NATIONAL ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD vs M/S SSA INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ORS on 3 October 2026

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

2. 2. Today, captioned TA as well as Counter Claim are listed for pronouncement of final order. Accordingly, common Final Order (in both the matters) prepared in separate sheets, signed and pronounced.

3. 3. A copy of this Order be placed in Counter Claim File as well.

4. 4. Both files of TA and Counter Claim be closed and consigned to record room.

03.10.2026

03/10/2026

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

This image is a scan of a blank page. The paper has a light beige or cream-colored tint. There are several small, dark specks scattered across the surface, which appear to be scanning artifacts or dust particles. No text, lines, or other markings are present on the page.

**DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, DELHI** **4^th Floor, Jeevan Tara Building,** **Parliament Street, New Delhi**

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

**(TA No. : 446/2022)**

**National Assets Reconstruction Company Limited (NARCL)**

(Assignee of State Bank of India vide Assignment Agreement dated 28.02.2023)

(Acting in its Capacity as Trustee of NARCL Trust – 0002/2022-23)

A company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013 and registered with the Reserve Bank of India as a Securitisation and Reconstruction Company pursuant to Section 3 of the SARFAESI, having its **Registered office at :**

6^th Floor, World Trade Centre WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400005

**[Name of National Asset Reconstruction Company Limited (NARCL) was substituted in place of State Bank of India vide Order dated 21.11.2023 passed in IA No. 208/2023 by this Tribunal]**

.....Applicant

**Versus**

**1. M/s SSA International Limited (Borrower)**

(Through its Managing Director)

**Registered office:**

21, First Floor, Arcon Plaza, Local Shopping Centre, Madangir, New Delhi – 110062

**Also at :**

Unit No. 137, DLF Prime Tower, F-Block, Okhla Phase-I, New Delhi – 110020


**Also at :**

67^th, Milestone, Samalkha, Village Bhodwal Majri, Near Dhaga Factory, Panipat, Haryana – 123101

1. **2. Sh. Naveen Mittal** S/o Late Sh. Sardari Lal Aggarwal, (Guarantor) D-250, Anupam Garden, Sainik Farms, New Delhi – 110062

2. **3. Sh. Rahul Mittal** S/o Sh. Sanjeev Mittal, (Guarantor) D-78, Pushpanjali Enclave, Pitampura, New Delhi – 110034

3. **4. Sh. Amit Mittal** S/o Sh. Anil Mittal, (Mortgagor) D-250, Anupam Garden, Sainik Farms, New Delhi – 110062

4. **5. Smt. Rita Mittal** W/o Sh. Anil Mittal, (Guarantor) D-250, Anupam Garden, Sainik Farms, New Delhi – 110062

5. **6. Sh. Atul Mittal** S/o Sh. Anil Mittal, (Mortgagor) D-250, Anupam Garden, Sainik Farms, New Delhi – 110062

6. **7. Sh. Anubhav Mittal** S/o Sh. Anil Mittal, (Mortgagor) 250, Anupam Garden, Sainik Farms,

New Delhi – 110062

**Also at :**

14, Summer Hill Road, Wayne, NJ 07470 USA

8. **Sh. Vinay Mittal** S/o Late Sh. Sardari Lal Aggarwal, (Guarantor) D-250, Anupam Garden, Sainik Farms, New Delhi – 110062

9. **M/s Samtex Fashions Limited** (Corporate Guarantor) (Through its Managing Director)

**Registered Office:**

D-100, Hosierty Complex, Phase-II, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, Pin-201305

10. **M/s SSR Apparels Pvt. Limited** (Corporate Guarantor) (Through its Managing Director)

**Registered Office:**

321 G, Chirag Enclave, New Delhi – 110017

11. **M/s Gartex Overseas Pvt. Limited** (Corporate Guarantor) (Through its Managing Director)

**Registered Office:**

D-78, Pushpanjali Enclave, Pitampura, New Delhi – 110034

12. **M/s Empire Finvest Pvt. Limited** (Corporate Guarantor) (Through its Managing Director)

**Registered Office:**

21, Kashmir Avenue, Amritsar, Punjab – 143001

**13. National Asset Reconstruction Company Limited (NARCL)**

(Assignee of IDBI Bank Limited vide Assignment Agreement dated 28.02.2023)

(Acting in its capacity as Trustee of NARCL Trust – 0002/2022-23)

**Registered Office at :**

6^th Floor, World Trade Centre WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400005

**14. National Asset Reconstruction Company Limited (NARCL)**

(Assignee of Canara Bank vide Assignment Agreement dated 28.02.2023)

(Acting in its capacity as Trustee of NARCL Trust – 0002/2022-23)

**Registered Office at :**

6^th Floor, World Trade Centre WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400005

**15. SBICAP Trustee Company Ltd.**

711, 7^th Floor, Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi – 110001

.....Defendants

&

**Counter Claim No. : NDN/31/2023 (TCC)**

**In**

**TA No. 446/2022**

**1. SSA International Limited**

**Registered Address :**

Unit No. 137, DLF Prime Tower, F Block, Okhla Phase-I, New Delhi – 110020

Through its authorized representative Sh. Naveen Mittal

1. 2. **Smt. Rita Mittal** W/o Late Sh. Anil Mittal, R/o D-250, Anupam Garden, Sainik Garden, New Delhi – 110062\

2. 3. **Sh. Vinay Mittal** S/o Sh. Sardari Lal Aggarwal, R/o D-250, Anupam Garden, Sainik Garden, New Delhi – 110062

3. 4. **Sh. Naveen Mittal** R/o D-250, Anupam Garden, Sainik Garden, New Delhi – 110062

4. 5. **Sh. Rahul Mittal** R/o D-78, Pushpanjali Enclave, Pitampura, New Delhi – 110034

.....Applicants

**Versus**

**State Bank of India** Stressed Assets Management Branch, 6^th Floor, Mohan Singh Place, Baba Kharak Singh Marg, Cannaught Place, New Delhi – 110001

.....Respondent

**Date of Institution of TA: 20.03.2018** **Date of Institution of Counter Claim (CC) : 17.12.2019** **Date of Reserving the Order on TA a/w CC: 29.09.2026** **Date of Pronouncement in TA a/w CC: 03.10.2026**

**Counsels in TA :**

Mr. A.K. Singh, for Applicant.

Mr. A.K.D. Sayare, for Defendants no. 1 to 6, 8 and 9 to 12.

Defendant no. 7 is ex parte vide Order dated 31.08.2018.

None for other Defendants.

&

**Counsels in CC :**

Mr. A.K.D. Sayare, Ld. counsel for Applicants no. 1 to 5 in CC (who are arrayed as Defendants no. 1, 5, 8, 2 & 3 respectively in TA)

Mr. A.K. Singh, for non-Applicant / respondent / SBI.

**FINAL ORDER**

**By this common order, both the matters i.e. TA No. 446/2022 as well as Counter Claim No. bearing no. NDN/31/2023 (TCC) shall be disposed off by this Tribunal.**

1. The present original application has been filed by the Applicant / State Bank of India on 20.03.2018, through Sh. Vinod Kumar, Assistant General Manager / Principal Officer, 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 Defendants for recovery of respective amount(s) due against them as detailed below:- <table border="1"><thead><tr><th><b>Facilities</b></th><th><b>Against Defendants numbers</b></th><th><b>Amount due</b></th><th><b>Pendentelite and future interest</b></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Working Capital Credit Facilities (for account Nos. 10324773627, 67003669288 and 67003669981)</td><td>1, 3, 5 and 8 to 12</td><td>428.66,78.187.81</td><td>11.40% p.a. with monthly rests &amp; 8% p.a. for EPC Facility</td></tr></tbody></table>

<tr> <td>Term Loans<br/>(for account<br/>Nos.<br/>32245522764<br/>and<br/>32850719202)</td> <td>1, 2, 5 and<br/>8 to 12</td> <td>635,38,366.02</td> <td>12.85/12.80%<br/>p.a.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Term Loan<br/>(for account<br/>No.<br/>6718679243)</td> <td>1, 2 and 5</td> <td>2,55,11,808.94</td> <td>12.15% p.a.</td> </tr> </table>

along with pendentelite and future interest (as mentioned above) from the date of filing of OA till the date of actual and final realization along with all costs and charges & other relief(s).

1.2 It is pertinent to note here that this OA bearing no. 530/2018 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 November 2022 and was numbered at TA-446/2022.

2. The present Counter Claim / CC has been filed by the Applicants (Defendants in OA) on 17.12.2019 under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 against the Respondent Bank for recovery of a sum of Rs. 487.0 Crore (Rupees Four Hundred and Eighty Seven Crore) together with further interest pendentelite and future interest on the amount due @12% p.a. till the date of the payment along with cost of Rs. 10.0 Lakh for filing the present Counter Claim.

2.1 It is pertinent to note here that this CC bearing no. 10/2022 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 November 2022 and was numbered at NDN/31/2022 (TCC).

Facts of TA

3. The brief facts of the case are that the Applicant Bank is a body corporate constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 carrying on its business of Banking. It has its branches throughout India and one of its branches, Stressed Assets Management Branch at 6^th Floor, Mohan Singh Place, Baba Kharak Singh Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110001. It is a body corporate with perpetual succession and can sue and be sued in its own name.

It is also stated that Sh. Vinod Kumar, is presently the Assistant General Manager and Principal Officer of the Stressed Assets Management Branch who is fully conversant with the facts of the case and as such is in a position to depose about the correctness or otherwise of the facts stated in the OA. He is competent to sign and verify all types of applications, plaints, written statements, petitions, vakalatnamas, affidavits, executions 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 General Regulations No. 76 & 77 of State Bank of India General Regulations 1955 made by the Reserve Bank of India in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Section (3) of Section 50 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 with the previous sanctions of the Central Government read with Gazette Notifications published in the Gazette of India dated 26.09.1959 and 26.08.1972.

3.1 It is stated in the OA that the Defendant no. 1 is a Company within the meaning of Companies Act, 1956 which is engaged in processing and trading of rice, rice bran oil and soya oil.

Defendant no. 2 is the Managing Director & Promoter of the Addressee no. 1 Company and has also stood as guarantor in his personal capacity in respect of credit / loan facilities granted to Defendant no. 1 by the Applicant Bank and executed various documents in favour of the Applicant Bank.

Defendants no. 3, 5 & 8 also stood as guarantors in their personal capacity in respect of credit / loan facilities granted to Defendant no. 1 by the Applicant Bank and executed various documents in favour of the Applicant Bank.

Defendants no. 9 to 12 are the Companies incorporated under the Companies Act and they have stood as Corporate Guarantors for the credit facilities granted to Defendant no. 1 from time to time by the Applicant Bank and executed various documents including Guarantee Deed in favour of the Applicant Bank.

Defendants no. 13 & 14 are Proforma Defendants being other Secured Creditor Consortium Lenders as part of SBI Consortium, who have granted various credit facilities including Working Capital to Defendant no. 1 from time to time and have charge over the movable and immovable properties of Defendant no. 1. Whereas, Defendant no. 15

is also a Proforma Defendant being a security trustee for holding, safe keeping and safe custody of the title deeds pertaining to the immovable properties for the benefit of all Lenders of the SBI Consortium.

3.2 It is stated in the OA that the Defendant no. 1 availed various Credit Facilities from time to time from the Applicant Bank being one of the Consortium Lenders consisting of the Applicant Bank, Defendant no. 13, Defendant no. 14 and State Bank of Travancore referred as SBI Consortium or Lenders. The Lenders have finally sanctioned Working Capital Facilities of Rs. 761.41 Crore to the Defendant no. 1 on the terms and conditions as set out in the respective sanction letters issued by the lenders from time to time, wherein Consortium Lenders have pari-passu charge over the assets of the Borrowers & Guarantors. Further, Defendant no. 1 and SBI Consortium have appointed Defendant no. 15 namely "SBICAP Trustee Company Ltd." as a security trustee for holding safe keeping and safe custody of the title deeds pertaining to the immovable properties for the benefit of all Lenders of the SBI Consortium.

3.3 It is further stated in the OA that vide Gazette Notification dated 22.02.2017, erstwhile State Bank of Travancore had merged with the Applicant Bank w.e.f. 01.04.2017. Therefore, all contracts, deeds, bonds, guarantees, agreements, assurances, powers of attorney, and other instruments of whatsoever nature and working arrangements subsisting immediately before the effective date shall be as of full force and effect against or in favour of the Applicant Bank i.e. Transferee Bank and enforceable as fully and effectually as if, instead of Transferor Banks.

3.4 It is also stated in the OA that Defendant no. 1 has equitably mortgaged the property bearing Plot No. 11, area admeasuring 97,750 square meters situated in Industrial Area Mandideep, Phase-II, Village Mandideep, Tehsil Goharganj, District Raisen, MP in favour of SBICAP Trustee Company Ltd. (Security Trustee) for securing the Credit Facilities availed by the Defendant no. 1 from the consortium Lenders.

Defendant no. 3 has also equitably mortgaged the property being the Residential Flat No. A-602, 6^th Floor, SS Enclave built on Plot No. GH-3, Sector Beta-II, Greater Noida, UP having area admeasuring 777.73 sq. feet in favour of SBICAP Trustee Company Ltd. (Security Trustee) for securing the Credit Facilities availed by the Defendant no. 1 from the consortium Lenders.

Further, Defendants no. 4 to 7 have also equitably mortgaged the property being the Residential Flat No. B-802, 8^th Floor, SS Enclave built on Plot No. GH-3, Sector Beta-II, Greater Noida, UP having area admeasuring 1084.50 sq. feet in favour of SBICAP Trustee Company Ltd. (Security Trustee) for securing the Credit Facilities availed by the Defendant no. 1 from the consortium Lenders.

Moreover, Defendants no. 2 & 5 have also equitably mortgaged the property bearing House No. D-78, Pushpanjali Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi having area admeasuring 212.75 sq. meters in favour of SBICAP Trustee Company Ltd. (Security Trustee) for securing the Credit Facilities availed by the Defendant no. 1 from the consortium Lenders.

Defendant no. 10 has also equitably mortgaged the property consisting of Freehold land measuring 13 Kanal 8 marla in Survey No. 941 Khatauni No. 1025 (New No. 1004) of Killa No. 165/10 (7-8), 165/2/1 (6-0) in Village Pattiklalan, Tehsil Samalkha, District Panipat, Haryana in favour of SBICAP Trustee Company Ltd. (Security Trustee) for securing the Credit Facilities availed by the Defendant no. 1 from the consortium Lenders.

Further, Defendant no. 11 has equitably mortgaged the property consisting of Freehold land measuring 5 Kanal 8 marla in Khewat No. 412 Min Khatuani 449 as 108/148 share of Killa No. 165/10 (7-8), 165/2/1 (6-0) in Village Pattiklalan, Tehsil Samalkha, District Panipat, Haryana in favour of SBICAP Trustee Company Ltd. (Security Trustee) for securing the Credit Facilities availed by the Defendant no. 1 from the consortium Lenders.

Defendant no. 12 has created Negative Lien on the property situated at 12^th Floor, Big Jo's Estate, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, Delhi – 110034 admeasuring 45.39 sq. ft. in favour of the Applicant Bank for securing the Credit Facilities availed by the Defendant no. 1 from the Applicant Bank.

**Individual and Consortium Documents regarding Credit Facilities granted by Applicant Bank as part of "SBI Consortium"**

3.5 It is stated in the OA that Defendant no. 1 being the Borrower furnished the requisite Resolutions dated 08.11.2011, 11.01.2013, 12.11.2013, 30.08.2014, 29.09.2014(2), 27.09.2011, 09.02.2015, 13.07.2017, 31.07.2017 and 19.08.2017 in respect of the various loan/credit facilities granted to Defendant no. 1 by the Applicant Bank from time to time.

It is also stated in the OA that Defendant no. 9 being the Corporate Guarantor furnished the requisite Resolutions dated 15.11.2011, 12.01.2013, 14.02.2014, 14.09.2015 and 27.07.2017 in respect of the various loan/credit facilities granted to Defendant no. 1 by the Bank from time to time.

It is stated in the OA that Defendant no. 10 being the Corporate Guarantor furnished the requisite Resolutions dated 10.11.2011, 12.01.2013, 30.08.2014, 10.10.2015 and 26.07.2017 in respect of the various loan/credit facilities granted to Defendant no. 1 by the Bank from time to time.

