their WS which are as follows:-

- (i) copy of UCP 600 Guidelines (Annexure D-1);

- (ii) copy of Chart for the financial years 2011-12 and 2012-2013 with details of bills discounted (Annexure D-2);

- (iii) Copy of Chart reflecting details of payment made to the Applicant Bank between 2003 to March 2018 as charges for bill discounting (Annexure D-3);

- (iv) Copy of Memorandum to the Credit Approval Committee, Credit Administration Department (Large Corporate) of applicant bank dated 22.09.2013 (Annexure D-4);

- (v) Copy of Letters of Credits opened in the year 2012-2013 (Annexure D-5-colly);

- (vi) Copy of acceptance of documents and confirmation of due date on which bank will make the payment to OBC as issued by Global Monarch (Annexure D-6-colly);

- (vii) Copy of the covering letters issued by Central Bank of India, International Division (Total 21) (Annexure D-7-colly);

- (viii) Chart of actual facilities utilized as on August 2013 (Annexure D-8);

- (ix) Chart depicting bills discounted during the period April 2013 to August 2013 (Annexure D-9);

- (x) Copy of the Memorandum to Credit approval committed dated 24.03.2014 of the applicant bank (Annexure D-10);

- (xi) Copy of the Memorandum to Credit approval committed dated 19.06.2014 of the applicant bank (Annexure D-11);

- (xii) Copy of Statement of Applicant bank of Packing Credit Limit as on 18.12.2017 (Annexure D-12);

- (xiii) Copy of the representation dated 24.11.2014 along with enclosures submitted by defendant no. 1 with SBI, Global Trade Department and International Banking Group Mumbai (Annexure D-13-colly);

- (xiv) Copy of the letter dated 28.11.2014 (Annexure D-14);

- (xv) Copy of the response dated 29.11.2014 received from SBI (Annexure D-15);

- (xvi) Copy of the communication dated 28.12.2014 issued by the Minister of State for External Affairs and Overseas Indian Affairs to the High Commission of India, Bangladesh along with enclosures (Annexure D-16);

- (xvii) Copy of the complaint dated 14.01.2015 submitted by defendant no. 1 company with British High Commission, New Delhi (Annexure D-17-colly);

- (xviii) Copy of the communication dated 03.02.2015 issued by High Commission of India, Dhaka to SBI, Global Department, International Banking Group (Annexure D-18);

- (xix) Copy of the communication dated 31.03.2015 issued by High Commission of India, Dhaka (Annexure D-19);

- (xx) Copy of the RTI submitted with Central Bank of India along with response dated 11.02.2015 (Annexure D-20-colly);

- (xxi) Copy of the complaint dated 24.11.2014 submitted with RBI (Annexure D-21);

- (xxii) Copy of the audited balance sheet of defendant no. 1 company for the year(s) ending 31.03.2005 to 31.03.2018 (Annexure D-22 to D-35);

- (xxiii) Copy of the Special Power of Attorney (Annexure D-36);

- (xxiv) Copy of the Board Resolution issued by Defendant no. 6 (Annexure D-37).

4. Applicant Bank has also filed rejoinder to the WS of Defendants no. 2 to 6 denying the allegations levelled against it and reiterating the averments made in OA.

It is stated in the Rejoinder to applicant bank has inadvertently failed to place on record 4 out of 7 statement of accounts the details of the outstanding in each of the credit facilities sanction. The details of the outstanding in each of the credit facilities sanctioned along with Statement of Account and Certificate under Section 2A of the Banker Book Evidence Act are annexed with the Rejoinder as Annexure-A/1.

5. To prove its case, the Applicant Bank i.e. OBC leads its evidence by filling the affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Chander Sharma, Assistant General Manager of applicant bank.

It is pertinent to note here that during the pendency of this OA, one application being IA No. 1566/2020 was filed by the applicant bank praying therein to pass an order to amend and incorporate the name of Punjab National Bank in place of Oriental Bank of Commerce, wherever it appears in the aforesaid OA and to allow to amend the case title as "Punjab National Bank Vs. Best Textiles Limited & Ors."

The said IA was allowed vide order dated 11.12.2020 of the Tribunal and the name of PNB was substituted in place of OBC.

