ICICI BANK LIMITED vs MS RAMPRASTHA PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS on 12 October 2026

**FINAL ORDER**

1. This original application has been filed by the Applicant Bank / ICICI Bank Limited on 24.12.2016, through Shri Sanjay Sharma, Legal Manager, being Authorized Representative of Applicant Bank, under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 against the Defendants 1 to 14 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 231,65,74,466.67 (Rupees Two Hundred Thirty One Crore Sixty Five Lakh Seventy Four Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Six and Paise Sixty Seven only) together with pendentelite and future interest @20.50% per annum with monthly rests till the date of actual and final realization along with all costs and charges and other relief(s).

1.2 It is pertinent to note here that this OA bearing no. 816/2016 was originally filed before Ld. DRT-I, Delhi, however, in pursuance to Gazette Notification No. 4718 (E) dated 04.10.2022 issued by Government of India, Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, this case file was transferred by Ld. DRT-I, Delhi to this Tribunal in October 2022 and was numbered at TA-200/2022.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Applicant Bank / ICICI Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'ICICI Bank' and/or 'the Applicant Bank') is a company incorporated and registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The Applicant is a "Bank" within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993, and is also a body corporate with perpetual succession and can sue and be sued in its own name. It is further stated that Mr. Sanjay Sharma is presently the Legal Manager and one of the authorized Officers of the Applicant Bank. It is stated in the OA that Mr. Sanjay Sharma is competent and authorized to sign, verify and institute the OA for and on behalf of the Applicant Bank and to do all other correlated acts, deeds and things / legal formalities for the proper prosecution of the instant OA in pursuance to Power of Attorney dated 13.02.2013 duly executed and issued in his favour by the Applicant Bank.

2.1 It is stated in the OA that the Defendant no. 1 is a Company duly registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 (as amended from time to time) which is engaged in the business activity of civil construction works, real estate and infrastructure projects.

Defendants no. 2 to 4 are the directors of Defendant no. 1 Company. Defendants no. 2 to 5 have also executed Guarantees in their personal and individual capacities guaranteeing the repayment of the facilities sanctioned by the Applicant Bank to the Defendant no. 1 Company and availed by the same. It is stated in the OA that as sureties / guarantors, the liability of the Defendants no. 2 to 5 is joint and several with that of the Defendant no. 1.

Defendants no. 6 to 14 are the companies and have executed Guarantees in their corporate capacity guaranteeing the repayment of the facilities sanctioned by the Applicant Bank to the Defendant no. 1 Company and availed by the same. It is stated in the OA that as sureties / guarantors, the liability of the Defendants no. 6 to 14 is also joint and several.

It is further stated in the OA that the facilities granted to Defendant no. 1 were / are also secured by the mortgage of immovable properties and hypothecation of assets, details of which are given in the paragraph below.

2.2 It is stated in the OA that the Applicant Bank had at the request of the Defendant no. 1 made through its Directors vide its Credit Arrangement Letter (CAL) dated 07.06.2013 sanctioned to the Defendant no. 1 the following Facilities :-

<thead> <tr> <th>Facility</th> <th>Overall Limit<br/>(Rs. _____ in<br/>million)</th> <th>Purpose</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td><b>Fund Based</b></td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Rupee Term Loan-I</td> <td>1050.00</td> <td>For part financing</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

<table border="1"> <tr> <td>(RTL-I)</td> <td></td> <td>development cost of Project-I namely, Ramprastha City Project to be developed on 126,594 acres in villages Wazirpur and Mewka, Sector – 92,93 and 95, Gurgaon, Haryana having saleable area of 13,89,357 sq. ft.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Rupee Term Loan-II (RTL-II)</td> <td>1150.00</td> <td>For part financing construction and development of Project-II namely, Group Housing Project to be developed on land measuring 22.8765 acres situated in village Wazirpur, Sector – 92 and 95, Gurgaon, Haryana having saleable area of 14,63,712 sq. ft.</td> </tr> <tr> <td><b>Total</b></td> <td><b>2200.00</b></td> <td></td> </tr> </table>

[RTL-I for an amount of Rs. 1050.00 million and RTL-II for an amount of Rs. 1150.00 million shall hereinafter, individually be referred to as "Facility" and together be referred to as "RTL Facilities").

It is stated in the OA that the terms and conditions of the said CAL dated 07.06.2013 along with annexures thereto were duly accepted by and on behalf of Defendant no. 1 company through its Director i.e. Mr. Arvind Walia (who is arrayed as Defendant no. 2).

2.3 It is further stated in the OA that Defendant no. 1 furnished the requisite Board Resolutions dated 07.06.2013 in respect of availing the RTL Facilities granted to Defendant no. 1 by the Applicant Bank.


Further, Defendants no. 6 to 13 also furnished the respective4 Board Resolutions dated 07.06.2013 for the purpose of providing guarantees / securities for securing the RTL Facilities sanctioned to Defendant no. 1 by the Applicant Bank.

2.4 It is stated in the OA that in consideration of the sanction of the said RTC Facilities by the Applicant Bank, as aforesaid, Defendants no. 1 to 13 executed and delivered to the Applicant Bank, inter-alia, the following loan / financing and security documents:-

- (i) Facility Agreement dated 09.06.2013 executed by Defendant no. 1 Company;

- (ii) Deed of Hypothecation dated 09.06.2013 executed by Defendant no. 1 Company;

- (iii) Undertaking for creation of Permanent Security dated 09.06.2013 executed by Defendant no. 1 Company;

- (iv) Undertaking to pay Additional Interest dated 09.06.2013 executed by Defendant no. 1 Company;

- (v) Shortfall Undertaking dated 09.06.2013 executed by Defendant no. 1 Company and by Defendants no. 2 to 4;

- (vi) Undertaking-cum-Indemnity dated 09.06.2013 executed by Defendant no. 1 Company;

- (vii) Standard Undertaking-cum-Indemnity dated 09.06.2013 executed by Defendant no. 1 Company;

- (viii) Deed of Hypothecation dated 09.06.2013 executed by Defendant no. 5 i.e. Harbhagwan Singh;

- (ix) Deed of Hypothecation dated 09.06.2013 executed by Defendants no. 6 to 11 & 13 Companies;

- (x) Undertaking executed by the Guarantors i.e. Defendants no. 2 to 5 for Non Disposal of Assets dated 09.06.2013;

- (xi) Undertaking for Non Disposal of Assets dated 09.06.2013 executed by Defendants no. 6 to 13;

- (xii) Non Disposal Undertaking (NDU) dated 09.06.2013 executed by Defendant no. 1 and also by Defendants no. 2 to 4;

- (xiii) Deed of Guarantee dated 09.06.2013 executed by Defendants no. 2 to 5;

- (xiv) Deed of Guarantee dated 09.06.2013 executed by Defendants no. 6 to 13.