It is also stated in the OA that Defendant no. 11 being the Corporate Guarantor furnished the requisite Resolutions dated 10.11.2011, 14.01.2013, 30.08.2014, 30.10.2015, 29.10.2015, 30.10.2015 and 26.07.2017 in respect of the various loan/credit facilities granted to Defendant no. 1 by the Bank from time to time.

It is further stated in the OA that Defendant no. 12 being the Corporate Guarantor furnished the requisite Resolutions dated 18.11.2011, 14.01.2013, 30.08.2014(2), 10.10.2015 and 26.07.2017 in respect of the various loan/credit facilities granted to Defendant no. 1 by the Bank from time to time.

3.6 It is stated in the OA that Defendant no. 1, as Borrower and Defendants no. 2, 8 to 12 and Late Sh. Anil Mittal, as Guarantors, approached the Applicant Bank for renewal / enhancement of various credit facilities for business of Defendant no. 1 in the month of November 2011. The Applicant Bank sanctioned financial assistance by way of various credit facilities to Defendant no.1 to the tune of Rs. 198.40 Crore vide its Sanction Letter dated 08.11.2011 including a New Term Loan for Rs. 7.50 Crore which are as follows:-

<thead> <tr> <th>Nature of Facility / Limit</th> <th>Amount<br/>(Rs. in Crores)</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td><b>A. Fund Based Credit Limit</b></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td>i. Cash Credit (Hypothecation) Stocks</td> <td>63.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>ii. Cash Credit (Book Debts)</td> <td>(30.00)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>iii. EPC</td> <td>74.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>iv. FBP/FBD/Advance against collection</td> <td>10.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td><b>Total Fund Based Working Capital Limit</b></td> <td><b>147.00</b></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Term Loan / CL</td> <td>15.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>New Term Loan</td> <td>7.50</td> </tr> <tr> <td><b>Total FL/CL</b></td> <td><b>22.50</b></td> </tr> <tr> <td><b>Total Fund Based Loan</b></td> <td><b>169.50</b></td> </tr> <tr> <td><b>B. Non-Fund Based Limits</b></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td>i. Letters of Credit / Buyers Credit</td> <td>11.50</td> </tr> <tr> <td>ii. Bank Guarantee</td> <td>02.25</td> </tr> <tr> <td><b>Total Non-Fund Based Limits</b></td> <td><b>13.75</b></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Stand by Limit</td> <td>12.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Forward</td> <td>3.15</td> </tr> <tr> <td><b>Total Limit (A+B)</b></td> <td><b>198.40</b></td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

In consideration to the grant of the credit facilities to the Defendant no. 1, Defendant no.1, as borrower, and 2,3, 8 to 12 and Late Sh. Anil Mittal, as guarantor, signed and executed the following loan and Guarantee documents in favour of the Applicant Bank on 20.03.2012:-

- (i) Sanction Letter dated 08.11.2011 signed by Defendant no. 1 and Defendants 2, 8 to 12 and Late Sh. Anil Mittal in token of having accepted the terms and conditions regulating the aforesaid credit facilities of Rs. 198.40 Crore;

- (ii) Agreement of Loan for Overall Limit (Form C-1A) dated 20.03.2012 signed and executed by Defendant no. 1;

- (iii) Agreement of Hypothecation of goods and assets (Form C-2) dated 20.03.2012 signed and executed by Defendant no. 1;

- (iv) Deeds of Guarantee for Overall Limit (Form C 4 A) dated 20.03.2012 signed and executed by Defendants no. 12, 8 to 12 and Late Sh. Anil Mittal;

- (v) Letter regarding the Grant of Individual Limits within the Overall Limits (Form C 5) dated 20.03.2012 signed and executed by Defendant no. 1 for the new Term Loan of Rs. 7.50 Crore;

- (vi) CIBIL, Consent Clause dated 20.03.2012 signed and executed by Defendants no. 2 and 8 to 12 and Late Sh. Anil Mittal.

It is further stated in the OA that Defendant no. 5, being wife of Late Sh. Anil Mittal, as Guarantor signed and executed Deeds of Guarantee for Overall Limit (Form C 4 A) dated 27.11.2015 for the new Term Loan of Rs. 7.50 Crore.

3.7 It is stated in the OA that the Defendant no. 1, as Borrower and Defendants no. 2, 8 to 12 and Late Sh. Anil Mittal, as Guarantors, approached the Applicant Bank for renewal / enhancement of various credit facilities for business of Defendant no. 1 in the month of January 2013. The Applicant Bank sanctioned financial assistance by way of various credit facilities to Defendant no. 1 to the tune of Rs. 287.25 Crore vide Sanction Letter dated 11.01.2013

including a Term Loan for Rs. 7.80 Crore which are detailed below :-

<thead> <tr> <th>Nature of Facility / Limit</th> <th>Amount<br/>(Rs. in Crores)</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td><b>A. Fund Based Credit Limit</b></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td>i. EPC</td> <td>104.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>ii. Cash Credit (Hypothecation) Stocks</td> <td>93.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>iii. FBP/FBD/Advance against collection</td> <td>20.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td><b>Total Fund Based Working Capital Limit</b></td> <td><b>217.00</b></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Term Loan / CL</td> <td>18.70</td> </tr> <tr> <td>New Term Loan</td> <td>7.80</td> </tr> <tr> <td><b>Total FL/CL</b></td> <td><b>26.50</b></td> </tr> <tr> <td><b>Total Fund Based Loan</b></td> <td><b>243.50</b></td> </tr> <tr> <td><b>B. Non-Fund Based Limits</b></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td>i. Letters of Credit / Buyers Credit</td> <td>17.50</td> </tr> <tr> <td>ii. Bank Guarantees</td> <td>02.25</td> </tr> <tr> <td><b>Total Non-Fund Based Limits</b></td> <td><b>19.75</b></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Stand by Limit</td> <td>20.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Forward</td> <td>4.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td><b>Total Limit (A+B)</b></td> <td><b>287.25</b></td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

In consideration to the grant of the credit facilities to the Defendant no. 1, Defendant no.1, as borrower, and 2,3, 8 to 12 and Late Sh. Anil Mittal, as guarantor, signed and executed the following loan and Guarantee documents in favour of the Applicant Bank on 26.02.2013:-

- (i) Sanction Letter dated 11.01.2013 signed by Defendant no. 1 and Defendants 2, 8 to 12 and Late Sh. Anil Mittal in token of having accepted the terms and conditions regulating the aforesaid credit facilities of Rs. 287.25 Crore;

- (ii) Agreement of Loan for Overall Limit (Form C-1A) dated 26.02.2013 for Rs. 7.80 Crore signed and executed by Defendant no. 1;

- (iii) Agreement of Hypothecation of goods and assets (Form C-2) dated 26.02.2013 signed and executed by Defendant no. 1;

- (iv) Deeds of Guarantee for Overall Limit (Form C 4 A) dated 26.02.2013 signed and executed by Defendants no. 2, 3, 8 to 12 and Late Sh. Anil Mittal;

- (v) Letter regarding the Grant of Individual Limits within the Overall Limits (Form C 5) dated 26.02.2013 signed and executed by Defendant no. 1 for the new Term Loan of Rs. 7.80 Crore;

- (vi) CIBIL Consent Clause dated 26.02.2013 signed and executed by Defendants no. 1, 2, 3, 8 to 12 and Late Sh. Anil Mittal.

It is further stated in the OA that Defendant no. 5, being wife of Late Sh. Anil Mittal, as Guarantor signed and executed Deeds of Guarantee for Overall Limit (Form C 4 A) dated 27.11.2015 for the new Term Loan of Rs. 7.80 Crore.

3.8 It is further stated in the OA that the Defendant no. 1, as Borrower and Defendants no. 2, 8 to 12 and Late Sh. Anil Mittal, as Guarantors, approached the Applicant Bank for renewal / enhancement of various credit facilities for business of Defendant no. 1 in the month of November 2013. The Applicant Bank sanctioned financial assistance by way of various credit facilities to Defendant no. 1 to the tune of Rs. 287.25 Crore vide Sanction Letter dated 11.01.2013 including a Term Loan for Rs. 7.80 Crore.

At the request of Borrower / Guarantors / mortgagors and so also after due and usual verification of the financial status and requirements of Defendant no. 1, the Applicant Bank sanctioned following credit facilities to the Defendant no. 1 vide Sanction Letter dated 11.11.2013:-

<thead> <tr> <th>Nature of Facility / Limit</th> <th>Amount<br/>(Rs. in Crores)</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td><b>A. Fund Based Credit Limit</b></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td>i. EPC</td> <td>145.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>ii. Cash Credit (Hypothecation) Stocks</td> <td>125.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>iii. FBP/FBD/Advance against collection</td> <td>20.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td><b>Total Fund Based Working Capital Limit</b></td> <td><b>290.00</b></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Term Loan / CL</td> <td>20.48</td> </tr> <tr> <td><b>Total FL/CL</b></td> <td><b>20.48</b></td> </tr> <tr> <td><b>Total Fund Based Loan</b></td> <td><b>310.48</b></td> </tr> <tr> <td><b>B. Non-Fund Based Limits</b></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td>i. Letters of Credit / Buyers Credit</td> <td>22.50</td> </tr> <tr> <td>ii. Bank Guarantees</td> <td>02.25</td> </tr> <tr> <td><b>Total Non-Fund Based Limits</b></td> <td><b>24.75</b></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Stand by Limit</td> <td>30.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>CEL</td> <td>8.29</td> </tr> <tr> <td><b>Total Limit (A+B)</b></td> <td><b>375.25</b></td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

3.9 It is also stated in the OA that initially the Applicant Bank along with Defendants no. 13, 14 and State Bank of Travancore agreed to enter a Consortium Arrangement with the lead banker as State Bank of India in connection of the Working Capital Credit facilities granted to Defendant no. 1 specially (hereinafter referred as "the Working Capital Consortium), wherein the Applicant Bank was the lead Bank. It is pertinent to point out that State Bank of Travancore was subsequently acquired by the Applicant Bank. The Applicant Bank along with Defendant no. 13 & 14 Banks and State Bank of Travancore sanctioned the following Working Capital Limits to Defendant no. 1 in the year 2013 & 2014:-

<thead> <tr> <th rowspan="2">Name of the Working Capital Lenders</th> <th colspan="6">Limits of Credit Facilities<br/>(in Rs. Crore)</th> </tr> <tr> <th>Fund Based</th> <th>Non-Fund Based</th> <th>Total</th> <th>Forward Contract</th> <th>Stand by limits</th> <th>Grand Total</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>State Bank of India (Applicant Bank)</td> <td>290+60 (PBLC)</td> <td>24.75</td> <td>374.75</td> <td>8.29</td> <td>30</td> <td>413.04</td> </tr> <tr> <td>IDBI Bank Ltd. (Defendant no. 13)</td> <td>40+5 (PBLC)</td> <td>12</td> <td>57</td> <td>1</td> <td>-</td> <td>58</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Erstwhile State Bank of Travancore (acquired by the Applicant Bank)</td> <td>90+20 (PBLC)</td> <td>-</td> <td>110</td> <td>-</td> <td>3</td> <td>113</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Canara Bank (Defendant no. 14)</td> <td>95</td> <td>15.75</td> <td>110.75</td> <td>-</td> <td>22</td> <td>132.75</td> </tr> <tr> <td><b>Total</b></td> <td><b>600</b></td> <td><b>52.8</b></td> <td><b>652.50</b></td> <td><b>9.29</b></td> <td><b>55</b></td> <td><b>716.79</b></td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

3.10 In consideration to the Consortium Arrangements for the Working Capital Overall Limit of Rs. 716.79 Crore by Consortium Banks, Defendant no.1, as borrower, and 2, 5 and 8 to 12, as guarantor, signed and executed the following loan and Guarantee documents on 24.09.2014 in favour of the Consortium Banks & Defendant no. 15 (the Security Trustee) :-

- (i) Working Capital Consortium Agreement dated 24.09.2014 signed and executed by Defendant no. 1;

- (ii) Joint Deed of Hypothecation dated 24.09.2014 signed and executed by Defendant no. 1;

- (iii) RBI Clause document dated 24.09.2014 signed and executed by Defendant no. 1 in favour of the Consortium Banks;

- (iv) Deed of Guarantee dated 24.09.2014 signed and executed by Defendants no. 5, 8 and Sh. Anil Mittal in favour of the Consortium Banks;

- (v) Deeds of Corporate Guarantee dated 24.09.2014 signed and executed by Defendants no. 9 to 12 in favour of the Defendant no. 15 for the Working Capital Limits granted by the Consortium Banks to Defendant no. 1;

- (vi) Letter of Authority to the Consortium Bank dated 24.09.2014 signed and executed by Defendant no. 1 in favour of the Lead Bank i.e. the Applicant Bank;

- (vii) Letter of Undertaking for creating a Second Charge on fixed assets dated 21.05.2008 signed and executed by Defendant no. 1 in favour of the Consortium Member Banks.

It is stated in the OA that the Applicant Bank along with other consortium Banks signed and executed an Inter Se Agreement dated 24.09.2014 for the Working Capital Facilities granted to Defendant no. 1 by them.

Further, the Applicant Bank being the lead Bank, Defendant no. 1, Consortium Leaders and Defendant no. 15, being a Security Trustee executed a Security Trustee Agreement dated 24.09.2014 to govern the security Trustee arrangements and so also for management of the Security Interest of the Consortium Lenders.

It is also stated that the erstwhile State Bank of Travancore along with Defendants no. 13 & 14 signed and executed a Letter of Authority authorizing the Lead Bank (Applicant Bank) to make the first disbursement on behalf of other Consortium Member Bank dated 24.09.2014 in favour of the Applicant Bank for the working Capital granted by the Consortium Banks to Defendant no. 1.

It is further stated in the OA that Defendant no. 15 vide its Letter dated 07.01.2015 had confirmed the holding of the security documents on behalf of the Consortium Banks and so also for creation of the security in its favour.