5.1 After, substituting the name of PNB in place of OBC, applicant bank / PNB leads evidence by filing the affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Chief Manager of Applicant Bank / PNB.

5.2 Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Officer of Applicant Bank has placed reliance upon following documents:-

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

- (ii) Sanction Letter dated 03.08.2000 of Applicant Bank (Ex.-AW-1/2);

- (iii) Resolution dated 03.08.2000 passed by defendant no. 1 (Ex.-AW-1/3);

- (iv) LD-35- Packing Credit Agreement dated 04.08.2000 (Ex.-AW-1/4);

- (v) LD-15- Agreement regarding bills purchased / bills discounted and advanced against bills in course of collection dated 04.08.2000 (Ex.-AW-1/5);

- (vi) LD-61- dated 04.08.2000 (Ex.-AW-1/6);

- (vii) LD-29- Agreements of Guarantee signed by Sh. Sanjeev Dhawan, Smt. Anju Dhawan, Sh. Sushil Kuma Dhawan & Smt. Shesh Dhawan (Ex.-AW-1/7 to AW-1/10);

- (viii) Document evidencing registration (Form 8) with regard to registration of security interest (Ex.-AW-1/11);

- (ix) Resolution dated 18.08.2001 passed by defendant no. 1 (Ex.-AW-1/12);

- (x) LD-32- Supplemental Agreement dated 20.08.2001 (Ex.-AW-1/13);

- (xi) LD-61- dated 20.08.2001 (Ex.-AW-1/14);

- (xii) LD-28- Agreements of Guarantee signed by Sh. Sanjeev Dhawan, Smt. Anju Dhawan, Sh. Sushil Kumar Dhawan & Smt. Shesh Dhawan (Ex.-AW-1/15 to AW-1/18);

- (xiii) Balance & security confirmation signed / executed by the defendants on 18.08.2001 (Ex.-AW-1/19-colly);

- (xiv) Sanction Letter of September 2002 (Ex.-AW-1/20);

- (xv) Resolution dated 30.09.2002 of defendant no. 1 (Ex.-AW-1/21);

- (xvi) DOC-13- Supplemental Agreement dated 01.10.2002 (Ex.-AW-1/22);

- (xvii) DOC-4- Agreement for Overdraft dated 01.10.2002 (Ex.-AW-1/23);

- (xviii) DOC-1- Agreement of Hypothecation of Assets dated 01.10.2002 (Ex.-AW-1/24);

- (xix) LD-28- Agreements of Guarantee executed by Sh. Sanjeev Dhawan, Smt. Anju Dhawan, Sh. Sushil Kumar Dhawan & Smt. Shesh Dhawan (Ex.-AW-1/25 to AW-1/28);

- (xx) Balance & security confirmation dated 01.10.2002 executed by the defendants (Ex.-AW-1/29-colly);

- (xxi) Sanction Letter issued by the applicant bank in September 2003 (Ex.-AW-1/30);

- (xxii) Resolution dated 28.10.2003 of defendant no. 1 (Ex.-AW-1/31);

- (xxiii) DOC-13- Supplemental Agreement dated 28.10.2003 (Ex.-AW-1/32);

- (xxiv) DOC-4- Agreement for Overdraft dated 28.10.2003 (Ex.-AW-1/33);

- (xxv) Balance & security confirmation dated 01.10.2002 signed / executed by the defendants (Ex.-AW-1/34-colly);

- (xxvi) Letter dated 15.06.2005 of Defendant no. 1 accepting the terms and conditions as laid down in the sanction letter received from the applicant bank (Ex.-AW-1/35);

- (xxvii) Balance & security confirmation dated 15.06.2005 signed / executed by the defendants (Ex.-AW-1/36-colly);

- (xxviii) Sanction Letter dated 26.09.2006 issued by the applicant bank (Ex.-AW-1/37);

- (xxix) Resolution dated 03.10.2006 passed by defendant no. 1 (Ex.-AW-1/38);

- (xxx) DOC-13- Supplemental Agreement dated 03.10.2006 (Ex.-AW-1/39);

- (xxxii) DOC-1- Agreement of Hypothecation of Assets dated 03.10.2006 (Ex.-AW-1/40);

- (xxxii) DOC-380-Common Agreement dated 03.10.2006 (Ex.-AW-1/41);