2.5 It is stated in the OA that as a security for the repayment of the RTL Facilities aggregating to 2200.0 million together with interest etc. and as per terms of CAL dated 07.06.2013, Mr. Sandeep Yadav, an authorized director on behalf of Defendants no. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 13 companies created an equitable mortgage by way of deposit of title deeds on 09.06.2013 of the immovable property more particularly mentioned in 3^rd Schedule of the Memorandum of Entry.

Further, Mr. Harbhagwan Singh i.e. Defendant no. 5 for the purpose of security the repayment of the RTL Facilities aggregating to 2200.0 million together with interest etc. and as per terms of CAL dated 07.06.2013, created an equitable mortgage by way of deposit of title deeds on 09.06.2013 of the immovable property more particularly mentioned in 3^rd Schedule of the Memorandum of Entry.

It is stated in the OA that Mr. Vikas Rana, Assistant General Manager of Applicant Bank recorded the Memorandum of Entry on 10.06.2013 in regular course of business regarding deposit of title deeds made by Defendant no. 3, Mr. Sandeep Yadav on behalf of Defendants no. 6 to 11 and 13 and by Defendant no. 5 in respect of said property on 09.06.2013.

Further, Defendants no. 6 to 11 and 13 had also executed a Declaration through their authorized director, Mr. Sandeep Yadav, declaring that the said immovable properties are free from all encumbrances, charges (statutory or otherwise), claims and demands and that the same or any of them or any part thereof is not subject to any lien / *lis pendens* / attachment or any other process issue by any court of authority.

Moreover, a similar Declaration dated 09.06.2013 had been executed by Defendant no. 5, Mr. Harbhagwan Singh, in respect of his share measuring 1.526 acres in the total mortgage land measuring 26.612 acres.

[details of mortgage have been given in Para 5(5.7) of the OA].

2.6 It is stated in the OA that further as a security for the repayment of the RTL Facilities aggregating to 2200.0 million together with interest etc. and as per terms of CAL dated 07.06.2013, Mr. Sandeep Yadav, an authorized director on behalf of Defendants no. 3, 4, 6, 8 and 12 created an equitable mortgage by way of deposit of title deeds on 13.08.2013 of the immovable property more particularly mentioned in 3^rd Schedule of the Memorandum of Entry.

It is stated in the OA that Mr. Vikas Rana, Assistant General Manager of Applicant Bank had recorded the Memorandum of Entry on 14.08.2013 in regular course of business regarding deposit of title deeds made by Defendants no. 3, 4, 6, 8 and 12 in respect of said property on 13.08.2013.

Further, Defendants no. 3 & 4 had also executed a Declaration dated 13.08.2013 declaring that the immovable properties are free from all encumbrances, charges (statutory or otherwise), claims and demands and that the same or any of them or any part thereof is not subject to any lien / *lis pendens* / attachment or any other process issue by any court of authority.

Moreover, a similar Declaration dated 13.08.2013 had been executed by and on behalf of Defendants no. 6, 8 & 12 through their authorized director i.e. Defendant no. 3 (Mr. Sandeep Yadav) declaring that the immovable properties mortgaged in favour of the Applicant Bank are free from all encumbrances, charges (statutory or otherwise), claims and demands and that the same or any of them or any part thereof is not subject to any lien / *lis pendens* / attachment or any other process issue by any court of authority.

[details of mortgage have been given in Para 5(5.8) of the OA].

2.7 It is stated in the OA that Defendants no. 3 & 4 also executed a Deed of Hypothecation dated 13.08.2013 in favor of the Applicant Bank for creation of charge / security interest over the hypothecated assets for securing the repayment of the above said RTL Facilities sanctioned by the Applicant Bank. The details of the hypothecated assets are given in Schedule II of the Deed of Hypothecation. [details given in Para 5(5.9) of the OA].

2.8 It is stated in the OA that Defendants no. 6, 8 & 12 companies also executed a Deed of Hypothecation dated 13.08.2013 under their respective common seals through their authorized Director i.e. Defendant no. 3 (Mr. Sandeep Yadav) in favor of the Applicant Bank for creation of charge / security interest over the hypothecated assets for securing the repayment of the above said RTL Facilities sanctioned by the Applicant Bank. The details of the hypothecated assets are given in Schedule-II of the Deed of Hypothecation. [details given in Para 5(5.10) of the OA].

2.9 It is stated in the OA that after execution of the loan and security documents as above, the Defendant no. 1 Company duly availed the RTL Facilities from the Applicant Bank.

**Amendatory Credit Arrangement Letter No. 45/CRFDEL/78694 dated 12.01.2015**

2.10 It is stated in the OA that in January, 2015, the Defendant no. 1 approached the Applicant Bank and further requested the Applicant Bank to modify certain existing terms and conditions of the said RTL Facilities. Thus, acceding to such request, the Applicant Bank by Amendatory Credit Arrangement Letter dated 12.01.2015 agreed to modify the existing terms and conditions of the sanctioned RTL-I and RTL-II to the extent specified in the Annexure to the said Amendatory Credit Arrangement Letter dated 12.01.2015. [details of principal modifications are mentioned in Para 5(5.12) of the OA].

It is stated in the OA that the terms and conditions of the said Amendatory CAL dated 12.01.2015 were duly accepted by and on behalf of Defendant no. 1 company through its authorized Director, Defendant no. 2 on 13.01.2015.

2.11 It is also stated in the OA that vide Letter of Amendment dated 12.01.2015, appropriate amendments were made to the Facility Agreement dated 09.08.2013 in order to give effect to the Amendatory Credit Arrangement Letter dated 12.01.2015. The said amendments are set out in an annexure to the said Letter of Amendment dated 12.01.2015. It is also stated that the said Letter of Amendment dated 12.01.2015 as well as the annexure thereto are duly signed and executed by all the Defendants. The Defendants no. 6 to 14 Companies have signed and executed the said Letter of Amendment under their common seal and also duly accepting all terms and conditions set forth therein.

2.12 It is also stated in the OA that in terms of the Amendatory CAL dated 12.01.2015 and in pursuance to the Board Resolution dated 13.01.2016, Defendant no. 14 Company executed the following security documents contractual comforts in favour of the Applicant Bank :-

- (i) Deed of Hypothecation dated 12.02.2015 executed by Defendant no. 14 Company;

- (ii) Deed of Guarantee dated 12.02.2015 executed by Defendant no. 14;

- (iii) Undertaking dated 12.02.2015 for Non-Disposal of assets executed by Defendant no. 14;

- (iv) Undertaking for creation of Permanent Security dated 13.01.2015 executed by Defendants no. 1 to 14.