3.11 It is stated in the OA that at the request of Borrower / Guarantors / Mortgagors and also after due and usual verification of the financial status and requirements of Defendant no. 1, the Applicant Bank sanctioned / enhanced the following credit facilities to the Defendant no. 1 vide its Sanction Letter dated 16.02.2015 :-

<thead> <tr> <th>Nature of Facility / Limit</th> <th>Amount<br/>(Rs. in Crores)</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td><b>A. Fund Based Credit Limit</b></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td>i. EPC</td> <td>155.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>ii. Cash Credit (Hypotheccation) Stocks</td> <td>135.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>iii. FBP/FBD/Advance against collection</td> <td>20.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td><b>Total Fund Based Working Capital Limit</b></td> <td><b>310.00</b></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Term Loan / CL</td> <td>10.24</td> </tr> <tr> <td><b>Total FL/CL</b></td> <td><b>10.24</b></td> </tr> <tr> <td><b>Total Fund Based Loan</b></td> <td><b>320.24</b></td> </tr> <tr> <td><b>B. Non-Fund Based Limits</b></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td>i. Letters of Credit / Buyers Credit</td> <td>22.50</td> </tr> <tr> <td>ii. Bank Guarantees</td> <td>02.25</td> </tr> <tr> <td><b>Total Non-Fund Based Limits</b></td> <td><b>24.75</b></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Stand by Limit</td> <td>30.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>CEL</td> <td>8.61</td> </tr> <tr> <td><b>Total Limit (A+B)</b></td> <td><b>383.60</b></td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

It is stated in the OA that at the request of the Borrower Defendant no. 1, the Working Capital Lenders have enhanced the working Capital Limits to Defendant no. 1 as per the First Amended and Restated Working Capital Consortium Agreement (WCCA) dated 27.11.2015. the details of the Facility sanctioned by the Consortium and sharing pattern of Consortium member Banks are as follows:-

<thead> <tr> <th rowspan="2">Name of the Working Capital Lenders</th> <th colspan="7">Limits of Credit Facilities (in Rs. Crore)</th> </tr> <tr> <th>Fund Based</th> <th>Non-Fund Based</th> <th>Total</th> <th>Forward Contract</th> <th>Stand by limits</th> <th>FBP/FBD Under L/C</th> <th>Grand Total</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>State Bank of India (Applicant Bank)</td> <td>310</td> <td>24.75</td> <td>334.75</td> <td>8.61</td> <td>30</td> <td>60</td> <td>433.36</td> </tr> <tr> <td>IDBI Bank Ltd. (Defendant no. 13)</td> <td>44</td> <td>12</td> <td>56</td> <td>1</td> <td>-</td> <td>5</td> <td>62</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Erstwhile State Bank of Travancore</td> <td>95</td> <td>-</td> <td>95</td> <td>2</td> <td>5</td> <td>20</td> <td>122.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Canara Bank (Defendant no. 14)</td> <td>116</td> <td>15.75</td> <td>131.75</td> <td>-</td> <td>12/30</td> <td>-</td> <td>144.05</td> </tr> <tr> <td><b>Total</b></td> <td><b>565</b></td> <td><b>52.50</b></td> <td><b>617.50</b></td> <td><b>11.61</b></td> <td><b>47.30</b></td> <td><b>85</b></td> <td><b>761.41</b></td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

In consideration to the enhancement of the Consortium Arrangements for the Working Capital Overall Limit of Rs. 761.41 Crore by Consortium Banks, Defendant no.1, as borrower, and 2, 3. 5 and 8 to 12, as guarantor, signed and executed the following loan and Guarantee documents on 27.11.2015 in favour of the Consortium Banks & Defendant no. 15 (the Security Trustee) :-

1. (i) First Amendatory and Restated Security Trustee Agreement;

2. (ii) First Amendatory and Restated Working Capital Consortium Agreement dated 27.11.2015 signed and executed by Defendant no. 1;

- (iii) First Amendatory and Restated Joint Deed of Hypothecation Agreement dated 27.11.2015 signed and executed by Defendant no. 1;

- (iv) First Amendatory and Restated Inter se Agreement dated 27.11.2015;

- (v) Letter of Authority to the Lead Bank (Applicant Bank), signed and executed by Defendant no. 1;

- (vi) Letter of Authority to Second Lead Bank dated 27.11.2015;

- (vii) Letter dated 27.11.2015 signed and executed by Defendant no. 1 regarding Compliances of RBI Clauses;

- (viii) Letter of Undertaking dated 27.11.2015 signed and executed by Defendant no. 1 for creating a Second Charge on Fixed Assets;

- (ix) First Amendatory and Restated Deed of Guarantee by Defendants no. 2, 3, 5 & 8;

- (x) First Amendatory and Restated Deed of Corporate Guarantee dated 27.11.2015 by Defendants no. 9 to 12.

It is stated in the OA that the Applicant Bank along with other consortium Banks signed and executed an Inter Se Agreement dated 27.11.2015 for the Working Capital Facilities granted to Defendant no. 1 by them.

Further, the Applicant Bank being the lead Bank, Defendant no. 1, Consortium Leaders and Defendant no. 15, being a Security Trustee executed a Security Trustee Agreement dated 27.11.2015 to govern the security Trustee arrangements and so also for management of the Security Interest of the Consortium Lenders and further issued a Letter dated 31.12.2015 confirming the deposit and execution of the aforesaid documents in its favour by the Borrowers, Guarantors and mortgagors for the credit facilities availed by Defendant no. 1 from the consortium Lenders.

It is also stated that the erstwhile State Bank of Travancore along with Defendants no. 13 & 14 signed and executed a Letter of Authority authorizing the Lead Bank (Applicant Bank) to make the first disbursement on behalf of other Consortium Member Bank dated 27.11.2015 in favour of the Applicant Bank for the working Capital granted by the Consortium Banks to Defendant no. 1.

It is further stated in the OA that Defendant no. 15 vide its Letter dated 31.12.2015 had confirmed the holding of the security documents on behalf of the Consortium Banks and so also for creation of the security in its favour.

**Individual documentation in favour of erstwhile State Bank of Travancore**

3.12 It is also stated in the OA that at the request of Defendant no. 1, the erstwhile State Bank of Travancore vide its Sanction Letter dated 29.05.2012 sanctioned a Term Loan of Rs. 4.80 Crore to the Defendant no. 1 Company for setting up a Rice Bran Oil-Solvent Extraction Plant. It is pertinent to point out that the said Term Loan was granted to Defendant no. 1 in addition to the Working Capital and other credit facilities granted along with the Consortium Lenders. The details of the Credit Facilities granted vide Sanction Letter dated 29.05.2012 are as follows:- (Rs. in Crores)

<thead> <tr> <th>Facility</th> <th>Limit</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>Term Loan</td> <td>4.80</td> </tr> <tr> <td><b>Total</b></td> <td><b>4.80</b></td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

In consideration to the grant of the additional Term Loan for an amount of Rs. 4.80 Crore to the Defendant no. 1, Defendant no.1, as borrower, and 2, 8 to 12 and Late Sh. Anil Mittal, as guarantor, signed and executed the following loan and Guarantee documents in favour of the Applicant Bank on 13.06.2012:-

- (i) Sanction Letter dated 29.05.2012 signed by Defendant no. 1 and Defendants 2, 3, 8 to 12 and Late Sh. Anil Mittal in token of having accepted the terms and conditions regulating the Term Loan of Rs. 4.80 Crore;

- (ii) Term Loan Agreement for High Value Advances (Form C & I-5) dated 13.06.2012 for Rs. 4.80 Crore signed and executed by Defendant no. 1;

- (iii) Agreement of Hypothecation for Term Loan (Form C & I-6) dated 13.06.2012 for Rs. 4.80 Crore and charge on the Rice Bran Oil Solvent Extraction plant at Mandideep, Madhya Pradesh signed and executed by Defendant no. 1;

- (iv) Deeds of Guarantee for Term Loan of Rs. 4.80 Crore (Form C & I-7) dated 13.06.2012 signed and executed by Defendants no. 2, 3, 8 to 12 and Late Sh. Anil Mittal.

It is further stated in the OA that subsequently, Defendant no. 5, being wife of Late Sh. Anil Mittal, as Guarantor signed and executed Deeds of Guarantee for Overall Limit (Form C & I-7) dated 10.02.2015 for the new Term Loan of Rs. 4.80 Crore.

3.13 It is stated in the OA that at the request of Defendant no. 1, the erstwhile State Bank of Travancore vide its Sanction Letter dated 30.03.2016 sanctioned / renewed the various Credit facilities granted to Defendant no. 1 along with other Consortium Lenders. It is pertinent to point out that Defendants no. 1 to 3, 5, 8 to 12 being Borrower and Guarantors accepted the terms and conditions mentioned in the Sanction Letter dated 30.03.2016. The details of the Credit facilities granted vide said Sanction Letter dated 30.03.2016 for renewal cum enhancement of the Credit facilities are as follows:- (Rs. in Crore)

<thead> <tr> <th>Facility</th> <th>Limit</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>CC(HYP)/EPC/PCFC/FDBP/FBEP(LC/Non-LC) with full interchangeability</td> <td>95.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Stand by Limit (Gold Card Scheme)</td> <td>5.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>PB/WC</td> <td>100.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>NFB Limits</td> <td>0.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Forward Contract (Purchases)</td> <td>100.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td><b>Total FB + NFB</b></td> <td><b>100.00</b></td> </tr> <tr> <td><b>Limits Outside ABF</b></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td>FDBP/FBEP Limit under L/C of first Class Bank (Outside ABF)</td> <td>20.00</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

3.14 It is stated in the OA that Defendant no. 1 on 11.12.2015 has created first charge over movable fixed assets of the Borrower situated at Mandideep Industrial Area, Madhya Pradesh on pari-passu basis among all consortium members and equitably mortgaged the property bearing Plot No. 11, area admeasuring 97,750 square meters situated in Industrial Area Mandideep, Phase-II, Village 

Mandideep, Tehsil Goharganj, District Raisen, MP for the credit facilities availed by Defendant no. 1. It is further stated that Defendant no. 1 also signed and executed a Memorandum of Entry dated 11.12.2015 in favour of Defendant no. 15, and the same was got registered on 27.12.2015 in Madhya Pradesh.

It is also stated in the OA that the whole of the movable fixed assets of the Borrower Defendant no. 1 Company, both present and future, by way of 2^nd charge on a Pari-passu basis among all consortium members namely movable machinery including but not limited to, machinery spares, equipment tools and accessories, furniture & fixture, vehicles and all other movable fixed assets acquired / to be acquired by the Defendant no. 1 out of the loans, both present and future, whether installed or not and whether now loose or in cases of which are now lying or to be stored at any place whatsoever or be held by any party to the order or disposition of the Defendant no. 1 or in the course of transit or in high seas or on order or delivery (movable fixed assets) are secured for the Credit facilities granted to Defendant no. 1 by the Applicant Bank and Defendant no. 13 & 14.

3.15 It is also stated in the OA that Defendants no. 2 & 5 on 26.12.2014 have created equitable mortgage on pari passu basis among all consortium members by deposit of the title deed by constructive delivery of the property bearing House No. D-78, Pushpanjali Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi on Plot of land measuring 212.75 square meters in favour of Defendant no. 15 (Security Trustee). Defendants no. 2 & 5 also executed a Declaration cum Undertaking dated 11.12.2015 in favour of Defendant no. 15 for the credit facilities granted to Defendant no. 1 by the Consortium Lenders. Further more, Defendants no. 2 & 5 also signed and executed a Memorandum of Entry dated 11.12.2015 in favour of Defendant no. 15. [brief particulars of the mortgaged properties have been given in Para 5(5.48) of OA].

It is further stated in the OA that Defendant no. 3 on 11.12.2015 has created equitable mortgage on pari passu basis among all consortium members by deposit of the title deed of the property being the Residential Flat No. A-602, 6^th Floor, SS Enclave built on Plot No. GH-03, Sector Beta-II, Greater Noida, UP having area admeasuring 777.73 Sq. feet with Defendant no. 15 (Security Trustee) for the credit facilities granted to Defendant no. 1 by the Consortium Lenders. Defendant no. 3 signed and executed a Declaration cum Undertaking dated 11.12.2015 and a Memorandum of Entry dated 12.12.2015 in favour of Defendant no. 15. [brief particulars of the mortgaged property have been given in Para 5(5.49) of OA].

It is also stated in the OA that Defendants no. 4, 5, 6 & 7 on 11.12.2015 have created equitable mortgage on pari passu basis among all consortium members by deposit of the title deeds of the property being the Residential Flat No. B-802, 8^th Floor, SS Enclave built on Plot No. GH-03, Sector Beta-II, Greater Noida, UP having area admeasuring 1084.50 sq. feet with Defendant no. 15 (Security Trustee) for the credit facilities granted by the Consortium Lenders. Defendants no. 4, 5, 6 & 7 signed and executed a Declaration cum Undertaking dated 11.12.2015 and a Memorandum of Entry dated 12.12.2015 in favour of Defendant no. 15. [brief particulars of the mortgaged properties have been given in Para 5(5.50) of OA].

It is stated in the OA that Defendant no. 11 on 23.12.2014 has created equitable mortgage on pari passu basis among all consortium members by deposit of the title deeds of the immovable properties consist of (a) Freehold land measuring 5 Kanal 8 Marla in Khewat No. 412 Min Khatauni No. 449, as 108/148 share of Killa No. 165/10 (7-8) in Village Pattikalan Tehsil Samalkha, District Panipat, Haryana (b) Freehold land measuring 6 Kanal 16 Marla in Khewat No. 650 Min Khatauni No. 714 of Killa No. 165/11 (6-16) in Village Pattikalan Tehsil Samalkha, District Panipat, Haryana with Defendant no. 15 (Security Trustee) for the credit facilities granted to Defendant no. 1 by the Consortium Lenders. Defendant no. 11 also signed and executed a Declaration cum Undertaking dated 11.12.2015 and a Memorandum of Entry dated 12.12.2015 in favour of Defendant no. 15. [brief particulars of the mortgaged properties have been given in Para 5(5.51) of OA].

It is further stated in the OA that Defendant no. 10 on 15.12.2014 has created equitable mortgage on pari passu basis among all consortium members by deposit of the title deeds of the immovable properties consist of Freehold land measuring 13 Kanal 8 Marla in Survey No. 941 Min Khatauni No. 1025 (New No. 1004), Killa No. 165/1 (7-8), 165/2/1(6-0) in Village Pattikalan Tehsil Samalkha, District Panipat, Haryana with Defendant no. 15 (Security Trustee) for the credit facilities granted to Defendant no. 1 by the Consortium Lenders. Defendant no. 10 also signed and executed a Declaration cum Undertaking dated 11.12.2015 and a Memorandum of Entry dated 12.12.2015 in favour of Defendant no. 15. [brief particulars of the mortgaged properties have been given in Para 5(5.52) of OA].

It is also stated in the OA that Defendant no. 12 has created Negative Lien on the Property situated at 12^th Floor, Big Jo's Estate, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, Delhi - 110034 admeasuring 45.39 sq. ft. in favour of the Applicant Bank for securing the credit facilities availed by the Defendant no. 1 from the Consortium Banks by signing and executing an Undertaking cum Negative lien dated 27.11.2015.

3.16 It is stated in the OA that the Defendant no. 1 hypothecated its entire current assets by way of 1^st charge on pari passu basis among all consortium member [details given in Para 5(5.54) of the OA].

Further more, Defendant no. 1 also created exclusive Charge over the Co-generation Power Plant situated at Samalkha, Panipat, Haryana for the Term Loan-I, granted to it for an amount of Rs. 7.50 crore by the Applicant Bank.

Defendant no. 1 also created exclusive Charge over the entire fixed assets created at Rice Mill 2 at Mandideep Pant at Madhya Pradesh for the Term Loan-II, granted to it for an amount of Rs. 7.80 Crore by the Applicant Bank.

Moreover, Defendant no. 1 created exclusive Charge over the fixed assets created at Rice Bran Oil Solvent Extraction plant at Mandideep (excluding Land) for the Term Loan, granted to it for an amount of Rs. 4.80 Crore by the erstwhile State Bank of Travancore.

3.17 It is stated in the OA that Defendant no. 1 signed and acknowledged the Sanction Letter dated 16.02.2015 in token of having accepted the terms and conditions regulating the aforesaid credit facilities of Rs. 383.60 Crore granted to Defendant no. 1 by the Applicant Bank. Similarly, Defendant no. 1 signed and acknowledged the Sanction Letter dated 30.03.2016 in token of having accepted the terms and conditions regulating the aforesaid credit facilities of Rs. 120.00 Crore granted to Defendant no. 1 by the erstwhile State Bank of Travancore.

3.18 It is also stated in the OA that the Charge of the Applicant Bank and Consortium Lenders are duly registered with the Registrar of Companies Delhi & Haryana whereby Defendants admitted their liabilities towards the consortium Lenders including the Applicant Bank.

3.19 It is further stated in the OA that Defendant no. 1 signed and executed Balance Confirmations dated 20.03.2012, 07.04.2015, 05.06.2015, 19.06.2016 and 10.06.2016 in favour of the Applicant Bank.

It is also stated in the OA that Defendant no. 1 signed and executed Revival Letter dated 20.03.2012, 26.02.2013, 10.02.2015, 13.06.2015, 23.09.2015 and 19.08.2017 in favour of the State Bank of Travancore / State Bank of India.

It is further stated in the OA that Defendant no. 1 signed and executed Revival Letters dated 12.01.2015 and 19.08.2017 (2) in favour of the Applicant Bank.

Moreover, the Defendant no. 1 time and again acknowledged its liability to pay the outstanding amount to the Applicant Bank in its duly audited Balance Sheets for the financial year upto 2016-2017.

3.20 It is stated in the OA that the Defendant no. 1 duly availed the aforesaid credit facility granted to him by the Applicant Bank, however, Defendant remained irregular in conduct of the aforesaid Credit facility and neglected to maintain the financial discipline.

The Applicant Bank vide their several letters called upon Defendant no. 1 to regularize the account and maintain its financial discipline but Defendant no. 1 failed to do so.