- (xxxiii) DOC-11-Agreements of Guarantee executed by Sh. Sanjeev Dhawan, Smt. Anju Dhawan, Sh. Sushil Kumar Dhawan & Smt. Shesh Dhawan (Ex.-AW-1/42 to AW-1/45);

- (xxxiv) Balance & security confirmation dated 03.10.2006 signed / executed by the defendants (Ex.-AW-1/46-colly);

- (xxxv) Sanction Letter dated 29.06.2007 issued by the applicant bank (Ex.-AW-1/47);

- (xxxvi) Resolution dated 02.06.2007 passed by defendant no. 1 (Ex.-AW-1/48);

- (xxxvii) DOC-1- Agreement of Hypothecation of Assets dated 02.07.2007 (Ex.-AW-1/49);

- (xxxviii) DOC-38- Common Agreement dated 02.07.2007 (Ex.-AW-1/50);

- (xxxix) DOC-11- Agreements of Guarantee executed by Sh. Sanjeev Dhawan, Smt. Anju Dhawan, Sh. Sushil Kumar Dhawan & Smt. Shesh Dhawan (Ex.-AW-1/51 to AW-1/54);

- (xl) Balance & security confirmation dated 03.10.2006 signed / executed by the defendants (Ex.-AW-1/55-colly);

- (xli) Document evidencing the registration (Form 8) with regard to security interest (equitable mortgage as well as hypothecation) created by the defendants in favor of the applicant bank with the Registrar of Companies (Ex.-AW-1/56);

- (xlii) Sanction Letter dated 19.12.2007 of applicant bank (Ex.-AW-1/57);

- (xliii) Resolution dated 01.12.2007 passed by defendant no. 1 (Ex.-AW-1/58);

- (xliv) DOC-13- Supplementary Agreement to secure credit / loan facilities dated 24.12.2007 (Ex.-AW-1/59);

- (xlv) DOC-11-Agreements of Guarantee executed by Sh. Sanjeev Dhawan, Smt. Anju Dhawan, Sh. Sushil Kumar Dhawan & Smt. Shesh Dhawan (Ex.-AW-1/60 to 1/63);

- (xlvi) Balance & security confirmation dated 24.12.2007 signed / executed by the defendants (Ex.-AW-1/64-colly);

- (xlvii) Certificate of registration of mortgage with the Registrar of Companies (Ex.-AW-1/65);

- (xlviii) Sanction Letter dated 02.07.2008 of applicant bank (Ex.-AW-1/66);

- (xlix) Resolution dated 07.07.2008 passed by defendant no. 1 (Ex.-AW-1/67);

- (l) DOC-5- Agreement of Term Loan dated 25.10.2008 (Ex.-AW-1/68);

- (li) DOC-5- Agreement of Term Loan for immovable Property dated 25.10.2008 (Ex.-AW-1/69);

- (lii) DOC-11- Agreements of Guarantee executed by Sh. Sanjeev Dhawan, Smt. Anju Dhawan, Sh.

Sushil Kumar Dhawan & Smt. Shesh Dhawan (Ex.-AW-1/70 to AW-1/73);

- (liii) Sanction Letter dated 18.04.2009 of applicant bank (Ex.-AW-1/74);

- (liv) Resolution dated 20.04.2009 passed by defendant no. 1 (Ex.-AW-1/75);

- (lv) DOC-13- Supplementary Agreement to secure credit / loan facilities dated 24.04.2009 (Ex.-AW-1/76);

- (lvi) DOC-1- Agreement of Hypothecation of Assets dated 24.04.2009 (Ex.-AW-1/77);

- (lvii) DOC-38- Common Agreement dated 24.04.2009 (Ex.-AW-1/78)

- (lviii) DOC-11- Agreements of Guarantee dated 24.04.2009 executed by Sh. Sanjeev Dhawan, Smt. Anju Dhawan, Sh. Sushil Kumar Dhawan & Smt. Shesh Dhawan (Ex.-AW-1/70 to AW-1/82);

- (lix) Balance & security confirmation dated 24.04.2009 signed / executed by the defendants (Ex.-AW-1/83-colly);

- (lx) Certificate of registration of mortgage registered with the Registrar of Companies (Ex.-AW-1/84);

- (lxi) Sanction Letter dated 07.10.2010 issued by applicant bank (Ex.-AW-1/85);

