J.C Flowers Asset Reconstruction Private Limited (Ambit Flowers Asset Reconstruction Private Limited) vs Essel Corporate Resources Private Limited on 9 September 2026

**FINAL ORDER**

1. This original application has been filed by the Applicant / Yes Bank Ltd. on 25.02.2022, through Sh. Ayush Agarwal, Vice President, being the authorized officer of the Applicant Bank, under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 against the Defendant No. 1 for recovery of a sum of INR 6,102,129,644.42 (Indian Rupees Six Billion One Hundred Two Million One Hundred Twenty Nine Thousand Six Hundred Forty Four Point Forty Two only) viz. Rs. 610,21,29,644.42 (Rupees Six Hundred Ten Crore Twenty One Lakh Twenty Nine Thousand Six Hundred Forty Four and Paise Forty Two only) as on 08.02.2022 along with applicable normal and penal interest with pendentelite and future interest thereon to be charged till the actual realization of the dues in full and final payment of the amount claimed, along with all costs, charges & other relief(s).

1.2 It is pertinent to note here that this OA bearing no. 143/2022 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-120/2022.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Applicant Bank is a body corporate constituted under the Companies Act, 1956 and a Banking Company within the meaning of Section 5(c) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 being a Scheduled Commercial Bank. The Applicant Bank herein, is a private bank incorporated under the laws of India in the year 2004, which primarily operates as a corporate bank, with retail banking and also asset management as subsidiary functions. It is also stated that Sh. Ayush Agrawal has been authorized to initiate the present proceedings vide Power of Attorney dated 03.12.2020 which has been executed in furtherance of Board Resolution dated 26.03.2020. Thus, Sh. Ayush Agrawal is competent to sign and verify all types of applications, plaints, written statements, petitions, vakalatnama, affidavits, execution and various other applications and to do all acts necessary for proper conduct of legal proceedings filed on behalf of the Applicant Bank in terms of the aforesaid Board Resolution and Power of Attorney.

2.1 It is stated in the OA that the Defendant no. 1, the borrower, is a Company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956.

It is further stated that the Defendant no. 2 is also a company incorporated within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956 which is the Security Trustee for the secured parties on the terms and conditions contained in the Security Trustee Agreement dated 31.01.2018 and the other Financing Documents.

**Description of credit facilities granted to Defendant no. 1 by the Applicant Bank**

2.2 It is stated in the OA that the Defendant no. 1 approached the Applicant Bank for various purposes. Pursuant to the same, the Applicant Bank sanctioned credit facilities to the Defendant no. 1 vide Facility Letter dated 15.12.2017. The details of these credit facilities are described below:-

- (i) Term Loan ("Term Loan I") for an amount of INR 2,050.0 million for the purpose of payment towards advance / deposit for taking commercial office space of approximately 2,00,000 sq. ft. along with all fit-outs, furniture and other amenities / services on lease in proposed Commercial Tower at Worli being developed by Jay Properties Private Limited; and

- (ii) Term Loan ("Term Loan II") for an amount of INR 2,950.0 million for the purpose of payment towards advance / deposit for taking commercial office space of approximately 2,00,000 sq. ft. along with all fit-outs, furniture and other amenities / services on lease in proposed Corporate Park and Convention Centre, which is being constructed at the Luyen's Delhi by Greatway Estate Private Limited.

2.3 The Defendant no. 1 furnished the requisite Board Resolution dated 18.12.2017 in respect of the loan / credit facilities availed by it from time to time by the Applicant Bank.

2.4 In consideration of the grant of the aforesaid Term Loans of INR 2,050.0 Million and INR 2,950 million (totaling INR 5,000 Million) to Defendant no. 1 by the Applicant Bank, the following loan and security documents were executed in favour of the Applicant Bank:-

- (i) Loan Agreement dated 31.01.2018 executed between the Applicant Bank and the Defendant no. 1 by which the Defendant no. 1 agreed to borrower and the Applicant Bank agreed to give a loan of INR 2,050.0 million and INR 2,950.0 million (totaling INR 5,000.0 million) as per the terms and conditions agreed therein. As per the understanding between the parties, the first instalment of the loan amount was disbursed by the Applicant Bank to the Defendant no. 1 on 05.02.2018.

- (ii) Security Trustee Agreement dated 31.01.2018 executed between the Applicant Bank, Defendant no. 1 and Catalyst Trusteeship Limited (Defendant no. 2 herein), for the purpose of the Loan Agreement dated 31.01.2018. The Defendant no. 2 agreed to act as a Security Trustee for the parties and agreed to accept in trust, the securities created in order to ensure repayment under the Loan Agreement dated 31.01.2018.

- (iii) Demand Promissory Note along with the Letter of Continuity for Demand Promissory Note dated 31.01.2018 signed by the Defendant no. 1 promising to pay, on demand, to the Applicant Bank the principal sum of INR 5000,000,000/- (Indian Rupees Five Thousand Million only) together with interest as may be applicable from time to time.

- (iv) Letter dated 31.01.2018 executed by Defendant no.1 whereby it certified that no even has occurred, which, in the opinion of the Applicant Bank would result in a Material Adverse Effect; no event of default and no potential event of default have occurred and is continuing under any document / agreement entered between the Defendant no. 1 / Borrower and the Applicant Bank for availing the facilities, and that none of the subsidiaries are appearing in the defaulter list.

2.5 It is further stated in the OA that the aforesaid facilities granted on 15.12.2017 were subsequently amended from time to time, by the following:-

- (i) Facility Letter dated 15.12.2017;

- (ii) Facility Letter dated 05.02.2018;

- (iii) Facility Letter dated 04.10.2018;

- (iv) Facility Letter dated 28.11.2018;

- (v) Facility Letter dated 10.05.2019.

It is stated in the OA that by Facility Letter dated 04.10.2018, the amount for Term Loan I was reduced from INR 2,050.0 million to INR 1,700.0 million.