3.21 It is also stated in the OA that at present the following Bank Guarantees for an amount of Rs. 21.0 Lakh have already been issued by the Applicant Bank in favour of various beneficiaries on behalf of Defendant no. 1 at its request and the same have not been invoked by the Beneficiaries yet :-

<thead> <tr> <th>S. No.</th> <th>Account No.</th> <th>Amount (Rs.)</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>1.</td> <td>30517943616</td> <td>21,00,000/-</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" style="text-align: center;"><b>Total</b></td> <td><b>21,00,000/-</b></td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

It is further stated in the OA that the Applicant Bank reserves its rights to claim the aforesaid amounts besides interest, charges, expenses etc. as and when the aforesaid Bank Guarantees are invoked by the Beneficiaries and the Applicant Bank remits the payment thereof to the Beneficiaries.

3.22 It is stated in the OA that since Defendant no. 1 failed to adhere financial discipline and remained irregular in conduct of the aforesaid loan facilities, despite several 

requests and reminders, the Applicant Bank was forced to send a Demand Notice dated 15.05.2017 for an amount of Rs. 435,55,00,000/- to Defendants (Borrower / Mortgagors / Guarantors) under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act calling upon them to repay the outstanding amount but despite receipt of the said notice, the Defendants have failed to liquidate the outstanding amount. It is pertinent to point out that the Applicant Bank has already initiated Securitisation proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to enforce its secured assets.

Subsequently, after appropriating the proceeds of Credit available, the Applicant Bank issued a Legal Demand Notice dated 14.09.2017 for an amount of Rs. 421,81,36,528.22 to Defendants (Borrower / Mortgagors / Guarantors) calling upon them to repay the outstanding amount but despite receipt of the said notice, the Defendants have failed to liquidate the outstanding amount.

3.23 It is stated in the OA that as per books of accounts maintained by the Applicant Bank in their regular course of business, the following amount is due and payable by the Defendants to the Applicant Bank:-

<thead> <tr> <th>S. No.</th> <th>Nature of Facility / Account</th> <th>Outstanding Amount</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>1.</td> <td>CC Loan A/c No. 10324773627</td> <td>Rs. 330,98,91,699.86</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2.</td> <td>e-SBT CC Loan A/c No. 67003669288</td> <td>Rs. 92,82,51,170.69</td> </tr> <tr> <td>3.</td> <td>e-SBT CC Loan A/c No. 67003669981</td> <td>Rs. 4,85,35,317.26</td> </tr> <tr> <td>4.</td> <td>Term Loan A/c No. 32246622764</td> <td>Rs. 2,02,85,412.74</td> </tr> <tr> <td>5.</td> <td>Term Loan A/c No. 32850719202</td> <td>Rs. 4,32,52,947.28</td> </tr> <tr> <td>6.</td> <td>e-SBT Term Loan A/c No. 67186279243</td> <td>Rs. 2,55,11,808.94</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><b>Total</b></td> <td><b>Rs. 437,57,28,356.77</b></td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

3.24 Since, Defendants failed to maintain financial discipline, thus, the Applicant Bank has been compelled to file this Application before this Tribunal for recovery of its dues from them.

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).

It is also stated in the OA that the accounts bearing No. 10324773627, 67003669288 and 67003669981 are the Cash Credit / EPC accounts which are pertaining to SBI Consortium for Working Capital Limits granted by the Consortium Lenders to Defendant no. 1, wherein Defendants no. 2 to 12 stood as personal guarantors / mortgagors. Thus, Defendant no. 1, being borrower and Defendants no. 2 to 12 are jointly and severally liable for a sum of Rs. 428,66,78,187.81 qua the aforesaid Working Capital Credit Facilities (for Account No. 10324773627, 67003669288 and 67003669981) to the Applicant Bank together with pendentelite and future interest @11.40% p.a. with monthly rests as regards the Cash Credit facilities and 8.90% p.a. for EPC facility from the date of filing of OA till the date of actual and final realization along with all costs and charges.

Further, the accounts bearing No. 32246622764 and 32850719202 are the Term Loan accounts, which were granted by the Applicant Bank to Defendant no. 1 wherein Defendant no. 2, 5 and 8 to 12 stood as personal / corporate guarantors. Thus, Defendant no. 1, being borrower and Defendants no. 2, 5 and 8 to 12, being Personal / Corporate Guarantors, are jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs. 6,35,38,360.02 qua the aforesaid Term Loans (for Account No. 32246622764 and 32850719202) to the Applicant Bank together with pendentelite and future interest @12.85% p.a. for Term Loans from the date of filing of OA till the date of actual and final realization along with all costs and charges.

Further, the account bearing No. 67186279243 is the Term Loan account, which was granted by the erstwhile State Bank of Travancore / Applicant Bank to Defendant no. 1 wherein Defendant no. 2 & 5 stood as personal guarantors. Thus, Defendant no. 1, being borrower and Defendants no. 2 and 5, being Guarantors, are liable to pay an amount of Rs. 2,55,11,808.94 qua the aforesaid Term Loan (for Account No. 6718679243) to the Applicant Bank together with pendentelite and future interest @12.15% p.a. for Term Loans from the date of filing of OA till the date of actual and final realization along with all costs and charges.

**Facts of Counter Claim**

4. The brief facts of the case are that the Applicant no. 1 i.e. M/s S.S.A. International Ltd. is the Limited Company, incorporated and registered, under the provisions of the Companies Act, having its Corporate Identification Number (CIN) U15122DL1995PLC068186 and its Registration number 68186. The Applicant Company is engaged in the business of processing of rice for export and domestic sale and trade of edible oil and other food grains.

The Applicant no. 2 to 5 are the directors of the Applicant no. 1 company and mortgagors of the property(s) for the alleged credit facilities granted by the respondent bank.

The Respondent Bank is a body corporate constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 carrying on business of Banking.

4.1 It is stated in the CC that the Applicant no. 1 was founded and promoted by Late Sh. Anil Mittal along with other key persons of the company. The Applicants were having high market goodwill in domestic as well as overseas markets, profit running business, excellent track reports till year 2008.

It is further stated that the Applicants agreed to avail the credit facilities only after the assurances of the respondent bank to provide the credit facilities at the lowest market rates and providing the holding on operations as and when required. It is stated that at the time of the signing of the loan documents, which were blank, the rate of interest was not mentioned therein. Further more, at the time of signing of the documents in blank, the respondent bank asked the Applicants for the production of the title deeds of the properties of the applicants to evaluate the credit worthiness of the applicants and the documents in original were handed over to the respondent bank to show the ownership of the properties, which the respondent bank alleges as mortgaged to the respondent bank. It is also stated that the Applicants had no intention to create the mortgage of any of the properties. It is further stated that the Respondent Bank had committed the fraud with the Applicant and has illegally issued the notices under the SARFAESI Act initiating proceedings to sale the properties belonging to the Applicants.

4.2 It is stated in the CC that to set up new plant and install new machinery huge amount of financial resources were required and for that purpose, the Applicant requested the Respondent Bank to provide the additional credit facility for the expansion of the plant and machinery and te Respondent agreed to provide financial facilities for expansion of above at Mandideep Madhya Pradesh. It is stated in the CC that In January 2016, Mandideep Plant had following installed capacity :-

<thead> <tr> <th>S. No.</th> <th>Product</th> <th>Mandideep installed capacity in M.T.P.H,</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>1.</td> <td>Rice</td> <td>17</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2.</td> <td>R.B. Oil</td> <td>100</td> </tr> <tr> <td>3.</td> <td>Soya Oil</td> <td>600</td> </tr> <tr> <td>4.</td> <td>Refined Oil</td> <td>Nil</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

It is stated in the CC that the Applicants wanted to increase the installed capacity of Soya Oil and Refined Oil to 1500 and 500 MTPH from the above, as this sector was growing at extremely high rate, since India had to import above oils from the foreign countries which was costing much high. For this purpose, additional fund requirement of Rs. 300.0 crore in total from all three consortium members and Rs. 100.0 crore from Respondent Bank for setting up additional capacity utilization was made to the Respondent Bank which was to be released within 2 months (i.e. by end of February 2016). The officers of the Respondent Bank including consortium members verbally assured Applicants that all necessary help including enhancement of the credit

facilities would be provided for the expansion of the operations within the stipulated time. Thus advance orders were accepted by the Applicant but the promised funds of Rs 100.0 Crore despite several reminders and telephonic calls for next 3-months (March 2016 to May 2016) to the Respondent Bank was not disbursed. Due to this, the Applicants had suffered the huge losses as they had already purchased the necessary machinery and other equipments for the above mentioned purpose and huge consideration amount was paid out of the reserves of the applicant company which was supposed to be paid out of the disbursement from the Respondent Bank.

It is also stated in the CC that the Applicant suffered huge losses at the Mandideep Plant, MP during the month of July, 2016 on account of territorial rain and devastating floods at its plant. The Applicant suffered total loss of Rs. 260.32 crores in these floods, including loss of Rs. 10.0 Crore on account of support machinery. This fact was immediately informed to the consortium banks including the Respondent Bank. The loss was also intimated to the insurance company to cover up the damage and Applicant took all the preventive measures at their end to mitigate the losses.

Due to non release of aforesaid promise funds for expansion of the plant, Applicants suffered following losses, on account of action and inaction of the Respondent Bank:-

<thead> <tr> <th>S. No.</th> <th>Particulars</th> <th>Amount<br/>(In Crore)</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>1.</td> <td>Loss due to support machinery</td> <td>Rs. 10</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2.</td> <td>Loss due to non release of promised funds</td> <td>Rs. 100</td> </tr> <tr> <td>3.</td> <td>Loss due to non fulfillment of orders</td> <td>Rs. 15</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

<table border="1"><tr><td>4.</td><td>Loss of Goodwill for non fulfilment of oil orders</td><td>Rs. 50</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Total loss from new installed capacity</td><td>Rs. 175</td></tr></table>

Moreover, after suffered aforesaid loss in the quarter ending June 2016 as Rs. 225.02 crore, Loss due to rains and floods were not quantified by that time.

In the meantime, all the members of the consortium, after Applicant suffered huge loss, for the situations beyond the control, even did not allow to avail the Credit limits granted to the Applicants. Thereafter, members of consortium including the Respondent Bank had sanctioned, holding operations for the period of 3-months only. But with malafide intentions and ulterior motives, Consortium Members prematurely withdrawn holding operations after 2 months, which resulted in huge loss to the Applicants, as all the business and orders came to the grinding halt.

4.3 It is stated in the CC that since new officers of the Respondent came into picture, they threatened the Applicants to repay the whole of the debts immediately otherwise respondent bank would declare the account of Applicant as NPA immediately without following the Guidelines of the RBI, which are mentioned in the Master Circular for NPA.

The Applicant made various communications to the members of the Consortium to extend the promise holding on operations limit but the officials of the consortium members did not accede with Applicants' requests.

Moreover, Applicant no. 1 company had to collect lot of receivables from the customers including the overseas customers. Since consortium members including Respondent Bank, illegally declared Applicants' Account as NPA without following the guidelines of the RBI, thus, the Applicants were not able to make the banking transactions as same was not permitted and consequently Applicants suffered the huge losses. Moreover, Respondent Bank also issued illegal notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

The Applicants were still trying hard to stand on its feet, tried to bring in Venture Capitalist from Middle East country to invest \$ 50 million USD (about Rs. 320.0 Crore) to Applicant Company, various meetings and communications took place for the same, however, with malafide intention and ulterior motive, members of the consortium including Respondent Bank, never gave "No Objection" to the venture capital to invest in Applicant Company. After waiting for 3-months, aforesaid Middle Eastern Venture Capitalist left the project, high and dry. Thus, Applicants suffered huge loss.

It is also pertinent to mention that the consortium members including the Respondent Bank had appointed KPMG to do Techno Economic Viability Study Report, as Applicants were asked to give CDR. However, despite the fact that Applicant is fully viable, both in terms of technology, economic or in terms of management, aforesaid KPMG never finished the aforesaid TEV Study Report. It is stated that the officers of the consortium members including the Respondent Bank did not allow preparation of TEV study report, had it been prepared by them, the entire fraud of the consortium member would have come to light. With great difficulty, Applicants continued with its operations, Applicants were not having any support of consortium members, all the accounts were shut down by the consortium.

It is further stated that Applicant no. 1 had made request to various officers of the consortium members including the Respondent Bank, late Mr. N.KI. Prabhakar, of the respondent bank was send in on fact finding mission, plants and offices, after satisfied with the plants and our internal working made positive report, but that report was deliberately suppressed.

After this, as Applicant no. 1 was forced to close their plants, all the trained labour became unemployed. Thereafter, Applicant requested the consortium members including the Respondent Bank to allow for job work to outside parties. As due to acute shortage of funds, Applicant was unable to run the plants, in their normal capacity. It is also stated that the request for the same was turned down by the respondent bank. The labour dues of the Applicant Company were paid out of the reserves of the applicant as there was no financial support from the side of the Respondent Bank. It is also stated that the reserves of the Applicant Company were not sufficient to pay off the dues of the employees. Some of the employees routed to the legal action and hence, the Company had to incur the unwarranted expenses. It is stated that the company has suffered the losses of worth crores on this count attributed to Respondent Bank solely.

It is stated in the CC that the consortium members including the Respondent Bank kept the proposal with themselves for months and later rejected the same on frivolous grounds. It is further stated that the reject of the said proposal caused the loss on multiple counts. Firstly, the employees working in the plant were paid out of the reserves of the company fund for no work as the Applicants were duty bound to pay the same. Secondly, the machinery and equipment of worth crores get breakdown due to inoperations and lying dormant which was costly, not just in terms of money, but also in time, the use of materials as well as human resources. The loss of operation of machinery can brought the job site to a standstill. This aggravated the financial condition of the applicants causing the loss of the worth crores.

It is stated in the CC that the Applicants had bonafide intentions to repay the whole of the debt of the respondent bank which is prima facie evident from the fact, that once the Insurance claim for the Mandideep Plant, was allowed, the Applicant had paid the same to the consortium members including the Respondent Bank. Moreover, during this time period, Applicants had paid more than Rs. 40.0 Crore in total to the respondent bank even after illegally declaring Applicant's account as NPA.

The Applicants were again forced to take permission from the consortium members including the Respondent Bank for leasing out the factory, plant and machineries of the company. It is also stated that the Respondent Bank did not allow to run the plant to the Applicants nor it allowed to lease out the plant. If the permission to lease out the plant would have been given there would be huge income directly to be paid to the Respondent including the debt liability of the Applicants and the machines of worth crores could have been in the operative conditions retaining its value. However the members of the consortium members including the Respondent Bank were not interested in recovery and they only wanted to destroy the business of defendants, had again refused the same. Thus, the Respondent Bank has caused the loss of worth crores to the Applicants.

It is stated in the CC that the Applicants requested the Respondent Bank to permit the holding on the operations in all the accounts to run the plants and complete the dispatchment of export orders and realize the value of goods produced and dispatched. At that time, the Applicant Company had the export order of worth Rs. 54.0 Crore and the Applicant was in dire need of money to pay off the operational expenses, and expenditure for the packaging and consumables material and routine operational expenses to run the plant and factories to enable to execute the pending export orders.

The Respondent Bank vide Letter dated 06.08.2016 requested to visit the factory plant situated at Mandideep, M.P.. the officers of the Respondent Bank visited the said Factory and had the picture of devastation in the plant. As per the instructions of the Bank, whole of the wet rice was cleaned and all the warranted steps were taken to complete the insurance claim formalities. Thus, the Respondent Bank was fully acquainted with the incident and the loss caused to the Applicants by the act of God.

It is stated in the CC that as agreed in the JLF Meetings the Applicants submitted the Stock Statement and other financial transactions and vide Email dated 04.10.2016 address to the Respondent Bank including the other members of the consortium, the Applicants submitted that all the required information had been provided and the stock statement would be provided shortly as the same was on the export.

It is also stated that the Respondent Bank informed the Applicants vide Letter dated 04.11.2016 that KPMG has been appointed for the forensic audit and TEV Study and all the expenses were paid by the Applicants. Further more, Applicants submitted all the relevant information for the audit and TEV Study. Thus, the Applicants had maintained the true and complete data of all the transactions and the same was forwarded to the auditors appointed by the Respondent Bank.

It is stated in the CC that the issue of holding on operations was allowed by the Respondent Bank which was confirmed vide Letter dated 23.11.2016 but at the same time, Respondent Bank put onerous conditions prejudicing the business rights of the Applicants. Though the Respondent Bank including the other banks of consortium allowed the holding on operations, still the Respondent Bank charged the excessive rate of the interest. It is also stated that the Respondent filed the OA for the alleged dues against the Applicants. It is further stated that the Respondent Bank is bound by the law of estoppel and it cannot be allowed to resite from its own commitments. Thus, the Respondent Bank has caused the loss of worth crores to the Applicants.