- (lxii) Resolution dated 08.10.2010 passed by defendant no. 1 (Ex.-AW-1/86);

- (lxiii) DOC-13- Supplementary Agreement to secure credit / loan facilities dated 18.10.2010 (Ex.-AW-1/87);

- (lxiv) DOC-38- Common Agreement dated 24.04.2009 (Ex.-AW-1/88);

- (lxv) DOC-11- Agreements of Guarantee dated 18.10.2010 executed by Sh. Sanjeev Dhawan, Smt. Anju Dhawan, Sh. Sushil Kumar Dhawan & Smt. Shesh Dhawan (Ex.-AW-1/89 to AW-1/92);

- (lxvi) Sanction Letter dated 27.03.2012 issued by the applicant bank (Ex.-AW-1/93);

- (lxvii) Resolution dated 09.04.2012 passed by defendant no. 1 (Ex.-AW-1/94);

- (lxviii) DOC-13- Supplementary Agreement to secure credit / loan facilities dated 10.04.2012 (Ex.-AW-1/95);

- (lxix) DOC-38- Common Agreement dated 10.04.2012 (Ex.-AW-1/96);

- (lxx) DOC-11 Agreements of Guarantee dated 10.04.2012 executed by Sh. Sanjeev Dhawan, Smt. Anju Dhawan, Sh. Sushil Kumar Dhawan & Smt. Shesh Dhawan (Ex.-AW-1/97 to AW-1/100);

- (lxxi) Balance & security confirmation dated 10.04.2012 executed by the defendants (Ex.-AW-1/101-colly);

- (lxxii) Sanction Letter dated 30.08.2013 issued by the applicant bank (Ex.-AW-1/102);

- (lxxiii) Resolution dated 04.09.2013 passed by defendant no. 1 (Ex.-AW-1/103);

- (lxxiv) DOC-13- Supplementary Agreement to secure credit / loan facilities dated 05.09.2013 (Ex.-AW-1/104);

- (lxxv) DOC-38- Common Agreement dated 05.09.2013 (Ex.-AW-1/105);

- (lxxvi) DOC-11- Agreements of Guarantee dated 05.09.2013 executed by Sh. Sanjeev Dhawan, Smt.

Anju Dhawan, Sh. Sushil Kumar Dhawan & Smt. Shesh Dhawan (Ex.-AW-1/106 to AW-1/109);

(lxxvii) Balance & security confirmation dated 05.09.2013 signed / executed by the defendants (Ex.-AW- 1/110-colly); (lxxviii) Loan Application of Defendant given to applicant bank in November 2013 for Vehicle Loan (Ex.-AW-1/111);

(lxxix) Sanction letter dated 29.11.2013 (for Vehicle Loan) issued by the applicant bank (Ex.-AW-1/112);

(lxxx) Resolution dated 29.11.2013 passed by defendant no. 1 (Ex.-AW-1/113);

(lxxxii) DOC-5- Agreement of Term Loan dated 29.11.2013 (Ex.-AW-1/114);

(lxxxii) DOC-38- Common Agreement dated 29.11.2013 (Ex.-AW-1/115);

(lxxxiii) DOC-35/5.1 – General Power of Attorney dated 29.11.2013 (Ex.-AW-1/116);

(lxxxiv) DOC-11-Agreement of Guarantee dated 29.11.2013 executed by Sh. Sanjeev Dhawan (Ex.- AW-1/117);

(lxxxv) Sanction Letter dated 29.03.2014 issued by the applicant bank (Ex.-AW-1/118);

(lxxxvi) Resolution dated 31.03.2014 passed by defendant no. 1 (Ex.-AW-1/119); (lxxxvii) DOC-13- Supplementary Agreement to secure credit / loan facilities dated 31.03.2014 (Ex.-AW- 1/120); (lxxxviii) DOC-15 – Agreement for Working Capital Term Loan dated 31.03.2014 (Ex.-AW-1/121);

- (lxxxix) DOC-38- Common Agreement dated 18.10.2014 (Ex.-AW-1/122);

- (xc) DOC-11- Agreements of Guarantee dated 02.04.2014 executed by Sh. Sanjeev Dhawan, Smt. Anju Dhawan, Sh. Sushil Kumar Dhawan & Smt. Shesh Dhawan (Ex.-AW-1/123 to AW-1/126);