**Security Documents**

2.6 It is stated in the OA that in consideration to the grant of the aforesaid credit facility granted to the Defendant no. 1 by the Applicant Bank various security documents were executed between the parties to secure the debt which are detailed below :-

- (i) **Exclusive charge over assets created from Yes Bank Limited's (YBL) facility (inclusive of advances / deposits paid to property owner)**

It is stated in the OA that by Deed of Hypothecation dated 31.01.2018 executed by Defendant no. 1 as Borrower / hypothecator in favour of Defendant no. 2 as Security Trustee for the benefit of the Applicant Bank with respect to the aforesaid credit facilities and term loans. An exclusive first pari passu charge was created over the plant and machinery (both present and future), insurance contracts current assets and receivables (both present and future) including all book debts, all cash flows of the Defendant no. 1.

(ii) **Pledge over shares of Dish TV India Limited (DTIL) by World Crest Advisors LLP.**

It is stated in the OA that World Crest Advisors LLP pledged the shares of Dish TV India Limited owned by it in favour of the Defendant no. 2 for the facilities granted by the Applicant Bank to Defendant no. 1 and for the credit facilities availed by 8 other Group Companies of Essel Group from the Applicant Bank.

Here, it is pertinent to mention that the pledge over these shares of Dish TV India Ltd. has been invoked by the Applicant Bank. However, as on date, the shares in Applicant Bank's Depository Participant (DP) Account and the credit for the same is yet to be realized by the Applicant Bank.

**Default in Repayment**

2.7 It is stated in the OA that in view of the fact that the Applicant Bank had granted credit facilities as amended from time to time aggregating to INR 5.0 billion to the Defendant no. 1, and that the Defendant no.1 had started committing egregious defaults in the repayment of the loan facility, the account of Defendant no. 1 was automatically classified as 'NPA' on 30.10.2019.

2.8 It is also stated in the OA that only a few days prior thereto, on 24.10.2019, the Applicant Bank had issued a letter to the Defendant no. 1 citing an extract of the Notes to Accounts of the Q2 results of Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited ("ZEEL") which were announced as on 18.10.2019. On the basis thereof, the Applicant Bank claimed that the Defendant no. 1 and certain other Essel Group companies had reimbursed ZEEL in the aggregate sum of Rs. 200.0 Crore and such reimbursement followed the liquidation and adjustment by the Applicant Bank of the fixed deposit of Rs. 200.0 Crore, as furnished by ZEEL. Interestingly, ZEEL is the flagship company of the Essel Group. The very fact that the Defendant no. 1 and other Essel Group companies had sufficient cash flows / funds at their disposal to immediately reimburse ZEEL upon such adjustment of the fixed deposit show that the Defendant no. 1 had the money to make repayment of the credit facilities as availed from the Applicant Bank. Such conduct on the part of the Defendant no. 1 and other Essel Group companies amounted to 'diversion of funds' within the meaning of RBI Master Circular on Wilful Defaulters dated 01.07.2015 ("Wilful Defaulters Circular"). The same was communicated to Defendant no. 1 by letter dated 24.10.2019 issued by the Applicant Bank.

2.9 It is further stated in the OA that as there was no sight of the Defendant no. 1 clearing the outstanding amount due and payable by it, the Applicant Bank sent a Notice for Recall of Credit Facilities dated 07.07.2020 to the Defendant no. 1. It is stated in the OA that as the Defendant no. 1 did not honour the terms and conditions of the Facility Agreements despite repeated reminders from the Applicant Bank, it was constrained to send the said Notice of Recall and demanded that the Defendant no. 1 to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of INR 5124,454,962.50 (Indian Rupee Five Thousand One Hundred Twenty Four Million, Four Hundred Fifty Four Thousand, Nine Hundred Sixty Two Point Fifty only) due as on 30.06.2020 together with interest, compound interest, liquidated damages and other charges thereon, within a period of seven (7) days from the receipt of the notice. But the Defendant no. 1 has not replied to the above stated notice of recall of credit facilities till date.

2.10 It is stated in the OA that on 22.07.2020, it was mutually agreed between the Applicant Bank and ZEEL that the fixed deposit of ZEEL totaling to Rs. 2 billion adjusted towards the overdue amount of the related parties of ZEEL (including Defendant no. 1) shall be treated as having been adjusted towards the overdue amount of the Defendant no. 1 and other Essel Group companies. As a result, an amount of INR 22.3 Crore was adjusted against the outstanding of Defendant no. 1 from the fixed deposit.

Later on, it came to the notice of the Applicant Bank that the Defendant no. 1 has diverted the borrowed funds to its various subsidiaries / related parties and other non-related parties. As the same was done without the consent of the Applicant Bank, the act on the part of the Defendant no. 1 to divert the borrowed loans to other entities amounted to diversion of funds under the Wilful Defaulters Circular. In view thereof, the Applicant Bank issued a Show Cause Notice with Ref. No. YBL/ARM/20-21/438 dated 29.07.2020 to the Defendant no. 1 calling upon it to make 

the representation in writing as to why it should not be declared as a 'Wilful Defaulters'.

However, instead of servicing its loan liability, the Defendant no. 1 responded to the Show Cause Notice on 22.08.2020 and made all sorts of unfounded and baseless allegations against the Applicant Bank and even accused it of illegally appropriating the fixed deposit towards the outstanding amount.

2.11 Since, Defendant no. 1 failed to maintain financial discipline, thus, the Applicant Bank has been compelled to file this Application before this Tribunal. It is stated in the OA that the total amount outstanding as on 08.02.2022 is INR 6,102,129,442.42 (Indian Rupees Six Billion One Hundred Two Million One Hundred Twenty Nine Thousand Six Hundred Forty Four Point Forty Two only).

3. Notices of this O.A. were issued to the Defendants, and Defendants no. 1 & 2 appeared through their respective counsels.

3.1 It is matter of record that Defendant no. 1 has filed its WS through Sh. Basant Sharma, being the Authorized Signatory of Defendant no. 1.

3.2 So far as, Defendant no. 2 is concerned, though it appeared through Counsel but did not file any WS.

It is matter of record that the Defendant no. 2 is the Proforma Defendant against whom no relief has been claimed by Applicant Bank.