Vide Letter dated 08.02.2017, the Applicants provided the stock statement and certificate of the exports proceeds as required by the Respondent Bank. Moreover, the export statements of the year 2017 till date was also submitted to the Respondent Bank.

Vide Letter dated 23.02.2017, the Applicant requested the Respondent Bank stating that the Company is planning to sell the unit of the Mandideep and pay the whole of the dues of the Respondent Bank. It is stated that the Applicants had never any intentions to sell the plant but the Respondent Bank including the consortium members coerced the Applicants to close the plants.

It is also stated in the CC that the State Bank of India in its Email dated 24.12.2016 admitted that the Applicant has made the payments of Rs. 9.48 Crores. It is stated that despite the hard times and competitions, the Applicant had managed to pay the huge sum as mentioned in the TRA Account. It is further stated that the consortium members including the Respondent Bank had not credited the amount paid by the Applicants duly and completely. It is pertinent to mention that the Applicants had made the huge payments in the TRA Account but the Respondent Bank had credited only an amount of Rs. 9.48 crore. Thus, the consortium members including the Respondent Bank has caused the wrongful loss to the Applicants.

It is further stated that vide Letter dated 16.02.2017, the Applicants intimated the consortium members including the Respondent Bank that the address has been shifted to SSA International Limited, First Floor, Arcon Plaza, Local Shopping Centre (LSC), Madangeer, New Delhi – 110062. Hence, the Applicant had the bonafide intentions and no intentions to escape the liability.

It is stated in the CC that the Joint Lenders Meeting was held on 23.02.2017 and it was admitted by all the banks that the Applicants had deposited the amount of Rs. 57.15 crore.

The said amount was deposited in the TRA account thereby distributed to all the banks. In the same meeting it was mentioned that the total value of inventory prepared by the Applicant is of worth Rs. 238.41 crore at the different locations.

It is further stated that the meeting of the JLF was held on 21.03.2017 again and all the parties were present there. In the said meeting, the Respondent Bank including the consortium members misrepresented that Account of the Applicants has been identified as Red Flag Account by the IDBI Bank and the said action of the Respondent Bank ultimately resulted in declaring the account of the Applicants as NPA and the assets were illegally taken over by the Respondent Bank which has caused the huge loss to the Applicant monetary, social, reputation and harassment.

Finding no alternative, source of the funding the Applicants requested the consortium members including the Respondent Bank to allow the investment of the foreign investors who were willing and ready to invest huge amounts in the Applicant Company but they had not granted the permission for the same.

It is stated in the CC that the State Bank of Travancore (SBT) was also member of the consortium along with the Respondent Bank. It is further state that the SBT has already been merged with the State Bank of India (SBI) i.e. the Respondent Bank w.e.f. 01.04.2017. It is also stated that the proposal for the restructuring was also made to the SBT which was considered by SBT and SBT gave a nod to advance the credit facilities for a tune of Rs. 30.0 crores in the month of January, 2017. It took some time to complete 

the documentation and certain formalities and in the meantime Government of India made the announcement that SBT was going to merge with the SBI. The officers of SBT assured the Applicants that the promised credit facilities would be advanced to the Applicants as SBI would be under legal obligations to honour the commitments made by the SBT. After the merger of SBT with the Respondent Bank, the Applicants approached the Respondent Bank to advance the credit facilities as promised by SBT and initially, the Respondent Bank lingered on the matter on the excuse of work load due to recent merger but the case of Applicants was flatly refused by the Respondent Bank to honour the commitments of SBT made to the Applicants. Thus, the Applicants incurred liabilities of worth crores only on the assurance and commitment of the Respondent Bank to advance the said facilities. It is stated that the Respondent Bank is bound by the law of estoppel and it has caused the loss of worth Rs. 30.0 Crore on account of malafide and willful omission to fulfil the legal obligations incurred by the SBT. Thus, the Applicants suffered on two counts firstly Respondent Bank legally obliged to honour the commitments failed to do that another that Respondent Bank did not initially refused to the advancement but lingered on the matter. If the Respondent Bank had intimated the inability to advance the credit facility promised for timely, Applicants would have never incurred the liability of worth crores.

It is stated in the CC that the company named Gautam General Trading LLD situated in Dubai, UAE approached the Applicants to make the investment in the Applicant Company and vide Letter dated 26.04.2017 the said Company officially requested the Applicants to allow the investment in the Applicant Company. The said Company offered the huge amount of \$ 50 million US Dollars equivalent to roughly Rs. 350.0 Crore. It is pertinent to mention here that the alleged dues of the consortium members including the Respondent Bank could have been repaid easily if the said amount would have been allowed. The Applicants had already satisfied the said company from the status report, project report and the credit worthiness as per the desired queries. Moreover, the Applicants had already forwarded the copies of the relevant documents for the perusal of the investigation team which had also shown the green signal and the only barrier was the consent of the consortium banks including the Respondent Bank. The Applicants made a request to indulge into the matter and make a positive decision allowing the investment of the foreign company. The Applicant Company was under impression that the consent of all the Banks including the Respondent Bank would open the gates for the new avenues of the production and export of the company goods. The Applicants apprised the investor company with the factual position and they also made several requests to the Respondent Bank regarding the enhancement of the credit facilities and extension of the continuing on the holdings. One of the onerous conditions imposed on the Applicant in the approval letter was to close all the accounts outside the consortium domain and such a condition is a violation of the right to trade enshrined under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. The Respondent Bank was taking advantage of its fiduciary relationship and was imposing conditions which was detrimental to interest of Applicant No. 1


Company. The Applicants had no escape route except to nod for the said restriction. In pursuance of the onerous condition, the Applicant no. 1 closed all the accounts maintained with the Banks other than the consortium members. The Applicant Company operated all the financial transactions through the TRA Account only. It is also stated that due to the aforesaid onerous restriction caused the loss and inconvenience to the present applicants a most of the payment had been stopped and now Applicants had to recourse to the litigation to recover that amount and that too at the cost of huge money, time and efforts.

It is stated in the CC that the Applicants informed the consortium members including the Respondent Bank vide letter dated 29.10.2016 that M/s Aggarwal and Rampal, Chartered Accountant firm had been appointed as statutory auditors for the period of three years. The Applicants had provided all information regarding the audit firm and the balance sheets for the previous years in compliance of directions as decided in the joint lenders meeting. The appointment of said Firm was ratified by the consortium members including the respondent bank.

The Respondent Bank vide letter dated 02.05.2017 informed that the request for the continuation of the holding on operations has been turned down.

The Applicants vide letter dated 14.06.2017 made a request to the consortium members including the Respondent Bank to give permission to start the manufacturing operations in the company. There was a total balance of Rs. 17.24 crore in the TRA Account on 14.06.2017 and Rs. 11.84 crore was deposited by the insurance company, hence, the total amount in the TRA account was Rs. 29.08 crore. But the Consortium Members did not give the permission to restart the manufacturing process and running of the plant which caused the loss of worth crores as well as damage to the machinery too which were of worth crores.

Vide Letter dated 04.08.2017 addressed to the consortium members including the Respondent Bank, the Applicants made a request to given the permission for the leasing out of the plant and machinery of the factory till the issue of the rehabilitation are resolved. But the consortium members including the Respondent Bank refused to give the permission and hence worsening the financial situation of the Applicants.

It is also stated in CC that the KPMG appointed by the consortium members including the Respondent Bank had submitted the report in the form of the observations and that raised some adverse inferences against the Applicant Company. The Applicant Company vide letter dated 07.12.2017 furnished the clarification on those observations and the detailed clarification on the same was provided by the Applicant company duly supported by the transaction date and relevant documentary evidence. It is further stated that the report of the KPMG was based on mere surmises even a single observation was not supported by any evidence be it any type. Furthermore, the applicants duly submitted the reply to all the members of the consortium including the respondent bank.

The Applicant also submitted the Revival Proposal vide letter dated 23.08.2017 to the consortium members 

including the Respondent Bank for the revival of the credit facilities including the stay on the operations of the holding and other related facilities. It is stated that the detailed financial date consisting projected profit and loss statement balance sheet fund flow statement and ratio/analysis sheet were forwarded to the consortium members including the Respondent Bank for their perusal. The Applicants also submitted the audited balance sheets of the financial years 2014-2015, 2015-2016 and 2016-2017. It is stated that the series of facts had revealed that the consortium banks including the Respondent Bank were destined to declare the account of the Applicants as NPA and proceed against the applicant to sale out the assets of the Applicant Company and which Respondent Bank ultimately did. Thus, the consortium members including the Respondent Bank had caused the loss of worth crores.

It is stated in the CC that one consortium member / Canara Bank has admitted the contents of the Legal Notice sent to them by the Applicants and has also admitted the loss caused to the Applicants on account of the consortium banks.

It is further stated that the Respondent Bank issued the notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 despite huge payment in the accounts of the Applicants and it was done in furtherance of the malafide intentions to put the accounts of the Applicants in the category.

It is also stated that the Respondent Bank declared the account of the Applicants as NPA and issued legal demand notice on 14.09.2017 which was replied by the Applicants vide letter dated 18.09.2017 wherein the Applicants raised all the plausible contentions and objections.

Due to the aforesaid actions and inactions of the Respondent, Applicant had suffered unbearable mental tension, mental torture and harassment as well as loss of goodwill and reputation.

In the light of above, the Applicant claims the counter claim of the following amount:-

<thead> <tr> <th>S. No.</th> <th>Particulars</th> <th>Amount (in Crores)</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>1.</td> <td>Total loss from new installed capacity</td> <td>205</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2.</td> <td>Total loss from venture capital</td> <td>107</td> </tr> <tr> <td>3.</td> <td>Loss caused due to closure of factory</td> <td>50</td> </tr> <tr> <td>4.</td> <td>Loss caused due to other misc. items</td> <td>5</td> </tr> <tr> <td>5.</td> <td>Loss of goodwill and reputation</td> <td>67</td> </tr> <tr> <td>6.</td> <td>Loss caused due to mental tension and harassment</td> <td>50</td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td></td> <td><b>487</b></td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

In the light of above, it has been prayed to allow the present Counter Claim Application for recovery of a sum of Rs. 487.0 Crore against Respondent Bank / SBI along with interest @12% p.a. till the date of the payment and cost of Rs. 10.0 Lakh for filing the present Counter Claim.

**WS / Reply of Defendants in TA**

5. Notices of this O.A. were issued to the Defendants, and Defendants no. 1 to 6 and 8 to 12 appeared through their counsel. It is pertinent to note here that Defendants no. 1 to 6 filed a common WS; Defendants no. 9 to 12 also filed another common WS whereas Defendant no. 8 filed a separate WS.

5.1 So far as, Defendant no. 7 is concerned, he neither appeared through counsel nor filed any WS, hence, the case was proceeded parte qua Defendant no. 7 vide Order dated 31.08.2028 of the Tribunal. Thus, the case of Applicant Bank qua Defendant no. 7 remained unrebuted.

5.2 So far as, rest of the Defendants i.e. Defendants no. 13 to 15 are concerned, only Defendant no. 14 appeared through its Counsel and filed a WS. It is matter of record that Defendants no. 13 to 15 are the Proforma Defendants against whom no relief is claimed by the Applicant Bank in this OA.

5.3 It is matter of record that Defendants no. 1 to 6, Defendant no. 8 as well as Defendants no. 9 to 12 have raised similar objections in their respective WS(s) which are as follows:-

- (i) Defendants no. 1 to 6, 8 and 9 to 12 have raised an objection that the Applicant Bank is guilty of *suppresio vari and suggestion falsi* as they have concealed various important and material facts from this Hon'ble Tribunal, hence, the present OA under reply is liable to be dismissed.

- (ii) Defendants no. 1 to 6, 8 and 9 to 12 have also raised an objection that the OA under reply is not maintainable in law or facts as it does not even disclose any cause of action against the answering Defendants.

- (iii) Defendants no. 1 to 6, 8 and 9 to 12 have also raised an objection that the Applicant Bank has charged exorbitant, excessive and usurious rates. It is stated in the respective WS(s) that the answering Defendants never agreed to the rates of interest as charged and claimed by the Applicant. Further more, each and every entry shown in the alleged statement of accounts is denied by the answering Defendants. It is also stated in the WS that the Applicant Bank has failed to give proper credit of the amount deposited by the answering Defendants from time to time as the entries made in the statement of accounts filed by the Applicant Bank in support of its alleged claim does not reflect the credited amount on the part of the Defendants. It is also stated in the WS(s) that the alleged Statements of Account is not a Statement of Accounts in the eyes of law as it is not certified as per Section 2(8) and 2-A Bankers Books Evidence Act. Therefore, the Statement of Account should not be taken on record and should not be read as evidence in the OA under reply. Thus, the present OA be dismissed on this ground alone.

- (iv) Defendants no. 1 to 6, 8 and 9 to 12 have also taken a plea that the alleged letter of guarantees are without stamp paper and are not executed as per law, therefore, same are not admissible for any purpose by this Hon'ble Tribunal.

- (v) Defendants no. 1 to 6, 8 and 9 to 12 have further raised an objection that the OA may be dismissed on the ground of non-prosecution as the OA is filed without the power of attorney of the authorized 

person namely Sh. Vinod Kumar officer of the Applicant Bank. Moreover, the Bank who has filed the present OA has no locus standi to file the present OA.

- (vi) Defendants no. 1 to 6, 8 and 9 to 12 have also raised an objection that certain documents / supporting e stamp paper of certain documents, which are filed with the OA do not bear the name of the second party as the Applicant Bank. It is also stated that the said e-stamp paper does not bear the official seal and the signature of the authorized person of the Applicant Bank. It is further stated that the Applicant Bank has misused the said e stamp paper/s and is guilty of breach of the trust. Hence, the said documents cannot be read into the evidence as the same is not admissible in the law.

- (vii) Defendants no. 1 to 6, 8 and 9 to 12 have also raised an objection that the Applicant Bank has not filed the Statement of Accounts of the Trust and the Retention Account maintained by the Applicant Bank as a party to the alleged consortium member. It is also stated that the Defendants have paid huge amount of the money which are more than Rs. 200.0 Crore in the said TRA Account but neither the Applicant Bank has credit the payments into the TRA Account nor the Applicant Bank has mentioned anywhere in the present OA. In this way, the Applicant Bank tried to conceal the above mentioned fact which reflects the fraudulent conduct of the Applicant Bank.

- (viii) Next objection raised by the Defendants no. 1 to 6, 8 and 9 to 12 is that the OA under Reply is not maintainable as prima facie evident from the fact that the alleged letter of guarantees are without stamp paper, therefore, same are not admissible for any purpose by this Hon'ble Tribunal and same be dismissed on this ground.

- (ix) Defendants no. 1 to 6, 8 and 9 to 12 have also taken a plea that the Applicant Bank has made the OA with utter negligence which is prima facie evident from the fact that memo of parties contains Defendants no. 1 to 15 whereas in para 2 sub para (ii) "wherein address for service of all the notices to the defendants" are mentioned the applicant has mentioned 18 defendants in total which proves that entire application has been made with the negligence and in a very causal and careless manner. Hence, the OA may be dismissed on this short ground only.

- (x) Defendants no. 1 to 6, 8 and 9 to 12 have further taken a plea that this Hon'ble Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to entertain the present OA stating that neither the Defendants resides nor works for the gain within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Tribunal.

- (xi) Defendants no. 1 to 6, 8 and 9 to 12 have also raised an objection that the Applicant Bank has not valued the properties mentioned in Para 3A-iii as per the current market price of the properties mentioned therein. It is further stated that the valuation of the alleged mortgaged properties cannot be valued at such an alleged miniscule value as provided by the Applicant Bank and its consortium members.

- (xii) Next objection raised by Defendants no. 1 to 6, 8 and 9 to 12 is that the OA under reply is barred by the law of limitation prescribed under the RDB Act, 1993.