- (xci) Sanction Letter dated 23.06.2014 (Ex.-AW-1/127);

- (xcii) DOC-13- Supplementary Agreement to secure credit / loan facilities dated 24.06.2014 (Ex.-AW-1/128);

- (xciii) DOC-38- Common Agreement dated 24.06.2014 (Ex.-AW-1/129);

- (xciv) DOC-11- Agreements of Guarantee dated 24.06.2014 executed by Sh. Sanjeev Dhawan, Smt. Anju Dhawan, Sh. Sushil Kumar Dhawan & Smt. Shesh Dhawan (Ex.-AW-1/130 to AW-1/133);

- (xcv) Balance & security confirmation dated 24.06.2014 signed / executed by the defendants (Ex.-AW-1/134-colly);

- (xcvi) Sanction Letter dated 20.03.2014 issued by the applicant bank (Ex.-AW-1/135);

- (xcvii) Resolution dated 08.04.2015 passed by the defendant no. 1 (Ex.-AW-1/136);

- (xcviii) DOC-11- Agreement of Guarantee dated 08.04.2015 executed by defendant no. 6 / Best Global Ltd. (Ex.-AW-1/137);

- (xcix) Resolutions dated 08.04.2015 passed by defendant no. 6 (Ex.-AW-1/138);

- (c) memorandum of deposit of title deeds LTR-22 with regard to mortgaged properties (Ex.-AW-1/139-colly);

- (ci) Documents / Title Deeds of Property bearing no. C-2/27, Sector-15, Rohini, Delhi --110085 mortgaged by Sh. Sushil Kumar Dhawan & Smt. Shesh Dhawan (Ex.-AW-1/140);

- (cii) Documents / Title Deeds of Flat No. A-5, First Floor, Sai Dharti Suraj Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Sai Baba Complex, CIBA Road, Goregaon (East), Mumbai – 400063 mortgaged by Mr. Sanjeev Dhawan (Ex.-AW-1/141 & AW-1/42);

- (ciii) Documents / Title Deeds of Property no. F-111, First Floor, Asian Village, (Khel Gaon), New Delhi mortgaged by Sh. Sanjeev Dhawan & Smt. Anju Dhawan (Ex.-AW-1/143);

- (civ) Documents / Title Deeds of Property no. B-85, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi mortgaged by Best Textiles Limited (Ex.-AW-1/144);

- (cv) Documents / Title Deeds of Property No. 573/23, DLF Colony, Rohtak, Haryana mortgaged by Sh. Sushil Kumar Dhawan (Ex.-AW-1/145);

- (cvi) Balance & security confirmation dated 02.04.2015 signed / executed by the defendants (Ex.-AW-1/146-colly);

- (cvii) Recall notices dated 02.11.2016 issued by the applicant bank to the defendants under Section 13(2) of Secuitization Act, 2002 along with postal receipts (Ex.-AW-1/147-colly);

- (cviii) Demand notice dated 21.03.2018 issued by applicant bank through its counsel along with postal receipts (Ex.-AW-1/148-colly);

(cix) Certified true copies of the Statement of Accounts along with certificate / affidavit as per Section 2 of Banker's Books of Evidence Act (Ex.-AW-1/149).

5. So far as, Evidence of Defendants no. 2 to 6 is concerned, they filed evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Sanjeev Dhawan (defendant no. 2), Ms. Anju Dhawan (defendant no. 3), Sh. Sushil Dhawan (defendant no. 4), Smt. Shesh Dhawan (defendant no. 5) and Sh. Sanjeev Dhawan (AR of defendant no. 6 authorized vide Board Resolution dated 01.10.2019 of defendant no. 6). These defendants have placed reliance upon the documents which were filed along with the WS.

6. In the present case, respective written submissions have been filed by the applicant bank as well as defendants no. 2 to 6.

7. Heard and perused the entire record.

7.1 It is matter of record that defendant no. 1 neither appeared through counsel nor filed any WS. Thus, the case of applicant bank qua defendant no. 1 remained uncontested or unrebuted.

7.2 It is pertinent to note here that during the pendency of this OA, it was informed by Ld. counsel for applicant bank that Defendant no. 1 is 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 Bank 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.