4. In the WS of Defendant no. 1, it is stated that the Defendant no. 1 is a Public Limited Company duly incorporated on 06.08.2022 and is duly registered with Registrar of Companies, Mumbai. It is also stated that the present WS has been signed and verified by Sh. Basant Sharma who is duly authorized by the Board of Directors of Defendant no. 1. It is further stated in the WS that the answering Defendant no. 1 is alleged to be the borrower for the credit facilities allegedly sanctioned and granted by Applicant Bank to the Defendant no. 1. It is also stated that the answering Defendant never submitted any request letter for sanction of alleged credit facilities. Rather, the Applicant Bank advised on the transactions structure and proposed end uses.

It is stated in the WS that somewhere in the year 2017, the officials of Applicant Bank approached the answering Defendant and offered a business model and also a loan structure to the answering Defendant. It is further stated that it was informed by the official of the Applicant Bank that M/s RPW Projects Pvt. Ltd. being the owner of the property-in-question has started the process of redeveloping the Property being Plot No. 4 (formerly known as Plot No. 11), admeasuring 2.80 Acres situated at Bhagwan Das Road, New Delhi – 110001 (hereinafter also referred to as "the property-in-question") as a corporate park and convention Centre and for that purposes, necessary approvals are being sought by M/s RPW Projects Pvt. Ltd. from concerned authorities and departments before commencing redevelopment of the property. It is also stated that the Applicant Bank and Greatway Estates Pvt. Ltd. jointly represented the answering Defendant that the property-in-question is having the worth of approximately Rs. 1000.0 Crore and on completion of redevelopment activities into Corporate Park & Convention Centre by Greatway Estates Pvt. Ltd., the value of Property would increase drastically which would benefit the answering Defendant herein. Accordingly, a transaction structure was proposed by the Applicant Bank to the answering Defendant whereby the answering Defendant would be entitled to a long term lease of 9-years in the propose Corporate Park & Convention Centre and would be able to make significant profits from the lease in view of its prime location and commercial viability of the proposed project. It was further represented that the Applicant Bank will sanction a credit facility to the answering Defendant which would be immediately payable by the answering Defendant to Greatway Estates Pvt. Ltd.as an advance and that Greatway Estates Pvt. Ltd. would in turn execute a Memorandum of Understanding with answering Defendant for a long term lease in the Corporate Park and Convention Centre to the extent of 2,00,000 sq. ft. area. It was also proposed that on completion of construction activities of Corporate Park and Convention Centre, the answering Defendant would be entitled to sub-lease the premises and from the rent / sub-lease receivables, the answering Defendant would be able to repay the credit facilities proposed to be granted by the Applicant Bank to the answering Defendant. Considering the viability of the project the answering Defendant agreed to enter into the proposed transaction.

It is stated in the WS that the Applicant Bank vide its Sanction Letter dated 15.12.2017 offered to the answering Defendant two credit facilities being Term Loan – I and Term Loan – II subject to the terms and conditions as contained therein which were modified by the respondent bank from time to time vide addendum sanction letters. It is evident from the sanction terms that the entire Term Loan – II was to be utilized by answering Defendant an advance to be paid to the Greatway Estates Pvt. Ltd. for taking commercial office space of 2,00,000 sq. ft. along with all fit-outs, furniture and other amenities on lease in the upcoming Corporate Project and Convention Centre. In terms of the Sanction Letter, the answering Defendant was to excite, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Greatway Estates Pvt. Ltd. within 15-days from the date of sanction and to submit a copy thereof to the Applicant Bank. Accordingly, on 20.12.2017, the answering Defendant and Greatway Estates Pvt. Ltd. entered into an MoU for taking on lease the commercial space of 2,00,000 sq. ft. at the proposed Corporate Park and Convention Centre on the terms and conditions contained therein. Thereafter, on 30.01.2018, on the basis of the said MoU, a Loan Agreement was also executed between the answering Defendant and the Applicant Bank by way of which the Bank granted Term Loan-II to the answering Defendant. It is stated that the MoU and the Loan Agreement on its execution by the parties stood as binding and concluded agreement by virtue whereof, legal and enforceable rights accrued and vested in favour of the answering Defendant. On 05.02.2018 and 06.02.2018, in terms of Sanction Letter, Loan Agreement and MoU, the answering Defendant 

deposited the entire sanctioned amount with the Greatway Estates Pvt. Ltd. in two trenches as an advance for obtaining a Lease of 2,00,000 sq. ft. commercial office space in the upcoming Project. Thereafter, it was informed to the answering Defendant that on account of delay in obtaining some approvals and other reasons, the development of upcoming Corporate Park and Convention Centre could not be completed within time as agreed in the MoU. Accordingly, at the request of Greatway Estates Pvt. Ltd. and with the consent of the Applicant Bank, the answering Defendant and Greatway Estates Pvt. Ltd. on 18.12.2019 executed an addendum to the MoU dated 20.12.2017 which was duly intimated to the Applicant Bank.

It is stated in the WS that the Applicant Bank and Greatway Estates Pvt. Ltd. in a clandestine manner created further mortgages on the property without the knowledge and consent of the answering Defendant after sanctioning the credit facilities to the answering Defendant on 15.12.2017 and loan agreement dated 30.01.2018. It has come to the knowledge of the answering Defendant that credit facilities were sanctioned and granted by the Applicant Bank to M/s RPW Projects Ltd. somewhere in January 2017 when its account was already classified as NPA much prior to the date of creation of mortgage by respondent no. 2 in favour of the Applicant Bank for the ante dated benefits granted by bank to M/s RPW Projects Pvt. Ltd. It has also come to the knowledge of answering Defendant that M/s RPW Projects Pvt. Ltd. had been admitted for winding up vide Orders dated 14.02.2019, 05.12.2019 and 12.10.2020 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Company petition no.

1296 of 2015 under the provisions of Section 433(a) read with Section 439 of Companies Act, 1996. It is further stated that the answering Defendant has also come to know from the portal of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India that pursuant to execution of Loan Agreement dated 31.01.2018 and the MoU dated 20.12.2017, the Applicant Bank and Greatway Estates Pvt. Ltd. in collusion with each other have created further mortgages on the property for the benefit of the Bank, without the knowledge and consent of answering Defendant and last of which is stated to have been created on 11.12.2019 in favour of IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. as a Security Trustee for the benefit of the Applicant Bank to cover some old existing NPA declared credit facility which the Bank had disbursed to M/s RPW Projects Private Ltd. without the consent and/or knowledge of the answering Defendant which are void and bad in law. It is further stated that the malafide intention of the Applicant Bank to cause detriment to the interests of the answering Defendant is evident from the fact that the mortgage dated 11.12.2019 stated to have been created by Greatway Estates Pvt. Ltd. in favour of IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. (for the benefit of the Bank) for the alleged Loan granted to M/s RPW Projects Pvt. Ltd. account of which had already been classified as a NPA on 05.07.2019 and was admitted for liquidation w.e.f. 01.10.2019.