2.13 It is pertinent to state at this juncture that Defendant no. 14 company had also passed a Special Resolution in the Extra Ordinary General Meeting of its shareholders held on 13.01.2016 in terms of Section 186 and in compliance with Section 185 Companies Act, 2013 resolving to agree to execute the corporate guarantee in favour of the Applicant Bank in support of RTL-I and RTL-II Facilities sanctioned by the Applicant Bank to Defendant no. 1 Company.

2.14 It is stated in the OA that Defendant no. 14 on the same day i.e. 13.01.2015 had also passed a special resolution in its EGM in terms of Section 180(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 to hypothecate / charge its scheduled receivables of its Project "Platinum Premier" in favour of the Applicant Bank for the RTL Facilities sanctioned to Defendant no. 1 Company.

2.15 On the same day i.e. 13.01.2015, Defendant no. 14 Company also passed a resolution in the meeting of Board of Directors inter alia for execution of Undertaking for Non-Disposal of Shares, Corporate Guarantee and Hypothecation of receivables.

**Amendatory Credit Arrangement Letter No. 45/CRFDEL/80111 dated 17.02.2015**

2.16 It is stated in the OA that in February 2015, the Defendant no. 1 again approached the Applicant bank and further requested the Applicant Bank to further modify certain existing terms and conditions of the said RTL Facilities. According to such request, the Applicant Bank by Amendatory Credit Arrangement Letter dated 17.02.2015 again agreed to modify some of the existing terms and conditions of the sanctioned RTL-I and RTL-II to the extent specified in the annexure to the said Amendatory CAL dated 17.02.2018 [details of principal modifications carried out are given in Para 5(5.16) of the OA].

It is also stated in the OA that the terms and conditions of the said Amendatory CAL dated 17.02.2015 were duly accepted by and on behalf of the Defendant no. 1 Company through its authorized director i.e. Defendant no. 2 (Mr. Arvind Walia).

2.17 It is stated in the OA that vide Letter of Amendment dated 19.02.2015, appropriate amendments were made in Section 12(A) of Schedule I to the Facility Agreement dated 09.08.2013 to give effect to the provisions of the Amendatory Credit Arrangement Letter dated 17.02.2015. The said amendments are set out in an annexure to the said Letter of Amendment dated 19.02.2015. It is further stated that the said Letter of Amendment dated 19.02.2015 as well as the annexures are duly signed and executed by all the Defendants. It is also stated that the Defendants no. 6 to 14 companies had also signed and executed the said Letter of Amendment under their common seal.

2.18 It is stated in the OA that the particulars of charges created by Defendant no. 1 and Defendants no. 6 to 14 Companies were duly filed in the office of Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana. In this regard, copies of search reports obtained by the Applicant bank from M/s B.R. Maheshwari & Co. Chartered Accountants – all dated 22.03.2016 are also being annexed with the OA.

2.19 It is stated in the OA that Defendant no. 1 Company failed and neglected to make payment / repayment of the amounts as payable on the due date along with interest and other charges under the said RTL-I and RTL-II Facilities. Further, Defendant no. 1 also committed various breaches in complying with the terms and conditions under the loan and security documents. Despite constant follow up by the Applicant Bank, the Defendants failed to make any sincere efforts to ensure timely payment of loan instalments and interest and also to comply with various other terms and conditions of sanction.

It is stated in the OA that on account of persistent irregularities in the account(s) of the Defendant no. 1 Company, the account(s) of the Defendant no. 1 Company maintained with the Applicant Bank was classified as a Non Performing Asset (NPA) on 14.06.2016 in accordance with the extant directives and / or guidelines relating to classification issued by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time.

2.20 It is stated in the OA that Bank of Maharashtra had reported on account of Defendant no. 1 Company to Reserve Bank of India under Special Mention Account – 2 (SMA-2) category on 02.12.2014 and the same triggered the formation of Joint Lenders Forum (JLF) as per the extant Guidelines and instructions issued by the RBI.

It is also stated in the OA that the Meetings of the JLF were held on 16.12.2014, 09.06.2014, 22.12.2015, 08.05.2016 and last meeting was held on 20.12.2016. In the said meetings, the representatives of the borrower company (Defendant no. 1) admitted the status of outstanding dues of all their lenders.

As per the minutes of JLF dated 06.05.2016, the said Borrower had admitted the following dues of different lenders including the Applicant Bank :-

<thead> <tr> <th>Bank<br/>(in Rs. Million)</th> <th>Sanction Amt.</th> <th>Principal Outstanding</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>ICICI Bank Ltd.</td> <td>2200.0 (Fund Based)</td> <td>2084.0 (Fund Based)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Bank of Maharashtra</td> <td>1000.0 (Fund Based)<br/>239.5 (Non FB)</td> <td>875.0 (Fund Based)<br/>176.0 (Non FB)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Lakshmi Vilas Bank</td> <td>500 (Fund Based)<br/>500 (Non FB)</td> <td>422.2 (Fund Based)<br/>495.6 (Non FB)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>HDFC Limited</td> <td>2850.0 (Fund Based)</td> <td>2530.0 (Fund Based)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>L&amp;T Housing Finance</td> <td>1800.0 (Fund Based)</td> <td>1170.0 (Fund Based)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>State Bank of India</td> <td>500.0 (Fund Based)</td> <td>500.0 (Fund Based)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Corporation Bank</td> <td>95.0 (Non FB from<br/>Gurgaon Branch)<br/>95.3 (Non FB) from<br/>Ghaziabad Branch</td> <td>20.0 (100% FD<br/>margin)<br/>95.3</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Bank of India</td> <td>500.0 (Non FB)</td> <td>500.0 (Non FB)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Cleanwater Capital</td> <td>1400.0 (FB)</td> <td>1300.0 (Fund Based)</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

It is stated in the OA that in the JLF Meeting held on 20.12.2016, it was decided that the lenders may resort to recovery against the borrower company.

2.21 It is stated in the OA that in view of various defaults committed by the Defendant no. 1 in payment of principal, interest and other monies due under the said RTL Facilities and also in performance of the terms and conditions of the Facility Agreement dated 09.06.2013 (as amended from time to time), the Applicant Bank became entitled to recall the entire amounts under the said RTL Facilities together with all interest and other monies thereon. Thus, the Applicant Bank recall the entire RTL Facilities and called upon the Defendants no. 1 to 14 to pay to the Applicant Bank the amount of Rs. 218,58,15,919.56 as on 30.08.2015, being due to it under the RTL Facilities vide its Recall cum Invocation of Guarantee notice dated 30.08.2016 read with Corrigendum dated 02.09.2016 with further interest thereon at the 

contractual rates till payment or realization. The said notices were duly delivered to the respective parties as verified from the bank reports. But despite the issuance of aforesaid Recall cum Invocation of Guarantee Notice, Defendants no. 1 to 14 have failed and neglected to repay the outstanding dues of the said RTL Facilities to the Applicant Bank.