- (xiii) Defendants no. 1 to 6, 8 and 9 to 12 have also raised an objection that the Applicant Bank has no charge over the mortgaged properties stating that the documents on the basis of which the Applicant Bank is claiming were got signed under the commercial undue influence and coercion on the blank papers. Thus the said documents cannot be admitted in evidence and relied upon.

5.4 So far as, Defendant no. 14 i.e. Canara Bank is concerned, it has filed its WS through Sh. Sunil Prakash, Chief Manager wherein it has given details of facilities sanctioned by it to the Defendant no. 1 along with Applicant Bank, being its Lead Bank, vide Sanction Letter dated 23.05.2015. It is also stated in the WS that the Defendant no. 14 is one of the members of the consortium and the same is member bank of the consortium. It is also stated that the Defendants no. 1 to 12 executed various loan documents / security documents / stood as personal guarantors / surety / mortgagors and as corporate guarantors for the due repayment of the facilities availed by Defendant no. 1 and in consideration thereof the said documents were duly executed in favour of SBICAP Trustee Company Limited i.e. Defendant no. 15 and SBI Consortium Bank by Defendants no. 1 to 12. It is stated that since all the documents were executed by the Applicant Bank and are deposited with the Applicant Bank / Defendant no. 15, hence, the answering Defendant no. 14 relied on the documents executed and deposited with the Applicant Bank in favour of consortium banks including the answering Defendant and hence not enclosing the copies of the same with this WS. It is further stated in the WS that there is no primary cause of action against Defendant no. 14 and no relief is sought against the Defendant no. 14 in the prayer clause of the OA filed by the Applicant Bank. It is further stated that the answering Defendant is having an outstanding balance sum of Rs. 151,86,46,977/- inclusive of interest upto 30.04.2018 qua Defendant no. 1 along with further interest from 01.05.2028 till realization at 16.35% with monthly compounded and 2% penal simple interest with costs, expenses and pendentelite and future interest till realization.

Defendant no. 14 has also filed following documents along with its WS:-

- (i) Authorization Letter / GPA of Defendant no. 15 in favour of Sh. Sunit Prakash, Chief Manager (Annexure D-14/1);

- (ii) Copy of Sanction Letter dated 23.05.2015 (Annexure-D14/2);

- (iii) Copy of the account statement of Defendant no. 14 (Annexure-D14/3).


It is matter of record that Defendant no. 14 is a Proforma Defendant and no relief is claimed by the Applicant Bank qua Defendant no. 14 in this OA.

**Reply filed by the Respondent Bank i.e. SBI to the Counter Claim**

6. Notices of this CC were issued to the Respondent Bank / SBI and the SBI appeared through its counsel and also filed its Reply to the Counter Claim vehemently opposing the same.

6.1 It is stated in the Reply that there is clear admission of availing of loan facilities, as mentioned in the Counter Claim (CC), by the Applicant no. 1 herein and the Guarantees extended to the Respondent Bank for the credit facilities granted to Applicants no. 2 to 5.

In its Reply, the Respondent Bank / SBI has raised an objection that the present CC is barred by limitation as this OA was filed on 18.03.2018 and the Applicants herein (defendants in OA) are appearing since 2018 whereas the present CC was filed on or after 14.12.2019 (as per Index of CC).

The Respondent Bank has denied the allegations levelled against it by the Applicants in the CC and stated that the Applicants themselves had approached the Respondent Bank for availing of various credit facilities from time to time. It is further stated that the Applicant no. 1 started borrowing relationship with the Respondent Bank in 2002, while their accounts turned NPA in 2016 due to non-compliance with financial discipline as prescribed under Prudential Norms for Income Recognition and Asset Classifications (IRAC) by RBI.

It is also stated in the Reply that the Applicants at no time during 20-15-2016 or even after that, planned for any capital expansion (copy of Minutes of JLM dated 28.09.2015 to this effect is enclosed as Annexure R-1). It is stated in the Reply that the enhanced working capital limits for better capacity utilization were already sanctioned by the Respondent Bank and released post joint Consortium documentation on 11.12.2015. Further, credit facilities are always subject to satisfactory conduct of the Borrower and commercial viability of the project under the framework set by RBI at any point of time and it is not so that any past enhancement is a guarantee that future request may be acceded to.

It is also stated that during the period i.e. March 2016 to May 2016, no enhancement proposal were sanctions or even acceded to by the Respondent Bank. Rather, the financial performance of the Applicant no. 1 during last quarter of FY 2015-16 was sub-optimal (copy of Minutes of Consortium Meeting dated 21.06.2016 to this effect is enclosed as Annexure R-2). Concerns were expressed by the consortium Banks including the Respondent Bank were expressed in the aforesaid meeting. Thus, the accounts of Applicant no. 1 were declared as NPA on 30.09.2016 (w.e.f. 06.01.2016) by the Respondent Bank as per extant RBI instructions.

Further, the reasons due to which Applicant no. 1 Company suffered huge losses were discussed during Consortium Meeting dated 09.09.2016 and accepted by the Company itself and same were duly recorded in the said Meeting (copy of Minutes of the Consortium Meeting dated 09.09.2016 is annexed as Annexure R-3).

It is further stated in the Reply that it was time and again conveyed to the Applicant no. 1 that Holding on Operation (HOO) as allowed by Respondent Bank in consultation with other Consortium Members and sanctioned by its appropriate authority is valid till 20.02.2017 and any extension thereof is always subject to progress made by the Applicant no. 1 in provision of all requisite information to the Auditor KPMG (appointed by Lenders) for conduct of Forensic Audit and TEV Study as per the requirement under restructuring guidelines of RBI. It was Applicant no. 1 itself, who failed to provide the requisite information to the Auditor and continued unreasonably delaying the whole exercise on one pretext or the other. Therefore, in such scenario, continuation of Holding on Operation without any reciprocal cooperation by the Applicant no. 1 was not possible and hence same was discontinued. The minutes of Consortium Meetings dated 23.02.2017 and 28.03.2017 to this effect are enclosed herewith as Annexure R-4 & R-5.

It is stated in the Reply that Mr. N.K. Prabhakar, Chief Manager was the Relationship Manager of Respondent's Overseas Branch, handling the Loan Accounts of Applicant no. 1. It is further stated that it was Applicant no. 1 who did not cooperate on provision of requisite information to the Auditors conducting Forensic Audit and TEV Study being a prerequisite for exercise of restructuring option by Lenders as per extant RBI instructions and detailed the whole process causing huge loss to Lenders including Respondent Bank. The Minutes of consortium meeting dated 21.03.2017 to this effect is enclosed as Annexure R-6.

The Respondent Bank has also denied that the total credit in TRA Account was available for distribution to Lenders. Rather, it was 5% of total credit during the period that was to be retained as Cut Back by Lenders and distributed amongst themselves as per the terms of sanction of Holding on Operation advised to the Company.

It is stated in the Reply that release / sanction / continuation of credit facilities to any Borrowing entity by Banks are always subject to adherence of financial discipline on their part and continuous compliance with covenants of existing sanction / RBI guidelines. It is not that Borrowers get any sort of implicit right of future sanction / release / continuation of credit facilities which can be exercised irrespective of any non-compliance or financial indiscipline.

It is further stated in the Reply that since the Applicant no. 1 failed to adhere financial discipline and remained irregular in conduct of the aforesaid loan facilities, despite several requests and reminders, the Respondent Bank was forced to send a Demand Notice dated 15.05.2017 u/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act calling upon the Applicants (Borrower / Mortgagors / Guarantors) to repay the outstanding amount but despite receipt of the same, the Applicants have failed to liquidate the outstanding amount. It is also pertinent to point out that the Bank has already initiated Securitisation proceedings under SARFAESI Act, 2002 to enforce the secured assets.

In the light of above, it has been prayed to reject the present Counter Claim, being devoid of any merit, and to allow the OA in terms of the prayer clause of the OA.

**Evidence filed on behalf of Applicant Bank and Defendants in TA**

7. To prove its case, the Applicant Bank had filed the copies of the documents (as per list of documents separately attached) at the time of filing of the OA.

7.1 It is pertinent to note here that during the pendency of this OA, the Applicant Bank i.e. State Bank of India had assigned the financial assets / loans of Defendant no. 1 to National Asset Reconstruction Company Limited (NARCL) Thus, the name of NARCL was substituted in place of Applicant Bank i.e. NARCL vide Order dated 23.11.2023 passed in IA No. 208/2023 by this Tribunal.

7.2 Subsequently, Sh. Pankaj Agnihotri, Senior Vice President / the officer of Applicant herein (NARCL) has filed Affidavit towards Evidence on behalf of the Applicant ARC (AW-1) who has placed reliance upon the documents filed by the Applicant which includes:-

- (i) Assignment Agreement dated 28.02.2023 executed between the Assignor (SBI) and the Assignee (NARCL) whereby Applicant Bank / SBI has assigned its debt pertaining to Defendant no. 1 in favour of the assignee / NARCL (Ex. AW 1/1);

- (ii) Copy of Order dated 23.11.2023 passed by this Tribunal in IA No. 208/2023 for substitution of NARCL in place of Applicant Bank (Ex. AW 1/2);

- (iii) General Regulations No. 76 & 77 of State Bank of India General Regulations 1955 made by the RBI in exercise of the powers conferred by su-section

(3) of Section 50 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 with the previous sanction of the Central Government read with Gazette Notifications published in the Gazette of India dated 26.09.1959, 26.08.1972 and 02.05.1987 (Ex. AW 1/3 to AW 1/6);

(iv) Resolutions dated 08.11.2011, 11.01.2013, 12.11.2013, 30.08.2014, 29.09.2014(2), 27.09.2011, 09.02.2015, 13.07.2017, 31.07.2017 and 19.08.2017 passed by Defendant no. 1 in respect of the various loan/credit facilities granted to Defendant no. 1 by the Applicant Bank from time to time (Ex. AW 1/8 to AW 1/18);

(v) Resolutions dated 15.11.2011, 12.01.2013, 14.03.2014, 14.09.2015 and 27.07.2017 passed by Defendant no. 9 / Corporate Guarantor in respect of the various loan/credit facilities granted to Defendant no. 1 by the Bank from time to time (Ex. AW 1/20 to AW 1/23);

(vi) Resolutions dated 10.11.2011, 12.01.2013, 30.08.2014, 10.10.2015 and 26.07.2017 passed by Defendant no. 10 / Corporate Guarantor in respect of the various loan/credit facilities granted to Defendant no. 1 by the Bank from time to time (Ex. AW 1/24 to AW 1/28);

(vii) Resolutions dated 10.11.2011, 14.01.2013, 30.08.2014, 30.10.2015, 29.10.2015, 30.10.2015 and 26.07.2017 passed by Defendant no. 11 / Corporate Guarantor in respect of the various loan/credit facilities granted to Defendant no. 1 by 

the Bank from time to time (Ex. AW 1/29 to AW 1/35);

- (viii) Resolutions dated 18.11.2011, 14.01.2013, 30.08.2014 (2), 10.10.2015 and 26.07.2017 passed by Defendant no. 12 / Corporate Guarantor in respect of the various loan/credit facilities granted to Defendant no. 1 by the Bank from time to time (Ex. AW 1/36 to AW 1/41);

- (ix) Sanction Letter dated 08.11.2011 issued by the Applicant Bank sanctioning various credit facilities to Defendant no.1 to the tune of Rs. 198.40 Crore including a New Term Loan for Rs. 7.50 Crore (Ex. AW 1/42);

- (x) Agreement of Loan for Overall Limit (Form C-1A) dated 20.03.2012 signed and executed by Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW 1/43);

- (xi) Agreement of Hypothecation of goods and assets (Form C-2) dated 20.03.2012 signed and executed by Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW 1/44);

- (xii) Deeds of Guarantee for Overall Limit (Form C 4 A) dated 20.03.2012 signed and executed by Defendants no. 2, 8 to 12 and Late Sh. Anil Mittal (Ex. AW 1/45);

- (xiii) Letter regarding the Grant of Individual Limits within the Overall Limits (Form C 5) dated 20.03.2012 signed and executed by Defendant no. 1 for the new Term Loan of Rs. 7.50 Crore (Ex. AW 1/46);

- (xiv) CIBIL, Consent Clause dated 20.03.2012 signed and executed by Defendants no. 2 and 8 to 12 and Late Sh. Anil Mittal (Ex. AW 1/47);

- (xv) Deeds of Guarantee for Overall Limit (Form C 4 A) dated 27.11.2015 for the new Term Loan of Rs. 7.50 Crore executed by Defendant no. 5, being wife of Late Sh. Anil Mittal, as Guarantor (Ex. AW 1/48);

- (xvi) Sanction Letter dated 11.01.2013 issued by Applicant Bank and duly signed by Defendant no. 1 and Defendants 2, 8 to 12 and Late Sh. Anil Mittal in token of having accepted the terms and conditions regulating the aforesaid credit facilities of Rs. 287.25 Crore (Ex. AW 1/49);

- (xvii) Agreement of Loan for Overall Limit (Form C-1A) dated 26.02.2013 for Rs. 7.80 Crore signed and executed by Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW 1/50);

- (xviii) Agreement of Hypothecation of goods and assets (Form C-2) dated 26.02.2013 signed and executed by Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW 1/51);

- (xix) Deeds of Guarantee for Overall Limit (Form C 4 A) dated 26.02.2013 signed and executed by Defendants no. 2, 3, 8 to 12 and Late Sh. Anil Mittal (Ex. AW 1/52);

- (xx) Letter regarding the Grant of Individual Limits within the Overall Limits (Form C 5) dated 26.02.2013 signed and executed by Defendant no. 1 for the new Term Loan of Rs. 7.80 Crore (Ex. AW 1/53);

- (xxi) CIBIL Consent Clause dated 26.02.2013 signed and executed by Defendants no. 1, 2, 3, 8 to 12 and Late Sh. Anil Mittal (Ex. AW 1/54);

- (xxii) Deeds of Guarantee for Overall Limit (Form C 4 A) dated 27.11.2015 for the new Term Loan of 

Rs. 7.80 Crore executed by Defendant no. 5, being wife of Late Sh. Anil Mittal, as Guarantor (Ex. AW 1/55);

(xxiii) Sanction Letter dated 11.01.2013 issued by the Applicant Bank sanctioning various credit facilities to Defendant no. 1 to the tune of Rs. 287.25 Crore including a Term Loan for Rs. 7.80 Crore (Ex. AW 1/56);

(xxiv) Working Capital Consortium Agreement dated 24.09.2014 signed and executed by Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW 1/57);

(xxv) Joint Deed of Hypothecation dated 24.09.2014 signed and executed by Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW 1/58);

(xxvi) RBI Clause document dated 24.09.2014 signed and executed by Defendant no. 1 in favour of the Consortium Banks (Ex. AW 1/59);

(xxvii) Deed of Guarantee dated 24.09.2014 signed and executed by Defendants no. 5, 8 and Sh. Anil Mittal in favour of the Consortium Banks (Ex. AW 1/60);

(xxviii) Deeds of Corporate Guarantee dated 24.09.2014 signed and executed by Defendants no. 9 to 12 in favour of the Defendant no. 15 for the Working Capital Limits granted by the Consortium Banks to Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW 1/61);

(xxix) Letter of Authority to the Consortium Bank dated 24.09.2014 signed and executed by Defendant no. 1 in favour of the Lead Bank i.e. the Applicant Bank (Ex. AW 1/62);

- (xxx) Letter of Undertaking for creating a Second Charge on fixed assets dated 21.05.2008 signed and executed by Defendant no. 1 in favour of the Consortium Member Banks (Ex. AW 1/63);

- (xxxii) Inter Se Agreement dated 24.09.2014 signed and executed by Applicant Bank along with other consortium Banks for the Working Capital Facilities granted to Defendant no. 1 by them (Ex. AW 1/64);

- (xxxii) Security Trustee Agreement dated 24.09.2014 executed by the Applicant Bank being the lead Bank, Defendant no. 1, Consortium Lenders and Defendant no. 15, being a Security Trustee to govern the security Trustee arrangements and so also the management of the Security Interest of the Consortium Lenders (Ex. AW 1/65);

- (xxxiii) Letter of Authority dated 24.09.2014 signed and executed by erstwhile State Bank of Travancore along with Defendants no. 13 & 14 authorizing the Lead Bank (Applicant Bank) to make the first disbursement on behalf of other Consortium Member Bank in favour of the Applicant Bank for the working Capital granted by the Consortium Banks to Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW 1/66);

- (xxxiv) Letter dated 07.01.2015 of Defendant no. 15 confirming the holding of the security documents on behalf of the Consortium Banks and so also for creation of the security in its favour (Ex. AW 1/67); A small blue rectangular stamp or mark is located at the bottom right of the page, next to the page number. It appears to be a digital or physical stamp, possibly containing text that is not legible.