It has also come to the knowledge of the answering Defendant that pursuant to creation of mortgage over the Property on 11.12.2019, within nine (9) days therefrom, the respondent Bank issued a Demand Notice dated 20.12.2019

to Greatway Estates Pvt. Ltd. u/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act. Thereafter, on 15.06.2020, the Applicant Bank issued a Possession Notice to Greatway Estates Pvt. Ltd. on the property-in-question for the alleged credit facilities of M/s RPW Projects Pvt. Ltd. It is also stated that on 05.10.2010, the Applicant Bank has issued an E-Auction Sale Notice for sale of the Property for the loan account of M/s RPW Projects Private Limited, however, the Bank for the reasons best known to them withdrew its E-Auction Sale Notice. Simultaneously, the Applicant Bank filed an Application u/s 14 before Ld. ACMM on 22.09.2020 which is allowed vide impugned order dated 08.03.2021 by Ld. ACMM-01, New Delhi District, Patiala House Court, New Delhi.

From the aforesaid facts, it is evident that the entire action and conduct of the Applicant Bank has landed the answering Defendant in such a position where the answering Defendant without getting any benefits is suffering only due to the above mentioned malafide conduct of the Applicant Bank.

When the answering Defendant came to know about all the aforesaid facts, it seriously confronted the officials of the Applicant Bank and vehemently raised its objections and concerns but instead of resolving the issue, the Applicant Bank with malafide intentions and in retaliation to the genuine objections raised by the answering Defendant, served a Show Cause Notice dated 29.07.2020 upon the answering Defendant calling upon it to show cause as to why the answering Defendant herein should not be declared as "Wilful Defaulters". This notice is absolutely contrary and in violation of mandatory guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid show cause notice, the answering Defendant assailed the same before the Hon'ble District Judge, Saket Courts Delhi in CS No. 307/2020 titled 'Essel Corporate Resources Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Yes Bank' wherein an Order dated 19.10.2020 has been passed to stay the proceedings initiated by the Applicant Bank. Moreover, a Civil Suit for declaration and injunction pertaining to the Property has also been filed by the answering Defendant before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide filing no. 994082/2020 on 03.11.2020 which was marked under objection by the Registry of the High Court and subsequently withdrawn. The said Civil Suit was then filed before the Hon'ble District Judge, Patiala House Courts which was numbered as CS (Comm) No. 602/2020 which was withdrawn on 15.12.2020 with leave of the Hon'ble Court to re-file with full particulars. Subsequently, fresh Civil Suit was filed before Hon'ble District Judge, Patiala House Courts and was registered as CS (Comm) No. 02/2021 titled 'Essel Corporate Resources Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Yes Bank & Ors.'. The said case was admitted by Hon'ble District Judge Patiala House Court on 05.01.2021 and summons were issued to the respondents returnable on 09.02.2021. It is stated in the WS that the said Civil Suit is still pending adjudication and the next date of hearing is 06.12.2022.

It is stated in the WS that various top officials of Applicant Bank are being investigated by CBI for offence under prevention of corruption, criminal breach of trust, forgery of valuable security for the purpose of cheating, conspiracy, abetment and banking fraud.

In nut shell, the answering Defendant no. 1 has raised objection with regard to M/s RPW Project Ltd., Greatway Estates Pvt. Ltd. as well as Applicant Bank stating that the entire action and conduct of the Applicant Bank has landed the answering Defendant in such a position where the answering Defendant without getting any benefits is suffering only due to the malafide conduct of the Applicant Bank. In this regard, answering Defendant has relied upon various documents viz. MoU as well as certain Civil Suits filed by it against Yes Bank which are pending before different forums.

In its WS, the Defendant no. 1 has raised following main objections :-

- (i) Defendant no. 1 has raised an objection that no valid board resolution alleged executed by the answering Defendant no. 1 resolving to execute alleged loan and security documents in favour of Applicant Bank has neither been pleaded nor filed by the Applicant Bank. Thus, the alleged loan and security document are not at all binding upon the answering Defendant. Hence, the present OA is liable to be dismissed with heavy and exemplary costs.

- (ii) Defendant no. 1 has also raised an objection that all the security documents are alleged to have been executed on insufficient stamp papers rendering them to be liable for immediate impounding by this Hon'ble Tribunal.

- (iii) Next objection raised by the Defendant no. 1 is that the claim(s) of the Applicant Bank is / are hopelessly barred by limitation under Section 24 of RDB Act 1993.

- (iv) Defendant no. 1 has also taken a plea that Defendant no. 1 never submitted any request letters for sanction of the loan facilities.

- (v) Defendant no. 1 has also taken a plea that the alleged documents filed and heavily relied upon by the Applicant Bank are not binding upon the answering defendant as the said documents contains blanks at various places and handwritten additions which were subsequently added by the bank to suit its own convenience. As such, the answering Defendant stands absolved from the alleged liability. Thus, no case can be said to be made out against the answering Defendant.

- (vi) Defendant no. 1 has also taken a plea that the Applicant has failed to make out any actionable cause for impleading the answering defendant in the present proceedings herein, hence, this OA is liable to be dismissed qua the answering defendant with heavy costs;

- (vii) Defendant no. 1 has raised an objection that the present OA has not been valued properly for the purposes of court-fee/ Application fees on the OA.

- (viii) Defendant no. 1 has raised an objection that the Applicant Bank has wrongly invoked the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Tribunal as a perusal of alleged loan and security documents relied upon by the Applicant Bank itself are stated to have been executed outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Tribunal. Hence, the present OA deserves to be dismissed with heavy costs.