2.22 Further, the Applicant Bank had also issued a Statutory Demand Notice dated 19.09.2016 u/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 as amended from time to time, calling upon the Defendants no. 1 to 14 to pay a sum of Rs. 221,53,25,625.56 due as on 16.09.2016 plus further interest and other charges within 60 days. The Defendant no. 1 Company had sent its objection / representation dated 15.11.2019 against the said statutory notice. The Applicant Bank had duly responded to the said objection / representation vide its letter dated 02.12.2016.

2.23 It is stated in the OA that Defendant no. 1 had also admitted its incontestable liability towards the Applicant Bank inter alia in the audited balance sheets for the years 2013-14 and 2014-15 as follows:-

<thead> <tr> <th>Year of Balance Sheet</th> <th>Amount admitted (Rs.)</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>2013-14</td> <td>194,45,32,599.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2014-15</td> <td>196,68,00,000.00</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

2.24 Since, the Defendants no. 1 to 14 have defaulted in repayment of the dues of the Applicant Bank, hence, the Bank was compelled to file this OA for recovery of its dues.

2.24 It is matter of record that the Applicant Bank has also filed list of the Directors and shareholders of Defendants no.

1 and 6 to 14 companies. Further more, valuation reports dated 26.11.2016 with regard to mortgaged properties are also filed with the OA. Moreover, Applicant Bank has also filed copy of Judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP© 30030 of 2011 (R. Subramanian Vs. ICICI Bank Limited).

3. Notices of this O.A. were issued to the Defendants and the Defendants no. 1 to 14 appeared through their counsel and filed their common WS.

3.1 In their common WS, Defendants have raised following main objections:-

- (i) Defendants have raised an objection that the amount claimed by way of present OA is unsubstantiated. It is stated in the WS that the Statement of Account is not complete and it does not reflect even the rate of interest charged by the Applicant Bank. Thus, the claim of the Applicant Bank is false, fabricated and unsubstantiated which is liable to be rejected at the outset.

- (ii) Next objection raised by the Defendants is that the Statement of Account on which the Applicant Bank has placed reliance is false, fabricated and the same is not supported with a proper certificate in terms of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891. It is also stated that the rate of interest charged by the Applicant Bank is exorbitant, harsh and the same was never agreed between the parties.

(iii) Defendants have also taken a plea that the NPA classification is contrary to guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India. It is stated in the WS that admittedly, the account of Defendant no. 1 was classified as NPA on 14.06.2016 but bare perusal of Statement of Account does not in any way show that the account of the Defendant no. 1 company was overdue for 90-days. It is also stated that the Defendant no. 1 has been serving the loan amount without any delay. It is further stated that an amount of Rs. 11.66 Crore was credited by Defendant no. 1 between 12.04.2016 and 12.05.2016. further, another sum of Rs. 13,77,16,44/- was deposited by Defendant no. 1 on 12.05.2016. Thus, the veracity of the fact that the Account was irregular is vehemently disputed. It is also stated that the Applicant Bank has malafidely classified the account as NPA despite receiving regular payments.

(iv) Defendants have further raised an objection that Defendant no. 14 and Defendant no. 1 Company have suffered huge financial loss due to arbitrary approach of the Applicant Bank. It is stated in the WS that the Amendment to the Master Facility Agreement dated 09.06.2013 on which the Applicant Bank is seeking to place reliance provides for the fact that the Defendant no. 14 had to be granted a credit facility of Rs. 20.0 Crore. On being granted such credit facility, Defendant no. 14 was required to have an escrow account for the purpose of depositing the receivables of a project viz. a Group Housing Project called the Platinum Premier having a saleable area of approximately 436,020 sq. ft. being developed by Defendant no. 14. However, to reasons best known to the Applicant Bank, the agreed amount of Rs. 20.0 Crore was never disbursed to Defendant no. 14. As a result of the arbitrary non-disbursal of the amount, Defendant no. 14 has suffered huge financial losses as it was unable to complete its Project in a timely manner. Further, Defendant no. 14 has also suffered loss of reputation not only in the market, but also amongst its customers. Furthermore, the receivables were to be utilized for clearing the alleged liabilities of the Defendant no. 1 company arising out of the loan facilities availed from the Applicant Bank. Therefore, the Defendant no. 1 as well as Defendant no. 14 have suffered huge financial losses, which are solely attributable to the wrongful acts of omission and commission by the Applicant Bank. Thus, the Applicant Bank is liable to pay the said damages to the Defendants no. 1 & 14.

(v) Defendants have also taken a plea that though they are denying and disputing each and every document and in particular the handwritten portions which have been obviously subsequently filled in after the signatures were obtained. It is further stated in the WS that the Applicant Bank got series of undated and printed proformas signed from the Defendants on the pretext that the said documents were regular documents and thus, did not allow any opportunity to the Defendants to read, understand and agree to the terms of the said documents. therefore, the execution of the documents in question is disputed and denied.

- (vi) Next plea taken by the Defendants is that the Applicant Bank is guilty of both *suppression very and suggestion falsi*. It is stated in the WS that the foundation of the case of the Applicant Bank against the Defendant no. 1 is founded on complete falsehood and gross fraud.

- (vii) Next objection raised by the Defendants is that this Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try the present case. It is also stated that the two properties on which the Applicant Bank is claiming mortgage rights do not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Tribunal.

- (viii) Defendants have also raised an objection that this OA has not been filed within the period of limitation.

- (ix) Next objection of Defendants is that there exist no cause of action against the answering Defendants.

- (x) The answering Defendants have denied the execution of security documents including guarantee deeds as well as documents relating to creation of mortgage etc.

- (xi) Next objection raised by the Defendants is that Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Legal Manager of the Applicant Bank is not competent and authorized to sign, verify and institute the OA for and on behalf of the Applicant Bank. Even the execution of the Power of Attorney dated 13.02.2013 in favour of said Sh. Sanjay Sharma is also denied.

- (xii) Defendants have also raised an objection that the Applicant Bank has malfidely not placed on record the proof of dispatch / delivery with regard to Recall cum Invocation of Guarantee Notice dated 30.08.2016. therefore, receipt of such notices is denied by the Defendants.

In the light of above, it has been prayed that the present OA, being devoid of any merits, be dismissed with exemplary costs.

4. To prove its case, the Applicant Bank leads its evidence by filling the affidavit of Sh. Sanjay Sharma, Legal Manager and the Authorized Officer of the Applicant Bank.