- (xxxv) Sanction Letter dated 16.02.2015 issued by the Applicant Bank enhancing the credit facilities to Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW 1/68);

- (xxxvi) First Amended and Restated Working Capital Consortium Agreement (WCCA) dated 27.11.2015 whereby the Working Capital Lenders enhanced the working Capital Limits to Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW 1/69);

- (xxxvii) First Amendatory and Restated Security Trustee Agreement dated 27.11.2015 (Ex. AW 1/70);

- (xxxviii) First Amendatory and Restated Working Capital Consortium Agreement dated 27.11.2015 signed and executed by Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW 1/71);

- (xxxix) First Amendatory and Restated Joint Deed of Hypothecation Agreement dated 27.11.2015 signed and executed by Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW 1/72);

- (xl) First Amendatory and Restated Inter se Agreement dated 27.11.2015 (Ex. AW 1/73);

- (xli) Letter of Authority to the Lead Bank (Applicant Bank), signed and executed by Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW 1/74);

- (xlii) Letter of Authority to Second Lead Bank dated 27.11.2015 (Ex. AW 1/75);

- (xliii) Letter dated 27.11.2015 signed and executed by Defendant no. 1 regarding Compliances of RBI Clauses (Ex. AW 1/76);

- (xliv) Letter of Undertaking dated 27.11.2015 signed and executed by Defendant no. 1 for creating a Second Charge on Fixed Assets (Ex. AW 1/77);

- (xlv) First Amendatory and Restated Deed of Guarantee by Defendants no. 2, 3, 5 & 8 (Ex. AW 1/78);

- (xlvi) First Amendatory and Restated Deed of Corporate Guarantee dated 27.11.2015 by Defendants no. 9 to 12 (Ex. AW 1/79);

- (xlvii) Letter dated 31.12.2015 issued by Defendant no. 15 confirming the deposit and execution of documents in its favour by the Borrower, guarantors and mortgagors for the credit facilities availed by Defendant no.1 from the consortium Lenders (Ex. AW 1/80);

- (xlviii) Sanction Letter dated 29.05.2012 issued by erstwhile State Bank of Travancore whereby it sanctioned a Term Loan of Rs. 4.80 Crore to the Defendant no. 1 Company (Ex. AW 1/81);

- (xlix) Term Loan Agreement for High Value Advances (Form C & I-5) dated 13.06.2012 for Rs. 4.80 Crore signed and executed by Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW 1/82);

- (l) Agreement of Hypothecation for Term Loan (Form C & I-6) dated 13.06.2012 for Rs. 4.80 Crore and charge on the Rice Bran Oil Solvent Extraction plant at Mandideep, Madhya Pradesh signed and executed by Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW 1/81);

- (li) Deeds of Guarantee for Term Loan of Rs. 4.80 Crore (Form C & I-7) dated 13.06.2012 signed and executed by Defendants no. 2, 3, 8 to 12 and Late Sh. Anil Mittal (Ex. AW 1/82);

- (lii) Deeds of Guarantee for Overall Limit (Form C & I-7) dated 10.02.2015 signed and executed by Defendant no. 5, being wife of Late Sh. Anil Mittal, as Guarantor for Overall Limit (Form C & I-7) dated 10.02.2015 for the new Term Loan of Rs. 4.80 Crore (Ex. AW 1/83);

- (liii) Sanction Letter dated 30.03.2016 issued by the erstwhile State Bank of Travancore sanctioning / renewing the various Credit facilities granted to Defendant no. 1 along with other Consortium Lenders (Ex. AW 1/84);

- (liv) Memorandum of Entry dated 11.12.2015 signed and executed by Defendant no. 1 in favour of Defendant no. 15 (Ex. AW 1/84);

- (lv) Declaration cum Undertaking dated 11.12.2015 executed by Defendants no. 2 & 5 in favour of Defendant no. 15 for the credit facilities granted to Defendant no. 1 by the Consortium Lenders (Ex. AW 1/85);

- (lvi) Memorandum of Entry dated 11.12.2015 executed by Defendants no. 2 & 5 in favour of Defendant no. 15 as well as title documents of the said property (Ex. AW 1/86 & AW 1/87 to AW 1/91);

- (lvii) Declaration cum Undertaking dated 11.12.2015 signed and executed by Defendant no. 3 (Ex. AW 1/92) and a Memorandum of Entry dated 12.12.2015 in favour of Defendant no. 15 (AW 1/93) and title deeds of the said mortgaged property (Ex. AW 1/94 to AW 1/96);

- (lviii) Declaration cum Undertaking dated 11.12.2015 (Ex. AW 1/97) and a Memorandum of Entry dated 12.12.2015 (Ex. AW 1/98) signed and executed by Defendants no. 4, 5, 6 & 7 in favour of Defendant no. 15 as well as title deeds of the mortgaged property (Ex. AW 1/99 to AW 1/101);

- (lix) Declaration cum Undertaking dated 11.12.2015 and a Memorandum of Entry dated 12.12.2015 executed by Defendant no. 11 in favour of Defendant no. 15(Ex. AW 1/102 & AW 1/103) as well as title deeds of the mortgaged property (Ex. AW 1/104 to AW 1/108);

- (lx) Declaration cum Undertaking dated 11.12.2015 and a Memorandum of Entry dated 12.12.2015 signed and executed by Defendant no. 10 in favour of Defendant no. 15 (Ex. AW 1/109 & AW 1/110) as well as title deeds of the mortgaged property (Ex. AW 1/111 & AW 1/112);

- (lxi) Undertaking cum Negative lien dated 27.11.2015 signed and executed by Defendant no. 12 with regard to immovable property (Ex. AW 1/113);

- (lxii) Sanction Letter dated 16.02.2015 signed and acknowledged by Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW 1/114);

- (lxiii) Sanction Letter dated 30.03.2016 signed and acknowledged by Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW 1/115);

- (lxiv) Charge of the Applicant Bank and Consortium Lenders duly registered with the Registrar of Companies Delhi & Haryana whereby Defendants admitted their liabilities towards the consortium Lenders including the Applicant Bank (Ex. AW 1/116); 

- (lxv) Balance Confirmations dated 20.03.2012, 07.04.2015, 05.06.2015, 19.06.2016 and 10.06.2016 signed and executed by Defendant no. 1 in favour of the Applicant Bank (Ex. AW 1/117 to AW 1/121);

- (lxvi) Revival Letter dated 20.03.2012, 26.02.2013, 10.02.2015, 13.06.2015, 23.09.2015 and 19.08.2017 signed and executed by the Defendant no. 1 in favour of the State Bank of Travancore / State Bank of India (Ex. AW 1/122 to AW 1/127);

- (lxvii) Revival Letters dated 12.01.2015 and 19.08.2017 (2) signed and executed by Defendant no. 1 in favour of the Applicant Bank (Ex. AW 1/128 & AW 1/129);

- (lxviii) Duly audited Balance Sheets for the financial year upto 2016-17 whereby Defendant no. 1 time and again acknowledged its liability to pay the outstanding amount to the Applicant Bank (Ex. AW 1/130);

- (lxxix) Demand Notice dated 15.05.2017 issued by the Applicant Bank for an amount of Rs. 435,55,00,000/- to Defendants (Borrower / Mortgagors / Guarantors) under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act (Ex. AW 1/131);

- (lxx) Legal Demand Notice dated 14.09.2017 issued by the Applicant Bank for an amount of Rs. 421,81,36,528.22 to Defendants (Borrower / Mortgagors / Guarantors) (Ex. AW 1/132);

- (lxxi) Statements of Account duly certified under the Bankers Books Evidence Act in respect of all the Loan Accounts, the calculation sheet of the secured interest of the Loan Accounts, and the statement showing the total outstanding amount (Ex. AW 1/1333 to AW 1/146).

7.3. So far as, Defendants no. 1 to 6, 8 and 9 to 12 are concerned, they did not chose to file any evidence. Thus, the defence taken by these Defendants in their respective WS(s) remained unsubstantiated / uncorroborated.

**Evidence filed by the Applicants and Respondent Bank in Counter Claim**

8. It is matter of record that the Applicants in CC have not chosen to file any documentary evidence, hence, the grounds taken by these Applicants in the CC remained unsubstantiated / uncorroborated.

8.1 So far as, Respondent Bank is concerned, it has already filed relevant documents along with its Reply to CC viz. copy of Minutes of JLM / Consortium Meetings held from time to time (Annexures R-1 to R-6).

**Discussion and observation made in TA**

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

9.1 Now I would like to deal with the objections raised by Defendants no. 1 to 6, 8 and 9 to 12 in their respective WS(s) in following paras:-

(i) Defendants no. 1 to 6, 8 and 9 to 12 have raised an objection that the Applicant Bank is guilty of *suppresio vari and suggestion falsi* as they have concealed various important and material facts from 

this Hon'ble Tribunal, hence, the present OA under reply is liable to be dismissed.

It is matter of record that the answering Defendants have not filed any evidence in support of their WS, thus, the defence taken by them has remained unsubstantiated / uncorroborated. Even otherwise, the Applicant Bank has placed on record all the relevant documents viz. Sanction Letters, Loan Agreements, Guarantee Deeds as well as Statement of Accounts duly certified under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act to establish the liability of Defendants. In these circumstances, this Tribunal is of the view that the present objection of answering Defendants does not hold any water and same stands rejected accordingly.

- (ii) Defendants no. 1 to 6, 8 and 9 to 12 have also raised an objection that the OA under reply is not maintainable in law or facts as it does not even disclose any cause of action against the answering Defendants.

As already discussed in above para, the Applicant Bank has already filed all the relevant documents with regard to sanctioning of loan facilities to the Defendants from time to time, execution of all security documents by the Defendants etc. etc. Further more, Defendants have not denied availment of loan facilities from the Applicant Bank. In these circumstances, this plea of answering Defendants stands rejected accordingly.

- (iii) Defendants no. 1 to 6, 8 and 9 to 12 have also raised an objection that the Applicant Bank has charged exorbitant, excessive and usurious rates. It is stated in the respective WS(s) that the answering Defendants never agreed to the rates of interest as charged and claimed by the Applicant. Further more, each and every entry shown in the alleged statement of accounts is denied by the answering Defendants. It is also stated in the WS that the Applicant Bank has failed to give proper credit of the amount deposited by the answering Defendants from time to time as the entries made in the statement of accounts filed by the Applicant Bank in support of its alleged claim does not reflect the credited amount on the part of the Defendants. It is also stated in the WS(s) that the alleged Statements of Account is not a Statement of Accounts in the eyes of law as it is not certified as per Section 2(8) and 2-A Bankers Books Evidence Act. Therefore, the Statement of Account should not be taken on record and should not be read as evidence in the OA under reply. Thus, the present OA be dismissed on this ground alone.

Record reveals that the Applicant Bank has already filed Statement of Accounts of all the accounts which have been duly proved as Ex. AW-1/133 to 1/146. Further, the said Statement of Accounts reflect the transaction history, charging interest. In banking recovery proceedings, certified extracts of account maintained in regular course of business 

constitute *prima facie* evidence of the existence debt under Section 4 of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, when read with Section 19 of the RDB Act. These entries of the Statement of Accounts are supported by loan agreements, hypothecation deeds, guarantee deeds, sanction letters and audited balance sheets. Record reveals that the Statements of Accounts are accompanied by certificates under Section 2(8) and 2A of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 This Tribunal is of the view that the Defendants were always at liberty to file their own statement of accounts but they have not chosen to file the same. Now at the time of paying the dues of the Applicant, these Defendants are raising such type of plea to get absolve from their respective liability which is not acceptable. Hence, the present objection stands rejected accordingly.

- (iv) Defendants no. 1 to 6, 8 and 9 to 12 have also taken a plea that the alleged letter of guarantees are without stamp paper and are not executed as per law, therefore, same are not admissible for any purpose by this Hon'ble Tribunal.

This Tribunal is of the view that Indian Stamp Act is a fiscal statute meant to secure state revenues which not a weapon for borrowers to escape contractual liabilities. Even otherwise, the documents including guarantee agreements were duly executed and stamped in accordance with law prevailing at the time of execution of respective security documents. This Tribunal is of the view that when the answering Defendants 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. 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.

With the above said observations, this plea of answering Defendants stands rejected.

- (v) Defendants no. 1 to 6, 8 and 9 to 12 have further raised an objection that the OA may be dismissed on the ground of non-prosecution as the OA is filed without the power of attorney of the authorized person namely Sh. Vinod Kumar officer of the Applicant Bank. Moreover, the Bank who has filed the present OA has no locus standi to file the present OA.

It is matter of record that this OA has been filed through Sh. Vinod Kumar, Assistant General Manager who was the Principal Officer of SBI's Stressed Assets Management Branch (SAMB), where the loan accounts were transferred for recovery. Under Regulations 76 & 77 of the State Bank of India General Regulations, 1955, read with Central Government Gazette Notifications dated 26.09.1959, 2608.1972 and 02.05.1987 (Ex. AW-1/3 to AW-1/6), the AGM Branch Head is legally competent to initiate pleadings, sign, verify and execute affidavits on behalf of the Bank.

Thereafter, following the assignment of the debt, Sh. Pankaj Agnihotri, Senior Vice President of the Resolution Agent Company on behalf of NARCL, filed an Evidence by way of Affidavit verifying the records under regular custody (Ex. AW-1/1 to AW-1/146). Further more, personal presence during the original execution is not mandated under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891, nor under the CPC, where an authorized officer depose from official records.

In the light of above, it is clear that this plea of answering Defendants does not hold any water and same stands rejected.

- (vi) Defendants no. 1 to 6, 8 and 9 to 12 have also raised an objection that certain documents / supporting e stamp paper of certain documents, which are filed with the OA do not bear the name of the second party as the Applicant Bank. It is also stated that the said e-stamp paper does not bear the official seal and the signature of the authorized person of the Applicant Bank. It is further stated that the Applicant Bank has misused the said e stamp paper/s and is guilty of breach of the trust. Hence, the said documents cannot be read into the evidence as the same is not admissible in the law.

This Tribunal does not find any merit in the aforesaid contention of the answering Defendants which is been raised without any evidence. Even otherwise, availment of loan facilities and execution of security documents has also not been denied by the Defendants. Further more, Defendants have also executed various Balance Confirmations as well as Revival Letters from time to time which have already been proved by the Applicant. Thus, this Tribunal is of the view that now at the time of paying the dues of the Applicant, these Defendants cannot get any benefit by taking such frivolous grounds. Hence, this plea of answering stands rejected.

- (vii) Defendants no. 1 to 6, 8 and 9 to 12 have also raised an objection that the Applicant Bank has not filed the Statement of Accounts of the Trust and the Retention Account maintained by the Applicant Bank as a party to the alleged consortium member. It is also stated that the Defendants have paid huge amount of the money which are more than Rs. 200.0 Crore in the said TRA Account but neither the Applicant Bank has credit the payments into the TRA Account nor the Applicant Bank has mentioned anywhere in the present OA. In this way, the Applicant Bank tried to conceal the above mentioned fact which reflects the fraudulent conduct of the Applicant Bank.

As already discussed in above paras, the Applicant has placed on record the Statement of Accounts duly certified under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891, covering all loan accounts, along with calculation sheets for accrued interest.

It is matter of record that the primary lending facilities granted to the Defendant no. 1 were Working Capital Cash Credits / EPC limits and designated Term Loans. The relevant Statement of Accounts for all six individual loan accounts maintained by the Lead Bank (SBI) and erstwhile State Bank of Travancore (e-SBT) have been procured and certified (duly proved as Ex. AW-1/33 to Ex. AW-1/146). This Tribunal is of the view that answering Defendants have merely made bald assertions without pointing out a single specific mathematical error or uncredited payment to rebut this statutory presumption.