- (ix) Next objection raised by Defendant no. 1 is that the instant OA is not maintainable as the same has not been signed, verified nor filed by a duly authorized or competent person. It is stated in the WS that no valid authority letter in favour of Sh. Ayush Aggarwal, officer of Applicant Bank, has been placed on record.

- (x) Next objection raised by Defendant no. 1 is that the Applicant Bank has wrongly classified the account as NPA on 30.10.2019. It is stated in the WS that the Applicant Bank has failed to furnish any certain or valid reason for classifying the account as NPA.

- (xi) Defendant no. 1 has also taken a plea that the alleged recall notice dated 07.07.2020 was never served upon the answering Defendant no. 1 by the Applicant Bank. It is stated that neither any proof of service nor any proof of acknowledgment of alleged recall notice dated 09.07.2020 has been placed on record by the Applicant Bank.

- (xii) Defendant no. 1 has also taken a plea that the Applicant has not filed the re-casted statement of accounts in terms of judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of *CBI Vs. Ravindra & Anr.* Further more, it is also stated that the alleged dues as drawn by the Applicant Bank is wrong, false and not in consonance with established legal procedure and RBI guidelines and apart from the exorbitant rate of interest, the Applicant Bank has also debited various wrongful charges and has compounded penal interest, liquidated damages etc. in the accounts of answering Defendant and despite that the bank has filed a wrong affidavit in support of its OA.

- (xiii) In its WS, Defendant no. 1 has also denied the diversion of the alleged borrowed funds to its various subsidiaries / related / non-related parties and Defendant no. 1 has raised its objections vide Reply dated 24.08.2020 to the show cause notice dated 29.07.2020 (Wilful Default) which was not responded by the Applicant Bank and the answering Defendant was constrained to seek its legal remedies.

In nut shell, Defendant no. 1 has denied approaching the Applicant Bank for sanction of loan; furnishing of Board Resolution; execution of security documents etc. etc. Now it has been prayed to dismiss the present OA in favour of answering Defendant and as against the Applicant Bank and award heavy and exemplary costs in favour of the answering Defendant.

In support of its WS, the Defendant no. 1 has also filed following documents along with the WS:-

- (i) True copy of certificate of incorporation of Defendant no. 1 Company on 06.08.2002 and Memorandum and Articles of Association of Defendant no. 1 Company (Annexure D-1);

- (ii) True copy of Board Resolution passed by Defendant no. 1 in favour of Sh. Basant Sharma who was authorized to file the WS on behalf of Defendant no. 1 (Annexure D-2);

- (iii) True copy of Memorandum of Understanding dated 20.12.2017 executed between the answering Defendant and Greatway Estates Pvt. Ltd. (Annexure D-3);

- (iv) True copies of orders dated 14.02.2018, 14.08.2019, 05.12.2019 and 12.10.2020 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Company Petition No. 1296 of 2015 (Annexure D-4-colly);

- (v) True copy of Demand Notice dated 20.12.2019 issued by the Applicant Bank to Greatway Estates Pvt. Ltd. u/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act 2002 (Annexure D-5);

- (vi) True copy of Possession Notice dated 15.06.2020 issued by the Applicant Bank to Greatway Estates Pvt. Ltd. (Annexure D-6);

- (vii) True copy of CS No. 307 of 2020 (Annexure D-7);

- (viii) True copy of order dated 18.10.2020 passed by Hon'ble District Judge, Saket Court, Delhi in CS No. 307 of 2020 (Annexure D-8);

- (ix) True copy of C.S. (Comm) No. 02 of 2021 (Annexure D-9);

- (x) True copy of Order dated 05.01.2021 passed by Hon'ble District Judge Patiala House Court, New Delhi in C.S. (Comm.) No. 02/2021(Annexure D-10).

5. To prove its case, the Applicant Bank leads its evidence by filling the affidavit of Sh. Ayush Agrawal, Vice President of the Applicant Bank.

5.1 It is pertinent to note here that during the pendency of this OA, the Applicant Bank i.e. Yes Bank had assigned the financial assets / loans of Defendant no. 1 to J.C. Flowers Asset Reconstruction Private Limited. Thus, the name of J.C. Flowers Asset Reconstruction Private Limited was substituted in place of Applicant Bank i.e. Yes Bank vide Order dated 12.10.2023 passed in IA No. 99/2023 by this Tribunal.

5.2 Subsequently, the officer of Applicant herein has placed reliance upon the documents filed by the Applicant which includes:-

- (i) Board Resolution dated 26.03.2020 of Applicant Bank / Yes Bank (in Evidence it was numbered as Ex. AW-1/1 but it is actually marked as Annexure -1-colly, being true copy);

- (ii) Power of Attorney dated 03.12.2020 executed by the Applicant Bank authorizing Mr. Ayush Agrawal, officer of Applicant (in Evidence it was numbered as Ex. AW-1/2 but it is actually marked as Annexure -1-colly, being true copy);

- (iii) Facility Letter dated 15.12.2017 of Applicant Bank whereby it sanctioned credit facilities to the Defendant No. 1 (in Evidence it was numbered as Ex. AW-1/3 but it is actually exhibited as Ex. AW-1/2);

- (iv) Board Resolution dated 18.12.2017 executed by Defendant no. 1 (in Evidence it was numbered as Ex. AW-1/4 but it is actually exhibited as Ex. AW-1/3);

- (v) Loan Agreement dated 31.01.2018 executed between the Applicant Bank and the Defendant no. 1 (in Evidence it was numbered as Ex. AW-1/5 but it is actually exhibited as Ex. AW-1/4);

- (vi) Security Trustee Agreement dated 31.01.2018 executed between the Applicant Bank, Defendant no. 1 and Catalyst Trusteeship Limited (Defendant no. 2 herein) (in Evidence it was numbered as Ex. AW-1/6 but actually it is marked as Annexure – 5 being true copy);

- (vii) Demand Promissory Note along with Letter of Continuity for Demand Promissory Note dated 31.01.2018 executed by Defendant no. 1 in favor of the Applicant Bank for a sum of INR 5000,000,000/- (in Evidence it was numbered as Ex. AW-1/7 but it is actually exhibited as Ex. AW-1/6);

- (viii) Letter dated 31.01.2018 of Defendant no. 1 (in Evidence it was numbered as Ex. AW-1/8 but it is actually marked as Annexure - 7 being true copy);