7.3 Now I would like to deal with the objections raised by defendants no. 2 to 6 in their common WS:-

- (i) Defendants no. 2 to 6 have mainly contended in their WS that the alleged claim based on default under Letter of Credit Facility is not maintainable and the same is contrary to the contractual terms. They have stated that instead of taking appropriate steps for recovery of amount due under FDBP/FUDBP against Letter of Credit from the Issuing Bank, the Applicant Bank arbitrarily added the same as a liability of Defendant no. 1 company which ultimately resulted in irregularity and thereafter classification of account as NPA. The same also resulted in initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) proceedings against the Company under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) which is continuing as on date in the form of liquidation proceedings. The main grievance of defendants no. 2 to 6 is that even after receiving acceptance from the Issuing Bank via SWIFT message, the applicant bank failed to take steps to ensure that the LC terms are honoured by the Issuing Bank and instead claimed the said amount from the Defendants by allegedly showing it in the category of fresh sanctioned limits (FDBP/FUDBP and WCTL), which were neither sanctioned nor disbursed at any point of time. Further more, admittedly the bills were duly honoured and therefore, all rights and obligations vested in the Negotiating Bank. In the WS, answering defendants have raised the objection that the conduct of applicant bank is contrary to banking principle and UCP 600. It is stated that the bills were duly discounted for which heavy charges were levied by the applicant bank from time to time. Therefore, on presentation of LC and documents, the Company was no longer part of the transaction as it became a self-liquidity advance. It is also stated that admittedly the LCs were duly accepted by Monarch Global via SWIFT, which has been acknowledged and admitted by the applicant bank, therefore, the said liability could not have been levied on the Defendant no. 1 company as the same would be contrary to the LC terms.

Record reveals that the answering defendants have admitted the availment of loan facilities from the applicant bank vide their various letters w.e.f. 03.08.2000 till 20.03.2015. Moreover, they have also signed various balance & security documents from time to time i.e. from 2001 till 02.04.2015. If the defendants had any dispute with regard to

availment of loan facilities / restructuring of debt, they would not have executed various security documents till 2015. Hence, this Tribunal is of the view that now the answering defendants are taking such pleas just to get absolved from their liability. With these observations, this objection of defendants no. 2 to 6 stands rejected.

- (ii) Next objection of defendants no. 2 to 6 is that the applicant bank has failed to provide a break-up of the alleged calculated suit amount of Rs. 164,58,11,811.94 as on 27.03.2018. Moreover, the applicant bank has charged exorbitant interest. Further more, in the said interest rate calculation, total 6 accounts have been shown excluding the Vehicle Loan Account. But no Statement of Account has been filed for Account Nos., as detailed in Para 130 of OA, as well as Vehicle Loan. In addition to this, the Statement of Accounts filed commences from 2015 & 2016 when admitted no loan was sanctioned or renewed at this stage. It is also stated that the certificate filed under Section 2A of the Bankers Book Evidence act refer to total 11 loan accounts, however, the interest calculation charge refer to 7 loan accounts and the alleged Statement of Account have been filed for 3 loan accounts.

Record reveals that the applicant bank has clearly stated in the Rejoinder that the applicant bank inadvertently failed to place on record 4 out of 7 statement of accounts, however, the bank has ![A solid green rectangular box, likely a placeholder for a signature or stamp.](00e3d6329241d9d6d8b545343ba39fff_6_img.webp)

already filed the details of the outstanding in each of the credit facilities sanctioned along with Statement of Accounts and Certificate under Section 2A of the Banker Book Evidence Act along with the Rejoinder and the bank has already exhibited the same as Ex. AW-1/149. Even otherwise, answering defendants were always at liberty to file their own statement of accounts which they have not done. Hence, this objection of defendants is also liable to be rejected and same stands rejected.

I have gone through the Guarantee Agreements executed by defendants no. 2 to 6 from time to time which shows that these defendants, along with defendant no. 1 company / principal borrower, are jointly and severally liable to pay the dues of the bank. Hence, this objection of defendants does not hold any water and same stands rejected.

20.0 crore and the said facility already stands fully adjusted as per terms of the sanction. It is also stated that defendant no. 4 did not sign any other document extending the alleged mortgage over Rohtak property for any other facility availed by the Defendant no. 1 Company. Therefore, the applicant bank cannot claim charge on the said property.