4.1 Sh. Sanjay Sharma, Officer of the Applicant Bank has placed reliance upon the following documents :-

- (i) Power of Attorney dated 13.02.2013 duly executed and issued by the Applicant Bank in favour of the deponent (Ex. AW-1/1);

- (ii) CAL dated 07.06.2013 along with annexures thereto duly accepted by and on behalf of Defendant no. 1 company through its Director i.e. Mr. Arvind Walia (who is arrayed as Defendant no. 2) (Ex. AW-1/2-colly);

- (iii) Board Resolutions dated 07.06.2013 passed by Defendant no. 1 in respect of availing the RTL Facilities granted to Defendant no. 1 by the Applicant Bank (Ex. AW-1/3);

- (iv) Respective Board Resolutions dated 07.06.2013 passed by Defendants no. 6 to 13 for the purpose of providing guarantees / securities for securing the RTL Facilities sanctioned to Defendant no. 1 by the Applicant Bank (Ex. AW-1/4-colly);

- (v) Facility Agreement dated 09.06.2013 executed by Defendant no. 1 Company (Ex. AW-1/5);

- (vi) Deed of Hypothecation dated 09.06.2013 executed by Defendant no. 1 Company (Ex. AW-1/6);

- (vii) Undertaking for creation of Permanent Security dated 09.06.2013 executed by Defendant no. 1 Company (Ex. AW-1/7);

- (viii) Undertaking to pay Additional Interest dated 09.06.2013 executed by Defendant no. 1 Company (Ex. AW-1/8);

- (ix) Shortfall Undertaking dated 09.06.2013 executed by Defendant no. 1 Company and by Defendants no. 2 to 4 (Ex. AW-1/9);

- (x) Undertaking-cum-Indemnity dated 09.06.2013 executed by Defendant no. 1 Company (Ex. AW-1/10);

- (xi) Standard Undertaking-cum-Indemnity dated 09.06.2013 executed by Defendant no. 1 Company (Ex. AW-1/11);

- (xii) Deed of Hypothecation dated 09.06.2013 executed by Defendant no. 5 i.e. Harbhagwan Singh (Ex. AW-1/12);

- (xiii) Deed of Hypothecation dated 09.06.2013 executed by Defendants no. 6 to 11 & 13 Companies (Ex. AW-1/13);

- (xiv) Undertaking executed by the Guarantors i.e. Defendants no. 2 to 5 for Non Disposal of Assets dated 09.06.2013 (Ex. AW-1/14);

- (xv) Undertaking for Non Disposal of Assets dated 09.06.2013 executed by Defendants no. 6 to 13 (Ex. AW-1/15);

- (xvi) Non Disposal Undertaking (NDU) dated 09.06.2013 executed by Defendant no. 1 and also by Defendants no. 2 to 4 (Ex. AW-1/16);

- (xvii) Deed of Guarantee dated 09.06.2013 executed by Defendants no. 2 to 5 (Ex. AW-1/17);

- (xviii) Deed of Guarantee dated 09.06.2013 executed by Defendants no. 6 to 13 (Ex. AW-1/18);

- (xix) Memorandum of Entry recorded by Mr. Viakas Rana, Assistant General Manager of Applicant Bank on 10.06.2013 in respect of deposit of title deeds by Defendants no. 6 to 11 & 13 (date of deposit of title deeds being 09.06.2013) (Ex. AW-1/19);

- (xx) Copies of said title deeds of the mortgaged properties (Ex. AW-1/20-colly);

- (xxi) Memorandum of Entry recorded by Mr. Viakas Rana, Assistant General Manager of Applicant Bank on 10.06.2013 in respect of deposit of title deeds by Defendant no. 5 (date of deposit of title deeds being 09.06.2013) (Ex. AW-1/21);

- (xxii) Copies of said title deeds of mortgaged properties (Ex. AW-1/22);

- (xxiii) Declaration dated 09.06.2013 executed by Defendants no. 6 to 11 and 13 through their authorized director, Mr. Sandeep Yadav with regard to said immovable properties (Ex. AW-1/23);

- (xxiv) Declaration dated 09.06.2013 executed by Defendant no. 5, Mr. Harbhagwan Singh, in respect of his share measuring 1.526 acres in the total mortgage land measuring 26.612 acres (Ex. AW-1/24);

- (xxv) Memorandum of Entry recorded by Mr. Vikas Rana, Assistant General Manager of Applicant on 14.08.2013 in regular course of business regarding deposit of title deeds made by Defendants no. 3, 4, 6, 8 and 12 in respect of said property on 13.08.2013 (Ex. AW-1/25);

- (xxvi) Title Deeds of the said Immovable Properties (Ex. AW-1/26)

- (xxvii) Declaration dated 13.08.2013 executed by Defendants no. 3 & 4 with regard to said properties (Ex. AW-1/27);

- (xxviii) Declaration dated 13.08.2013 executed by and on behalf of Defendants no. 6, 8 & 12 through their authorized director i.e. Defendant no. 3 (Mr. Sandeep Yadav) with regard to said properties (Ex. AW-1/28);

(xxix) Deed of Hypothecation dated 13.08.2013 executed by Defendants no. 3 & 4 in favor of the Applicant Bank (Ex. AW-1/29);

(xxx) Deed of Hypothecation dated 13.08.2013 executed by Defendants no. 6, 8 & 12 (Ex. AW-1/30);

(xxxi) Amendatory Credit Arrangement Letter dated 12.01.2015 (Ex. AW-1/31);

(xxxii) Letter of Amendment dated 12.01.2015 along with annexures thereto (Ex. AW-1/32);

(xxxiii) Deed of Hypothecation dated 12.02.2015 executed by Defendant no. 14 Company (Ex. AW-1/33);

(xxxiv) Deed of Guarantee dated 12.02.2015 executed by Defendant no. 14 (Ex. AW-1/34);

(xxxv) Undertaking dated 12.02.2015 for Non-Disposal of assets executed by Defendant no. 14 (Ex. AW-1/35);

(xxxvi) Undertaking for creation of Permanent Security dated 13.01.2015 executed by Defendants no. 1 to 14 (Ex. AW-1/36);

(xxxvii) Special Resolution dated 13.01.2015 passed in the EGM of Defendant no. 14 (Ex. AW-1/37); (xxxviii) Special Resolution dated 13.01.2015 passed by Defendant no. 14 in terms of Section 180(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 (Ex. AW-1/38);

(xxxix) Resolution dated 13.01.2015 passed by the Defendant no. 14 Company (Ex. AW-1/39);

(xl) Amendatory Credit Arrangement Letter dated 17.02.2015 (Ex. AW-1/40);

- (xli) Letter of Amendment dated 19.02.2015 along with annexure (Ex. AW-1/41);