- (ix) Facility Letter dated 15.12.2017 (whereby the facility was amended) (in Evidence it was numbered as Ex. AW-1/9 but it is actually exhibited as Ex. AW-1/8);

- (x) Facility Letter dated 05.02.2018 (whereby the facility was amended) (in Evidence it was numbered as Ex. AW-1/10 but it is actually exhibited as Ex. AW-1/9);

- (xi) Facility Letter dated 04.10.2018 (whereby the facility was amended) (in Evidence it was numbered as Ex. AW-1/11 but actually it is marked as Annexure - 10 being true copy);

- (xii) Facility Letter dated 28.11.2018 (whereby the Facility was amended) (in Evidence it was numbered as Ex. AW-1/12 but actually it is marked as Annexure - 11 being true copy);

- (xiii) Facility Letter dated 10.05.2019 (whereby the Facility was amended) (in Evidence it was numbered as Ex. AW-1/13 but it is actually exhibited as Ex. AW-1/12);

- (xiv) Deed of Hypothecation dated 31.01.2018 executed between the Defendant no. 1 as the Hypothecator and the Applicant Bank as the Hypothecatee (in Evidence it was numbered as Ex. AW-1/14 but actually it is marked as Annexure - 13 being true copy);

- (xv) Letter dated 24.10.2019 ("Wilful Default Circular") issued by the Applicant Bank to Defendant no. 1 (in Evidence it was numbered as Ex. AW-1/15 but it is actually marked as Annexure - 14 being true copy);

- (xvi) Notice of Recall of Credit Facilities dated 07.07.2020 sent by the Applicant Bank to the Defendant no. 1 (in Evidence it was numbered as Ex. AW-1/16 but it is actually marked as Annexure - 15 being true copy);

(xvii) Show Cause Notice dated 29.07.2020 issued by the Applicant Bank to the Defendant no. 1 with regard to declaring it as "Wilful Defaulters" (in Evidence it was numbered as Ex. AW-1/17 but actually it is marked Annexure - 16 being true copy);

(xviii) Reply dated 22.08.2020 sent by Defendant no. 1 to the show cause notice of Applicant Bank (in Evidence it was numbered as Ex. AW-1/18 but it is actually marked as Annexure - 17 being true copy);

(xix) Bank Statement as on 23.01.2022 duly certified as per the Banker's Book Evidence Act, 1891 (in Evidence it was numbered as Ex. AW-1/19 but it is actually marked as Annexure - 18 being true copy).

6. So far as, Defendant no. 1 is concerned, it filed the Evidence by way of Affidavit of Sh. Sarthak Shukla, Authorized Representative of Defendant no. 1. He has relied upon the following documents :-

(i) True copy of certificate of incorporation of Defendant no. 1 Company on 06.08.2002 and Memorandum and Articles of Association of Defendant no. 1 Company (in Evidence it was numbered as DW1/1 but actually marked as Annexure D-1 being true copy);

(ii) True copy of Board Resolution passed by Defendant no. 1 in favour of Sh. Basant Sharma who was authorized to file the WS on behalf of Defendant no. 1 (in Evidence it was numbered as DW1/2 but actually marked as Annexure D-2 being true copy);

- (iii) True copy of Memorandum of Understanding dated 20.12.2017 executed between the answering Defendant and Greatway Estates Pvt. Ltd. (in Evidence it was numbered as DW1/3 but actually marked as Annexure D-3 being true copy);

- (iv) True copies of orders dated 14.02.2018, 14.08.2019, 05.12.2019 and 12.10.2020 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Company Petition No. 1296 of 2015 (in Evidence it was numbered as DW1/4-colly but actually marked as Annexure D-4-colly being true copy);

- (v) True copy of Demand Notice dated 20.12.2019 issued by the Applicant Bank to Greatway Estates Pvt. Ltd. u/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act 2002 (in Evidence it was numbered as DW1/5 but actually marked as Annexure D-5 being true copy);

- (vi) True copy of Possession Notice dated 15.06.2020 issued by the Applicant Bank to Greatway Estates Pvt. Ltd. (in Evidence it was numbered as DW1/6 but actually marked as Annexure D-6 being true copy);

- (vii) True copy of CS No. 307 of 2020 (in Evidence it was numbered as DW1/7 but actually marked as Annexure D-7 being true copy);

- (viii) True copy of order dated 18.10.2020 passed by Hon'ble District Judge, Saket Court, Delhi in CS No. 307 of 2020 ((in Evidence it was numbered as DW1/8 but actually marked as Annexure D-8 being true copy);

- (ix) True copy of C.S. (Comm) No. 02 of 2021 (in Evidence it was numbered as DW1/9 but actually marked as Annexure D-9 being true copy);

- (x) True copy of Order dated 05.01.2021 passed by Hon'ble District Judge Patiala House Court, New Delhi in C.S. (Comm.) No. 02/2021 (in Evidence it was numbered as DW1/10 but actually marked as Annexure D-10 being true copy);

- (xi) True copy of Board Resolution dated 22.12.2025 passed by Defendant no. 1 in favour of the Deponent / Sh. Sarthak Shukla to sign and verify the Evidence by way of Affidavit (Ex. DW1/11).

7. Heard Ld. counsels for the parties and perused the entire record.

7.1 Now I would like to deal with the objections raised by Defendant no. 1 in its WS in following paras:-

- (i) The answering Defendant no. 1 has raised certain objections with regard to M/s RPW Project Ltd., Greatway Estates Pvt. Ltd. as well as Applicant Bank stating that the entire action and conduct of the Applicant Bank has landed the answering Defendant in such a position where the answering Defendant without getting any benefits is suffering only due to the malafide conduct of the Applicant Bank. In this regard, answering Defendant has relied upon various documents viz. MoU as well as certain Civil Suits filed by it against Yes Bank which are pending before different forums.