It is the case of the Applicant that all funds routed through the consortium mechanism and credited towards the borrower's liability have been reflected in the Cash Credit and Term Loan accounts. So far as, question of Defendants' plea that over Rs. 200.0 Crore were paid / credited by them into a TRA and suppressed by the Applicant, is concerned, this Tribunal is of the considered view that this plea is an unsubstantiated plea lacking particulars, dates or payment receipt.

In the light of above, this objection of answering Defendants no. 1 to 6, 8 and 12 is liable to be rejected and same stands rejected.

(viii) Next objection raised by the Defendants no. 1 to 6, 8 and 9 to 12 is that the OA under Reply is not maintainable as prima facie evident from the fact that the alleged letter of guarantees are without stamp paper, therefore, same are not admissible for any purpose by this Hon'ble Tribunal and same be dismissed on this ground.

This objection has already been discussed in above paras and same stands rejected accordingly.

(ix) Defendants no. 1 to 6, 8 and 9 to 12 have also taken a plea that the Applicant Bank has made the OA with utter negligence which is prima facie evident from the fact that memo of parties contains Defendants no. 1 to 15 whereas in para 2 sub para (ii) "wherein address for service of all the notices to the defendants" are mentioned the applicant has mentioned 18 defendants in total which proves that entire application has been made with the negligence and in a very causal and careless manner. Hence, the OA may be dismissed on this short ground only.

I have gone through the record that it is found that there are total 15 Defendants in the present OA which have been duly mentioned correctly at Pages 1 to 6 of the OA whereas in Para 2 sub para (ii), applicant has mentioned the Defendants no. 1 to 8 correctly but thereafter Defendants no. 9 to 15 (page 7 & 8) have been typed as "Defendants no. 12 to 18" which seems to be a typographical error only. Hence, for this typographical error, answering Defendants cannot be allowed to get absolve from their liability towards the Applicant. With these observations, this objection of answering Defendants no. 1 to 6, 8 and 9 to 12 stands rejected accordingly.

- (x) Defendants no. 1 to 6, 8 and 9 to 12 have further taken a plea that this Hon'ble Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to entertain the present OA stating that neither the Defendants resides nor works for the gain within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Tribunal.

It is matter of record that the Defendants reside and work for gain in Delhi and Noida, UP.

Section 19(1) of RDB Act, which governs the territorial jurisdiction of Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs), states that *an application may be made to the Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction: (a) The bank or financial institution maintains the account in which the debt is outstanding. (b) The defendant resides, carries on business, or personally works for gain. (c) The cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.*

Moreover, the amount to be recovered in the present OA exceeds Rs. 100.0 Crore. Hence, in the light of Gazette Notification No. 4718 (E) dated 04.10.2022 issued by Government of India, Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, this Tribunal is having pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose off the OA.

In these circumstances, the Tribunal is of the considered view this Tribunal has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this Original Application (OA). Hence, this objection of Defendants no. 1 to 6, 8 & 9 to 12 stands rejected.

- (xi) Defendants no. 1 to 6, 8 and 9 to 12 have also raised an objection that the Applicant Bank has not valued the properties mentioned in Para 3A-iii as per the current market price of the properties mentioned therein. It is further stated that the valuation of the alleged mortgaged properties cannot be valued at such an alleged miniscule value as provided by the Applicant Bank and its consortium members.

It is matter of record that the Defendants no. 1 to 6, 8 & 9 to 12 have not filed any documentary evidence in support of their defence. They were always at liberty to file their own Valuation Reports but they have not done so. Hence, this objection of the answering Defendants no. 1 to 6, 8 & 12 does not hold any water and same stands rejected.

- (xii) Next objection raised by Defendants no. 1 to 6, 8 and 9 to 12 is that the OA under reply is barred by the law of limitation prescribed under the RDB Act, 1993.

Record reveals that the answering Defendants executed various security documents from time to time and lastly they executed the security documents on 24.09.2014. It is also matter of record that various Balance Confirmation Letters were executed by the Defendant no. 1 on 20.03.2012, 07.04.2015, 05.06.2015, 19.04.2016 and 10.06.2016 (Ex. AW-1/117 to AW-1/121). Moreover, Defendant no. 1 also executed various Revival Letters under Section 18 on 12.01.2015, 10.02.2015, 13.06.2015, 23.09.2015 and 19.08.2017 (Ex. AW-1/122 to AW-1/129). Further, Defendant no. 1 acknowledged it debt in its duly audited Balance Sheets for the financial years up to 2016-2017 (Ex. AW-1/13).

In the light of above, since this this OA was filed on 20.03.2018 hence, it is well within the period of limitation.

Even otherwise, present matter pertains to recovery of amount advanced to the Borrower Company against the mortgage of immovable properties. In this case, equitable mortgage(s) was created at the time of disbursal of loan facilities from time to time wherein the mortgage of immovable properties of Defendants is involved. The present claim of the Applicant is secured by registered equitable mortgages created on 15.12.2014, 23.12.2014, 26.12.2014 and 11.12.2015, for which the period of limitation to enforce payment is 12 years under Article 62 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Thus, it is clear that this OA has been filed well within the period of limitation. Accordingly, this plea of Defendants no. 1 to 6, 8 and 9 to 12 is not tenable and same is hereby rejected.

(xiii) Defendants no. 1 to 6, 8 and 9 to 12 have also raised an objection that the Applicant Bank has no charge over the mortgaged properties stating that the documents on the basis of which the Applicant Bank is claiming were got signed under the commercial undue influence and coercion on the blank papers. Thus the said documents cannot be admitted in evidence and relied upon.

It is matter of record that the answering Defendants no. 1 to 6, 8 and 9 to 12 have 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 Bank, is not maintainable after filing of the suit. Accordingly, this objection of Defendants no. 1 to 6, 8 and 9 to 12 is hereby rejected.

9.2 It is matter of record that Defendant no. 1 is the Principal Borrower and Defendants no. 2, 3, 5, 8 and 9 to 12 have been impleaded in the capacity of personal / corporate guarantors.

9.3 So far as, Defendants no. 4, 6 & 7 are concerned, they have been impleaded in this OA as mortgagors only. It is matter of record that Defendants no. 4, 6 & 7 have not executed any guarantee deed in favour of the Applicant Bank. Even otherwise, Applicant has also not sought any relief qua these Defendants in the capacity of guarantors which is evident from the relief clauses of this OA. In these circumstances, it is directed that the liability of Defendants no. 4, 6 & 7 shall be limited to the extent of property(s) mortgaged by them. .

9.4 So far as, Defendants no. 13 to 15 are concerned, these Defendants have been impleaded in this OA as Proforma Defendant and no relief has been claimed against these Defendants by the Applicant.

9.5 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.

9.6 In this OA, Applicant has prayed to issue recovery certificate against Defendants no. 1 and Defendants no. 2 to 12 wherein the Defendant 1 is principal borrower whereas Defendants no. 2, 3, 5 and 8 are Personal Guarantors & Defendants no. 9 to 12 are the Corporate Guarantors.

So far as, Defendants no. 4, 6 & 7 are concerned, they have been impleaded as Mortgagors only.

So far as, Defendants no. 13 to 15 are concerned, these Defendants have been impleaded in this OA as Proforma Defendant and no relief has been claimed against these Defendants by the Applicant.

9.7 Consequently, TA No. 446/2022 is liable to be allowed in favour of Applicant against the Defendants no. 1 to 12 in following manner :-

<thead> <tr> <th>Facilities</th> <th>Against Defendants numbers</th> <th>Amount due</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>Working Capital Credit Facilities (for account Nos. 10324773627, 67003669288 and 67003669981)</td> <td>1, 3, 5 and 8 to 12</td> <td>428,66,78,187.81</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Term Loans (for account Nos. 32245522764 and 32850719202)</td> <td>1, 2, 5 and 8 to 12</td> <td>635,38,366.02</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Term Loan (for account No. 6718679243)</td> <td>1, 2 and 5</td> <td>2,55,11,808.94</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

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.

So far as, Defendants no. 4, 6 & 7 are concerned, their liability shall be limited to the extent of property(s) mortgaged by them (as discussed in above paras).

9.8 It is also matter of record that two IAs being IA Nos. 899/2020 and 1841/2021 filed on behalf of Applicant are still pending which were to be considered by the Tribunal at the time of final arguments.

Record reveals that IA No. 899/2020 has been filed for seeking attachment of properties belonging to Defendants no. 4, 5, 7 & 8 and IA No. 1841/2021 was filed for seeking attachment of the properties belonging to Defendant no. 1.

Since, this OA is going to be decided finally and consequently Recovery Certificate will also be issued against the concerned Defendants, hence, this Tribunal is of the view that it would not be appropriate to pass any orders for attachment of personal properties belonging to the respective Defendants as this type of applications may be considered by the concerned Recovery Officer in recovery proceedings while executing the Recovery Certificate.

With the above said observations, IA No. 899/2020 and 1841/2021 stands disposed off accordingly.

**Discussion and observation made in Counter Claim**

10. Heard Ld. counsels for the parties in Counter Claim and perused the entire record.

10.1 It is matter of record that the Applicants in CC have not chosen to file any documentary evidence, hence, the grounds taken by these Applicants in the CC remained unsubstantiated / uncorroborated.

10.2 Even otherwise, perusal of the Counter-Claim pleadings reveals an unequivocal admission by the Applicants in CC i.e. Borrowers/Guarantors regarding the availing of credit facilities from the consortium of lenders led by State Bank of India. The execution of loan-cum- security documents, creation of equitable mortgages, and furnishing of personal/corporate guarantees are also matter of record and duly corroborated by contemporaneous documents in the TA No. 446/2022.

10.3 It is also matter of record that the WS in TA No. 446/2022 was filed on 30.11.2019 but Counter Claim was filed on 17.12.2019 i.e. subsequent to filing of WS whereas, as per Section 19(5) of RDB Act, it should have been filed along with the WS.

10.4 So far as, allegations of fraud, coercion, obtaining signatures on blank papers is concerned, 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., the plea of signing the documents under misrepresentation / blank / unfilled documents / without consent, alleged to be misused by the Bank, is not maintainable after filing of the suit. Accordingly, this plea of Applicants in CC stands rejected.

10.5 Applicants' in CC have also raised an objection that Bank committed breach of contract by failing to disburse additional credit facilities for capital expansion at Mandideep in early 2016.

Record reveals that in the Joint Lenders Meeting (JLM) dated 28.09.2015 as well as in subsequent consortium meetings, the Borrower company had explicitly represented that it was not planning any major capital expansion and would focus entirely on maximizing existing capacity utilization. Moreover, the credit facilities cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Any further enhancement or funding is strictly contingent upon commercial viability, satisfactory conduct of existing accounts, and compliance with prudential lending norms, and as per the Respondent Bank, none of these requirement were fulfilled by the Borrower.

10.5 Applicants in CC have also taken a plea with regard to Mandideep Flood Losses and Insurance Claims.

This Tribunal is of the view that the Respondent Bank had no active or passive role in causing the same. Even otherwise, the Applicant Bank, as a secured creditor, acted within its rights by asking the company to submit proper stock statements, co-operate with stock auditors, and route insurance claim proceeds through the designated Trust and Retention Account (TRA). Further more, it is stated in the Reply of Respondent Bank that the insurance proceeds received were appropriately accounted for and adjusted against the outstanding dues in terms of the hypothecation and assignment covenants. On the other hand, Applicants in CC have not filed any documentary evidence in support of their contention.

In the light of above, this objection of Applicants in CC does not hold any water and same stands rejected.

10.6 Next objection raised by Applicants is with regard to "Holding on Operations" (HOO) and TRA Account Management.

So far as, this plea of "Holding on Operations" (HOO) and TRA Account Management is concerned, it is stated in the Reply by the Respondent Bank that the Consortium Lenders / SBI, out of sheer commercial grace and to facilitate business continuity, granted "Holding on Operations" (HOO) through the TRA account for a limited period up to 20.02.2017, subject to strict financial discipline and a 5% cut-back mechanism. It is also stated by the Respondent Bank that the continuation of HOO was expressly conditioned upon the Borrower's full cooperation with the independent forensic auditors and TEV consultants (KPMG) appointed under the RBI guidelines. It is further stated in the Reply that it was the Borrower/Counterclaimant, who persistently defaulted, withheld vital financial data, delayed forensic audit requirements, and failed to regularize the account, therefore, the Lenders were justified in discontinuing the HOO facility and classifying the account as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) in accordance with RBI Master Circulars.

It is matter of record that Applicants in CC have not filed any documentary proof in support of their contention. On the other hand, Applicant in TA has already proved their case duly corroborated by their documentary evidence. Hence, in the absence of any documentary proof, this objection of Applicants in CC is not tenable and same stands rejected accordingly.

10.7 Applicants in CC have also raised an objection that due to non acceptance of the Foreign Investment proposal given by Gautam General Trading LLC, they have suffered huge losses, as mentioned in CC.

So far as, the present objection with regard to non acceptance of the Foreign Investment Proposal (\$50 Million USD / Gautam General Trading LLC) by the consortium members including the Respondent Bank is concerned, this Tribunal is of the considered view that in the absence of any concrete, verifiable due diligence documents, board-approved projections, or binding escrow/investment commitments to the consortium lenders despite repeated opportunities, the Respondent Bank cannot be held liable for the said loss. In such a situation, no financial institution can grant unconditional No-Objection Certificates (NOCs) for foreign equity induction in an NPA account riddled with forensic audit red flags.

With the above said observations, this objection of Applicants in CC stands rejected accordingly.

10.8 Applicants have also raised an objection that that loan accounts of Applicant no. 1 were classified as NPA illegally by the Respondent and the SARFAESI actions were also initiated.

It is matter of record that the Applicants in CC have neither denied availment of credit facilities from the Applicant as well as other consortium Lender Banks. They have also not denied the defaults committed by them. The Applicants have also not filed any concrete evidence in support of their contention. In these circumstances, this Tribunal is of the view that loan accounts of Applicant no. 1 was classified as as NPA on 30.09.2016 (w.e.f. 06.01.2016) in compliance with RBI Prudential Norms on Income Recognition and Asset Classification (IRAC) due to continuous defaults committed by Applicants herein. Subsequently, demand notices under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 were issued by the Respondent Bank in order to recover its dues from the Borrowers / Guarantors / Mortgagers.

This Tribunal is also of the considered view that the Securitisation proceedings cannot be challenged in the present proceedings by way of a Counter Claim and for this purpose Applicants herein ought to have challenge the SARFAESI proceedings which has not been done by them.

With the above said observations, this plea of Applicants also stands rejected.

10.9 In the light of above discussion, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the present Counter Claim, being devoid of any merits, is liable to be rejected and same stands rejected accordingly.

**ORDER on TA-446/2022 as well as Counter Claim no. NDN/31/2023 (TCC)**

(i) TA No. 446/2022 stands allowed in favour of Applicant and against the Defendants no. 1 to 12 in following manner :-

<thead> <tr> <th>Facilities</th> <th>Against Defendants numbers</th> <th>Amount due</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>Working Capital Credit Facilities (for account Nos. 10324773627, 67003669288 and 67003669981)</td> <td>1, 3, 5 and 8 to 12</td> <td>428,66,78,187.81</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Term Loans (for account Nos. 32245522764 and 32850719202)</td> <td>1, 2, 5 and 8 to 12</td> <td>635,38,366.02</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Term Loan (for account No. 6718679243)</td> <td>1, 2 and 5</td> <td>2,55,11,808.94</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

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.

So far as, Defendants no. 4, 6 & 7 are concerned, their liability shall be limited to the extent of property(s) mortgaged by them (as discussed in above paras).

Now Defendants are 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 Defendants no. 1 to 12.

In case of shortfall, same shall be recovered from the movable and immovable assets of Defendants no. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 8 to 12 only.

- (ii) **Counter Claim bearing NDN/31/2023 (TCC) in TA No. 446/2022** filed by Applicants against Respondent Bank / SBI stands dismissed with no order to cost.

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

- (iv) It is also directed that the sale proceeds of the secured assets shall be distributed between the consortium members, as per inter-se agreements executed amongst them.

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

- (vi) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer-II, DRT-III, Delhi on 04.12.2026.

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

- (viii) A copy of this order be placed in Counter Claim file as well.

Both the Files of TA and Counter Claim be closed and consigned to records.

03.10.2026 (SHIV KUMAR - I) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, DELHI

(Pronounced in open court) Dated: 03.10.2026