- (xlil) Search reports obtained by the Applicant bank from M/s B.R. Maheshwari & Co. Chartered Accountants – all dated 22.03.2016 (Ex. AW-1/42-colly);

- (xlili) Minutes of JLF meetings dated 16.12.2014, 09.06.2014, 22.12.2015, 08.05.2016 and 20.12.2016 (Ex. AW-1/43-colly);

- (xliv) Recall cum Invocation of Guarantee notice dated 30.08.2016 read with Corrigendum dated 02.09.2016 issued by the Applicant Bank to the Defendants (Ex. AW-1/44-colly);

- (xlv) Statutory Demand Notice dated 19.09.2016 u/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 (as amended from time to time) issued by the Applicant Bank to Defendants no. 1 to 14 (Ex. AW-1/45);

- (xlvi) Objection / Representation dated 15.11.2019 sent by the Defendant no. 1 to the Applicant Bank against the said statutory notice (Ex. AW-1/46);

- (xlvii) Letter dated 02.12.2016 issued by the Applicant Bank sent u/s 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act whereby it responded to the said objection / representation (Ex. AW-1/47);

- (xlviii) Audited Balance Sheets of Defendant no. 1 for the year 2013-14 wherein it admitted its liability towards the Applicant Bank (Ex. AW-1/48);

- (xlix) Audited Balance Sheets of Defendant no. 1 for the year 2014-15 wherein it admitted its liability towards the Applicant Bank (Ex. AW-1/49);

- (l) Statement of Account relating to RTL-I Facility duly certified under the provisions of Bankers Books Evidence Act along with Certificate u/s 2A of the Bankers Books Evidence Act, 1891 (Ex. AW-1/50-colly);

- (li) Statement of Account relating to RTL-II Facility duly certified under the provisions of Bankers Books Evidence Act along with Certificate u/s 2A of the Bankers Books Evidence Act, 1891 (Ex. AW-1/51-colly);

- (lii) List of Directors and Shareholders of Defendant no. 1 and 6 to 14 (Ex. AW-1/52-colly);

- (liii) Copies of valuation reports (Ex. AW-1/53);

- (liv) Order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) 30030 of 2011 (R. Subramanian Vs. ICICI Bank Limited) (Ex. AW-1/54);

- (lv) Copies of Net Worth Statement of Defendants no. 2 to 5 on 31.03.2013 (Ex. AW-1/55).

5. So far as, evidence of Defendants is concerned, they filed their evidence by way of affidavit(s) of Sh. Nikhil Jain (being authorized signatory of Defendants no. 1 and 6 to 14); Sh. Arvind Walia / Defendant no. 2; Sh. Sandeep Yadav (Defendant no. 3); Sh. Chaudhary Balwant Singh / Defendant no. 4; Sh. Harbhagwan Singh (Defendant no. 5).

It is matter of record that the Defendants did not file any document in along with their respective Evidence(s) in order to support the contentions made in their common WS.

6. Heard Ld. counsels for the Applicant Bank and Defendants and also perused the entire record.

6.1 Now I would like to deal with the defence / objections taken by Defendants no. 1 to 14 in their common WS in following paras:-

- (i) Defendants have raised an objection that the amount claimed by way of present OA is unsubstantiated. It is stated in the WS that the Statement of Account is not complete and it does not reflect even the rate of interest charged by the Applicant Bank. Thus, the claim of the Applicant Bank is false, fabricated and unsubstantiated which is liable to be rejected at the outset.

It is matter of record that this OA was instituted for recovery of the amount lawfully due and payable as on the date of filing, duly supported by Statements of Account maintained in the ordinary course of banking business and certified in accordance with law. Further more, neither the said statements nor any of its entries have been specifically disputed nor has any particular debit or credit entry been shown to be incorrect. This Tribunal is of the considered view that mere bald allegations cannot displace duly proved banking records. The borrower must provide specific computations and point out explicit faulty entries in the Statement of Accounts to prove illegal capitalization occurred whereas vague, general statements will not suffice.

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

- (ii) Next objection raised by the Defendants is that the Statement of Account on which the Applicant Bank has placed reliance is false, fabricated and the same is not supported with a proper certificate in terms of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891. It is also stated that the rate of interest charged by the Applicant Bank is exorbitant, harsh and the same was never agreed between the parties.

Though, this objection is partly discussed in above para, however, as per the case of Applicant Bank, the rate of interest, including the consequences of default, was expressly stipulated in the Credit Arrangement Letter, Facility Agreement and other security documents which were voluntarily executed by the Defendants. The Defendants had enjoyed and utilized the loan facilities for several years without raising any such objection whatsoever regarding the rate or manner of charging interest. Furthermore, during the Joint Lenders' Forum meetings, the outstanding liability was repeatedly acknowledged by the Defendants and no dispute was ever raised regarding charging of interest, default interest, compounding or maintenance of accounts. Thus, such belated objections, raised nearly a decade after execution of the loan documents, are clearly an afterthought intended solely to evade repayment obligations. So far as, the allegation that the Applicant Bank has capitalized penal interest or charged interest contrary to law is wholly vague and unsupported by any computation or expert evidence. Defendants were always at liberty to file their own Statement of Account but they did not chose to file the same. It is also matter of record that the Defendants have failed to point out any specific entry from the Statements of Account demonstrating alleged illegal capitalization. It is evident from the records that the present objection is wholly collateral and does not detract from the admitted availability of facilities, execution of loan and security documents, disbursement of funds, occurrence of default, issuance of recall notices and resulting liability of the Defendants.

In the light of above discussion, this Tribunal is of the view that mere reliance upon general observations in judicial precedents without proving actual contravention in the present account cannot defeat a claim supported by certified Statements of Accounts.

- (iii) Defendants have also taken a plea that the NPA classification is contrary to guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India. It is stated in the WS that admittedly, the account of Defendant no. 1 was classified as NPA on 14.06.2016 but bare perusal of Statement of Account does not in any way show that the account of the Defendant no. 1 company was overdue for 90-days. It is also stated that the Defendant no. 1 has been serving the loan amount without any delay. It is further stated that an amount of Rs. 11.66 Crore was credited by Defendant no. 1 between 12.04.2016 and 12.05.2016. further, another sum of Rs. 13,77,16,44/- was deposited by Defendant no. 1 on 12.05.2016. Thus, the veracity of the fact that the Account was irregular is vehemently disputed. It is also stated that the Applicant Bank has malafidely classified the account as NPA despite receiving regular payments.