It is matter of record that Defendant no. 1 has not disputed about sanctioning of loan amounts, disbursal of loan amount by the Applicant Bank, repayment schedule and events of defaults etc. Moreover, Defendant no. 1 has filed various documents along with the WS / Evidence which clearly shows that the impugned MoU was executed between the Greatway Estate Private Limited and Defendant no. 1 herein. It is also evident from the said MoU that the Applicant Bank was not a party to the same. It is also matter of record that during the pendency of this OA, answering Defendant no. 1 time and again sought time for settling the matter with the Applicant Bank. Hence, this Tribunal is of the view that now at the time of paying the dues of the Applicant, answering Defendant no. 1 cannot get absolved from its liability from paying the dues of the Applicant herein by taking such type of objections. With these observations, this objection of Defendant no. 1 stands rejected.

- (ii) Defendant no. 1 has also raised an objection that no valid board resolution alleged executed by the answering Defendant no. 1 resolving to execute alleged loan and security documents in favour of Applicant Bank has neither been pleaded nor filed by the Applicant Bank. Thus, the alleged loan and security document are not at all binding upon the answering Defendant. Hence, the present OA is liable to be dismissed with heavy and exemplary costs.

Record reveals that Applicant Bank has already placed on record the Board Resolution dated 18.12.2017 passed by the Board of Directors of Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW-1/3). Thus, this plea of Defendant no. 1 does not hold any water and same stands rejected.

- (iii) Defendant no. 1 has also raised an objection that all the security documents are alleged to have been executed on insufficient stamp papers rendering them to be liable for immediate impounding by this Hon'ble Tribunal.

This Tribunal is of the view that when the Defendant no. 1 did not raise any such objection at the time of availing loan facilities, now at the time of paying their dues, they cannot take benefit by taking such pleas. Even otherwise, Defendant no. 1 has failed to particularly identify any document which is purportedly "insufficiently stamped". Moreover, Defendants have not quantified the alleged deficiency. Even otherwise, this objection of the Defendant does not dislodge the underlying facts of sanction, disbursement, utilization and default. Accordingly, this objection of Defendant no. 1 also stands rejected.

- (iv) Next objection raised by the Defendant no. 1 is that the claim(s) of the Applicant Bank is / are hopelessly barred by limitation under Section 24 of RDB Act 1993.

Record reveals that the answering Defendant executed various security documents from time to time and lastly it executed the documents on 31.01.2018. It is also matter of record that since the Defendant failed to maintain financial discipline, hence, the loan account of Defendant no. 1 was declared as NPA on 30.10.2019. Moreover, Applicant Bank also issued Loan Recall Notice dated 07.07.2020 to Defendant no. 1 but the Defendant failed to make any payment, hence, this OA was on 25.02.2022, It is also evident from the record that the Defendant no. 1 also made a part payment against the subject dues on 12.03.2020.

In the light of above, it is clear that this OA has been filed well within the period of limitation. Accordingly, this plea of Defendant no. 1 stands rejected.

- (v) Defendant no. 1 has also taken a plea that Defendant no. 1 never submitted any request letters for sanction of the loan facilities.

It is matter of record that the Applicant Bank has duly filed all the security documents executed by Defendant no. 1, and the Defendant has also not denied their signatures / seal on the said documents. After availing the loan facilities from the Applicant, now at the time of paying the dues of the Applicant, Defendant cannot get benefit of such vague pleas.

It is also matter of record that the Defendant no. 1 time and again submitting OTS proposals with the Applicant meaning thereby they availed the facilities from the Applicant and now they want to settle the dues of the Applicant Bank (which is evident from the ordersheets of this case). In these circumstances, this objection of Defendants is liable to be rejected and same stands rejected.

- (vi) Defendant no. 1 has also taken a plea that the alleged documents filed and heavily relied upon by the Applicant Bank are not binding upon the answering defendant as the said documents contains blanks at various places and handwritten additions which were subsequently added by the bank to suit its own convenience. As such, the answering Defendant stands absolved from the alleged liability. Thus, no case can be said to be made out against the answering Defendant.

It is matter of record that Defendant no. 1 has not filed any documentary evidence in support of this contention. Even otherwise, in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of "Indian Bank Vs. Cheese Wafers (India) Pvt. Ltd. wherein 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 / without consent, alleged to be misused by the Applicant Banks, is not maintainable after filing of the suit. Accordingly, this objection of Defendant no. 1 is hereby rejected.

- (vii) Defendant no. 1 has also taken a plea that the Applicant has failed to make out any actionable cause for impleading the answering Defendant in the present proceedings herein, hence, this OA is liable to be dismissed qua the answering defendant with heavy costs.

It is matter of record that Defendant no. 1 has been impleaded in this case as the principal borrower Applicant Bank has already proved the documents executed by the answering Defendant which are part of this OA. Hence, the answering Defendant no. 1 has been impleaded in this OA for actionable cause. Thus, this Tribunal is of the view that such bald allegation levelled by the Defendant no. 1 does not hold any water and same stands rejected.

- (viii) Defendant no. 1 has raised an objection that the present OA has not been valued properly for the purposes of court-fee/ Application fees on the OA.

I have gone through the record of this case file. Admittedly, this OA has been filed by the Applicant Bank for recovery of more than Rs. 610.0 Crore (approx.) As per RDB Act, amount of fees payable by Applicant is calculated on the amount of debt due and when this OA is filed by the Applicant Bank, this Tribunal is of the view that appropriate court fees of Rs. 1,50,000/- (maximum) has already been paid by the Applicant. Thus, this plea of answering Defendant no. 1 is liable to be rejected and same stands rejected.

- (ix) Defendant no. 1 has raised an objection that the Applicant Bank has wrongly invoked the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Tribunal as a perusal of alleged loan and security documents relied upon by the Applicant Bank itself are stated to have been executed outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Tribunal. Hence, the present OA deserves to be dismissed with heavy costs.

It is matter of record that the issue of jurisdiction has already been decided by this Tribunal by passing a detailed order on 08.09.2025 wherein it held that *the Tribunal concludes that in pursuance to Section 19(1)(b) of the RDB Act, this Tribunal has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this OA.* As the said order has not been recalled / set aside by any higher authority till date, thus, it is clear that the said Order has attained finality. In these circumstances, this objection of answering Defendant no. 1 stands rejected.

- (x) Next objection raised by Defendant no. 1 is that the instant OA is not maintainable as the same has not been signed, verified nor filed by a duly authorized or competent person. It is stated in the WS that no valid authority letter in favour of Sh. Ayush Aggarwal, officer of Applicant Bank, has been placed on record.