It is matter of record that defendants no. 4 & 5 are the guarantors who have extended their guarantees to secure the credit facilities availed by defendant no. 1 company. Though applicant bank has denied all the allegations levelled by defendants no. 2 to 6 with regard to Rohtak property in its rejoinder, however, it is stated by the applicant bank that as the security with the applicant bank is not sufficient to recover its dues, therefore, the applicant bank is claiming its rights over the property-in-question. It is also matter of record that one SA no. 04/2025 (Sanjeev Dhawan & Ors. Vs. PNB) was filed with regard to Rohtak property before this Tribunal which has already been dismissed vide detailed order dated 31.01.2026 passed by this Tribunal. In these circumstances, this objection of defendants no. 2 to 6 stands rejected.

(v) Defendants no. 2 to 6 have also raised an objection that the instant OA is hopelessly barred by limitation.

It is matter of record that the defendants lastly executed Balance & Security Confirmation on 02.04.2015 whereas this OA was filed on 28.03.2018. Thus, it is clear that this OA has been filed well within the period of limitation. Accordingly, this plea of defendants also stands rejected.

In the light of discussion done in above paras, this objection of defendants no. 2 to 6 stands rejected.

It is matter of record that the defendants have not denied or disputed the execution of documents by them from time to time. Even otherwise, this Tribunal is of the view that plea of blank documents / signing the documents under misrepresentation by the applicant bank, is no plea in the eyes of law as has been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of "Indian Bank Vs. Cheese Wafers (India) Pvt. Ltd It was held if the defendants have not filed any complaint before higher authorities of the bank or filed any complaint before police authorities.....". Thus, the plea of signing the documents under misrepresentation / blank / unfilled documents, alleged to be misused by the applicant bank for creating false claims, is not maintainable after filing of the suit and the same is rejected.

In the light of above discussion that the defendants have not denied or disputed the execution of documents by them from time to time, this plea of defendants no. 2 to 6 is not going to give any benefit to them. Accordingly, this plea of defendants also stands rejected.

7.4 It is matter of record that for the Vehicle Loan availed by Defendant no. 1 in November 2013, only defendant no. 2 executed the Agreement of Guarantee dated 29.11.2013 [security documents with regard to Vehicle Loan have been exhibited as Ex. AW-1/111 to AW-1/117]. Hence, applicant bank has not claimed the amount due in the Vehicle Loan Account from defendants no. 3 to 6.

7.5 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. @12% p.a. (in r/o different loan accounts except Vehicle Loan) and @ 10%

p.a. (in Vehicle Loan Account) and costs as agreed between the parties.

7.6 In this OA, applicant has prayed to issue recovery certificate against defendants no. 1 to 6 wherein the defendant 1 is principle borrower and defendants no. 2 to 6 are personal / corporate guarantors and / or mortgagor of their respective immovable properties.

7.7 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.

7.8 Consequently, OA No. TA/65/2022 is liable to be allowed in favour of the Applicant Bank and against Defendants no. 2 to 6 (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 @12% p.a. (in r/o different loan accounts except Vehicle Loan) and @ 10% p.a. (in Vehicle Loan Account), from the date of filing of present OA, till the date of payment in full.

ORDER

(i) TA No. 65/2022 stands allowed in favour of Applicant Bank and against the Defendants no. 2 to 6 for following amount(s):-

- (a) Rs. 164,58,11,811.94 against defendants no. 2 to 6 along with pendentelite and future interest @12% p.a. (in r/o different loan accounts except Vehicle Loan) from the date of filing of this OA till the date of actual and final realization

- (b) Rs. 14,36,854.37 against defendant no. 2 along with pendentelite and future interest @10% p.a. (in r/o Vehicle Loan Facility) from the date of filing of this OA till the date of actual and final realization along with costs of this OA. Now Defendants no. 2 to 6 are directed to pay to the Applicant Bank the aforesaid amount(s), 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 6. In case of shortfall, same shall be recovered from the movable and immovable assets of Defendants no. 2 to 6.

(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.

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

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

- (v) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer-I, DRT-III, Delhi on 22.05.2026.

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

File be closed and consigned to records.

2026

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

(Pronounced in open court) Dated: 19.03.2026

**FINAL ORDER**

**ORDER**

FINAL ORDER

ORDER