Record reveals that the Defendants have not placed anything on record to show as to how the classification is incorrect. As per the OA, the NPA classification is as per the terms laid out in and in adherence of the relevant guidelines of RBI and even otherwise, classification of NPA is not essential for filing of an OA. Instead, for the purpose of filing of an OA, it is pertinent to establish that a loan obligation was undertaken by the Borrower and that there was a default on the debt repayment obligation by the Borrower. To that extent, the relevant transaction documents, evidencing that a loan obligation was undertaken, that had been duly executed by the Defendants, have been duly proved by the Applicant.. Further. evidence of the Borrower's default along with the loan recall notice have also been filed with the OA.

It is also matter of record that the Defendants have time and again approached the Applicant Bank for settling the matter but the said Settlement was not fully performed and stood breached by the Borrower.

In the light of above, this Tribunal is of the view that there is no infirmity or illegality in the declaration of account of Defendant no. 1 as NPA. Accordingly, this objection of Defendants stands rejected.

- (iv) Defendants have further raised an objection that Defendant no. 14 and Defendant no. 1 Company have suffered huge financial loss due to arbitrary approach of the Applicant Bank. It is stated in the WS that the Amendment to the Master Facility Agreement dated 09.06.2013 on which the Applicant Bank is seeking to place reliance provides for the fact that the Defendant no. 14 had to be granted a credit facility of Rs. 20.0 Crore. On being granted such credit facility, Defendant no. 14 was required to have an escrow account for the purpose of depositing the receivables of a project viz. a Group Housing Project called the Platinum Premier having a saleable area of approximately 436,020 sq. ft. being developed by Defendant no. 14. However, to reasons best known to the Applicant Bank, the agreed amount of Rs. 20.0 Crore was never disbursed to Defendant no. 14. As a result of the arbitrary non-disbursal of the amount, Defendant no. 14 has suffered huge financial losses as it was unable to complete its Project in a timely manner. Further, Defendant no. 14 has also suffered loss of reputation not only in the market, but also amongst its customers. Furthermore, the receivables were to be utilized for clearing the alleged liabilities of the Defendant no. 1 company arising out of the loan facilities availed from the Applicant Bank. Therefore, the Defendant no. 1 as well as Defendant no. 14 have suffered huge financial losses, which are solely attributable to the wrongful acts of omission and commission by the Applicant Bank. Thus, the Applicant Bank is liable to pay the said damages to the Defendants no. 1 & 14.

It is matter of record that the Defendants have not filed any documentary evidence in support of this contention, thus, the present objection remained unsubstantiated / uncorroborated. It is also matter of record that the Defendants failed to file the counter claim along with the WS, however, later on the Defendants no. 1 to 13 and Defendant no. 14 had filed IA Nos. 73/2018 and 731/2018 for seeking condonation of delay in filing the Counter Claim(s) but the said IAs were dismissed vide Order dated 31.07.2018 of the Tribunal.

In furtherance to above, this Tribunal is also of the view that the sanction and disbursement of any credit facilities is totally on the discretion of financial institution, which have to be followed certain guidelines laid down by the RBI prior to sanction of credit facilities.

In the light of above, this objection of Defendants is also liable to be rejected and same stands rejected.

- (v) Defendants have also taken a plea that though they are denying and disputing each and every document and in particular the handwritten portions which have been obviously subsequently filled in after the signatures were obtained. It is further stated in the WS that the Applicant Bank got series of undated and printed proformas signed from the Defendants on the pretext that the said documents were regular documents and thus, did not allow any opportunity to the Defendants to read, understand and agree to the terms of the said documents. therefore, the execution of the documents in question is disputed and denied.

It is matter of record that the answering Defendants no. 1 to 14 have not filed any documentary evidence in support of their 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 14 is hereby rejected.

(vi) Next plea taken by the Defendants is that the Applicant Bank is guilty of both *suppression very and suggestion falsi*. It is stated in the WS that the foundation of the case of the Applicant Bank against the Defendant no. 1 is founded on complete falsehood and gross fraud.

It is matter of record that the answering Defendants have not filed any documentary evidence in support of their respective WS(s), 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.

- (vii) Next objection raised by the Defendants is that this Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try the present case. It is also stated that the two properties on which the Applicant Bank is claiming mortgage rights do not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Tribunal.

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

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.

So far as, objection with regard to two properties on which the Applicant Bank is claiming mortgage rights do not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Tribunal is concerned, in the light of Section 19(1) of RDB Act (as discussed above), this plea of Defendants does not hold any water and same stands rejected accordingly.

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 14 stands rejected.

- (viii) Defendants have also raised an objection that this OA has not been filed within the period of limitation.

It is matter of record that various security documents were executed by the Defendants from time to time till 19.02.2015. Further more, as per the minutes of JLF dated 06.05.2016, the said Borrower admitted the dues of different lenders including the Applicant Bank. This OA was filed on 24.12.2016. Hence, it is clear that the present OA is filed well within the period of limitation. Hence, this objection of Defendants, being devoid of merits, is hereby rejected.

- (ix) Next objection of Defendants is that there exist no cause of action against the answering Defendants.

In the present OA, the facilities sanctioned by the Applicant Bank, execution of security documents, creation of mortgage, disbursement of funds, default, recall of facilities and outstanding liability stand amply proved from the documents placed on record by the Applicant Bank. Further more, even after filing of this OA, Defendants approached the Applicant Bank for settlement of their dues, hence, now at the time of paying the dues of the Applicant Bank, such type of pleas are not going to benefit the Defendants to get absolve from their liabilities. In these circumstances, this objection of Defendants stands rejected accordingly.

- (x) The answering Defendants have denied the execution of security documents including guarantee deeds as well as documents relating to creation of mortgage etc.

It is matter of record that the Applicant Bank has duly proved the security documents including guarantee deeds as well as documents relating to creation of mortgage, hence, this objection of Defendants does not hold any water and same stands rejected.

- (xi) Next objection raised by the Defendants is that Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Legal Manager of the Applicant Bank is not competent and authorized to sign, verify and institute the OA for and on behalf of the Applicant Bank. Even the execution of the Power of Attorney dated 13.02.2013 in favour of said Sh. Sanjay Sharma is also denied.

In the present case, the Applicant Bank has already filed Power of Attorney dated 13.02.2013 executed in favour of Sh. Sanjay Sharma which is duly proved as Ex. AW-1/1. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the same. The said Attorney duly authorizes Sh. Sanjay Sharma, officer of Applicant Bank to sign, verify and institute the present OA and complete all the legal formalities on behalf of the Applicant Bank. In these circumstances, this objection of Defendants no. 1 to 14 is liable to be rejected and same stands rejected.

- (xii) Defendants have also raised an objection that the Applicant Bank has malfidely not placed on record the proof of dispatch / delivery with regard to Recall cum Invocation of Guarantee Notice dated 30.08.2016. therefore, receipt of such notices is denied by the Defendants.