It is matter of record that the Applicant herein has duly filed the Board Resolution dated 26.03.2020 of Applicant Bank as well as Power of Attorney dated 03.12.2020 (Annexure – 1-colly) in favour of its officer Mr. Ayush Agrawal which has already been proved by the Applicant in the OA. Even otherwise, no infirmity is found in the said authorization filed by the Applicant herein.

Further more, vide Order dated 16.12.2022 passed in IA No. 96/2023, this Tribunal has already allowed the substitution of present Applicant namely J.C. Flowers Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. as Applicant in place of Yes Bank Ltd. and the Board Resolution of JCF ARC authorizing Mr. Ajit Godara is also placed on record (Annexure A-3 filed a/w IA No. 99/2023).

In the light of above, this plea of Defendant no. 1 does not hold any water and same stands rejected.

(xi) Next objection raised by Defendant no. 1 is that the Applicant Bank has wrongly classified the account as NPA on 30.10.2019. It is stated in the WS that the Applicant Bank has failed to furnish any certain or valid reason for classifying the account as NPA.

It is matter of record that the Applicant Bank had classified the account of Defendant no. 1 as NPA on 30.10.2019 as per RBI guidelines when Defendant no. 1 failed to maintain financial discipline. It is also matter of record that Defendant no. 1 herein is still trying to settle the matter with the Applicant, hence, it is clear that such type of objection are taken by the answering Defendant that too without any documentary evidence for getting absolve from their liability. Hence, this objection of answering Defendant no. 1 is hereby rejected.

- (xii) Defendant no. 1 has also taken a plea that the alleged recall notice dated 07.07.2020 was never served upon the answering Defendant no. 1 by the Applicant Bank. It is stated that neither any proof of service nor any proof of acknowledgment of alleged recall notice dated 09.07.2020 has been placed on record by the Applicant Bank.

Though it is matter of record that the Applicant has not filed any proof of service with regard to alleged recall notice but on this ground, answering Defendant no. 1 cannot get absolve from its liabilities once the Applicant has duly proved availment of loan facilities by the answering Defendant. With these observations, this objection of Defendant no. 1 stands rejected.

- (xiii) Defendant no. 1 has also taken a plea that the Applicant has not filed the re-casted statement of accounts in terms of judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of *CBI Vs. Ravindra & Anr*. Further more, it is also stated that the alleged dues as drawn by the Applicant Bank is wrong, false and not in consonance with established legal procedure and RBI guidelines and apart from the exorbitant rate of interest, the Applicant Bank has also debited various wrongful charges and has compounded penal interest, liquidated damages etc. in the accounts of answering Defendant and despite that the bank has filed a wrong affidavit in support of its OA.

It is matter of record that the Applicant herein has already filed Statement of Accounts duly certified under the Banker's Book of Evidence Act 1891. On the other hand, Defendant no. 1 has not chosen to file its own statement of accounts. This Tribunal is of the view that this objection of Defendant no. 1 is merely a bald allegation without any substantial documentary evidence, hence, same is liable to be dismissed and same stands dismissed.

- (xiv) In its WS, Defendant no. 1 has also denied the diversion of the alleged borrowed funds to its various subsidiaries / related / non-related parties and Defendant no. 1 has raised its objections vide Reply dated 24.08.2020 to the show cause notice dated 29.07.2020 (Wilful Default) which was not responded by the Applicant Bank and the answering Defendant was constrained to seek its legal remedies.

This Tribunal is of the view that on this ground of denying the allegation of diversion of funds, Defendant no. 1 cannot get absolved from its liabilities towards the Applicant Bank. Hence, this plea of Defendant no. 1 stands rejected.

7.2 So far as, Defendant no. 2 is concerned, it is a Proforma Defendant and no relief has been claimed against this Defendant by the Applicant.

7.3 On the other hand, the witness of applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments made in the OA. Even otherwise the whole case of the applicant bank is based on the documents and the witness has duly proved all these documents. The evidence filed by the applicant bank gone unrebuted and there is no question of disbelieving the evidence lead by the applicant bank and applicant has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, the Applicant bank is entitled to recover the entire amount, as claimed in the OA from the Defendants along with pendentelite and future interest @10% p.a. and cost of this OA.

7.4 In this OA, Applicant has prayed to issue recovery certificate against Defendant no. 1 wherein the Defendant 1 is principal borrower.

So far as, Defendant no. 2 is concerned, no relief has been claimed by Applicant qua this Defendant being Proforma Defendant.

7.5 Consequently, TA No. 120/2022 is liable to be allowed in favour of Applicant against Defendant No. 1 (being Principal Borrower) who is liable to pay the dues of the Applicant along with costs and pendentelite & future interest @10% p.a. from the date of filing of present OA, till the date of payment in full.

**ORDER**

- (i) TA No. 12/2022 stands allowed in favour of Applicant and against the Defendant no. 1 for a sum of INR 6,102,129,644.42 (Indian Rupees Six Billion One Hundred Two Million One Hundred Twenty Nine Thousand Six Hundred Forty Four Point Forty Two only) viz. Rs. 610,21,29,644.42 (Rupees Six Hundred Ten Crore Twenty One Lakh Twenty Nine Thousand Six Hundred Forty Four and Paise Forty Two only) along with costs & pendentelite and future interest @10% p.a. from the date of filing of this OA till realization of the entire dues of the Applicant.

Now Defendant no. 1 is directed to the aforesaid amount(s) to the Applicant, within 30 days, failing which, the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of secured assets / hypothecated assets / stocks etc. belonging to Defendant no. 1.

In case of shortfall, same shall be recovered from the movable and immovable assets of Defendant no. 1 only.

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

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

TA-120/2022

- (iv) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer-I, DRT-III, Delhi on 25.11.2026.

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

File be closed and consigned to records.

09.09.2026

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

(Pronounced in open court) Dated: 09.09.2026

This image is a scan of a blank page. The background is a uniform light beige or off-white color. There are several small, dark, irregular specks scattered across the page, which appear to be scanning artifacts or dust particles. No text, lines, or other graphical elements are present.