This Tribunal is of the view that by taking such technical pleas, the answering Defendants cannot get absolve from their respective liability. Even otherwise, the Defendants approached the Applicant Bank time and again for settlement of their dues. In these circumstances, this plea of Defendants no. 1 to 14 is hereby rejected.

6.2 Apart from above objections raised in the common WS of Defendants no. 1 to 14, Ld. counsel for Defendant no. 3 has filed written submissions on 01.10.2026 wherein she has raised some more objections which are detailed below:-

- (i) Ld. counsel for Defendant no. 3 has relied upon certain proceedings initiated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and has alleged that some of the properties attached by the Enforcement Directorate overlap with properties mortgaged in favour of the Applicant Bank. She further argued that some homebuyers also approached Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and the proceedings with respect to the Mortgaged Property and restoration of plots to the homebuyers are sub judice before the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. Hence, any order with respect to the status or potential realisation of the Applicant's claim from the Mortgaged Properties will directly affect the proceedings pending before the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. Further more, she informed that Defendant no. 2 herein has also approached Ld. NCLT, Chandigarh against Defendant No. 1 company and other promoters of the Company on account of certain disputes which have arisen during the pendency of the present OA.

On the other hand, Ld. counsel for Applicant Bank argued that in the present proceedings of the OA, the jurisdiction of this Tribunal is confined to adjudication of the debt due and issuance of an appropriate Recovery Certificate on the basis of the loan and security documents executed by the Defendants. The existence of any attachment proceedings before another forum does not extinguish the debt, discharge the guarantors or affect the contractual liability of the Defendants towards the Applicant Bank. Ld. counsel for Applicant Bank further argued that Ld. counsel for Defendant No. 3 has merely asserted that "the properties described in the attachment orders include properties mortgaged in favour of the Applicant Bank", but no definitive finding has been produced demonstrating that every mortgaged asset forming security for the Applicant Bank stands attached. Even otherwise, the extent, validity, priority and consequences of any attachment are matters to be determined before the competent forum dealing with such proceedings and cannot constitute a defence to adjudication of debt in the present OA.

I find merit in the contention of Ld. counsel for Applicant Bank. This Tribunal is of the affirm view that the aforesaid contention is wholly irrelevant for adjudication of the debt due and payable in the present Original Application. In any case, the same will only have affect on the recovery 

through sale of these properties and for which the Applicant Bank may take its suitable measures as available in law. The said attachment will not absolve the Defendants from their obligation to repay the Claim amount which is subject matter of this OA.

In this case, the mortgage in favour of the Applicant Bank was admittedly created in the year 2013 much prior to the alleged PMLA attachment proceedings referred to by Ld. counsel for Defendant No. 3. The creation of mortgage, deposit of title deeds and registration of security interests are all matters already forming part of the OA record. Therefore, even if any attachment order presently subsists qua any secured asset, the same cannot be used by Defendant No. 3 as a ground to resist adjudication of the Applicant Bank's claim or issuance of Recovery Certificate. At best, such issues may be relevant only at the stage of enforcement and realization of security and not for determination of the debt itself.

This Tribunal is also of the view that the entire discussion regarding PMLA proceedings, HRERA orders, homebuyers' claims and subsequent litigations is extraneous to the limited issue before this Tribunal, namely whether the facilities were sanctioned, availed, secured, recalled and whether the outstanding dues remain unpaid. All such foundational facts stand conclusively established from the record. Hence, by taking such type of objections, Defendant no. 3 as well as other Defendants cannot get absolve from their respective liability(s). Accordingly, the aforesaid objections raised by Ld. counsel for Defendant no. 3 stands rejected.

(ii) Ld. counsel for Defendant no. 3 has also raised an objection that the Applicant Bank has claimed an alleged amount of Rs. 231,65,74,466.67/- as payable by the Defendants as on 22.12.2016 but during the pendency of the OA, the Defendants have made substantial payments towards the outstanding dues. She submitted that pursuant to the offer letter dated 03.02.2021, the Defendants paid Rs. 175.0 Crores in two instalments and the Applicant has also acknowledged receiving the settlement amount of Rs. 175.0 Crores from the Defendants. Thereafter, the Defendants proposed a One-Time Settlement (OTS) of Rs. 67.50 Crores, Pursuant to which the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement dated 20.06.2022. Out of this, the Defendants paid Rs. 29.50 Crores, while the remaining amount of Rs. 38 Crores remained unpaid. Thus, the total repayment stands at Rs. 204.50 Crores, an amount which has been admitted by the Applicant Bank itself (@Pg. 4 of I.A. 2232 of 2022). In the given facts and circumstances, it is submitted that the aforesaid full and final settlement amount must first be adjusted towards the principal and only thereafter towards interest. The general rule that "*payments are to be adjusted*

*first towards interest and then towards principle*" has no application here, since the amounts in question were paid pursuant to a negotiated settlement and OTS, terms whereof were mutually agreed between the parties thereby altering the terms of the original loan agreements. She stated that in these circumstances, the claim of the Applicant Bank must be confined to the remaining outstanding sum, i.e., the settlement amount deducted from the claim amount along with nominal pendent-lite interest, which may be awarded by this Hon'ble Tribunal. Therefore, the applicant can only claim Rs.231,65,74,466.67 – Rs. 204,50,00,000/- i.e. Rs. 27,15,74,466.67/- along with pendent lite and future interest.. It is also submitted by Ld. counsel for Defendant no. 3 that the Applicant cannot claim interest at the rate prescribed under the RTL Facilities. In the given facts and circumstances, equitable consideration would include grant of a nominal rate of interest in favour of the Applicant Bank as the Defendants have already substantially cleared the outstanding amount during the pendency of the present proceedings. It is further stated that the acceptance of the offer letter dated 03.02.2021 and the Settlement Agreement dated 20.06.2022, under which the Defendants paid substantial sums towards the outstanding dues, together amount to a novation of the original contract within the meaning of Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

On the other hand, the aforesaid submissions of Defendant No. 3 regarding adjustment of payments, alleged novation of contract and reduction of the Applicant Bank's claim are vehemently opposed by Ld. counsel for Applicant Bank stating that same are wholly misconceived and contrary to the record. Ld. counsel for Applicant stated that the OA was instituted for recovery of the amount lawfully due and payable as on the date of filing, duly supported by statements of account maintained in the ordinary course of banking business and certified in accordance with law. Neither the said statements nor any of its entries have been specifically disputed nor has any particular debit or credit entry been shown to be incorrect. Mere bald allegations cannot displace duly proved banking records. The borrower must provide specific computations and point out explicit faulty entries in the statement of accounts to prove illegal capitalization occurred; vague, general statements will not suffice.

So far as, the reliance placed upon subsequent settlement discussions and OTS proposals is wholly misplaced. Ld. counsel for Applicant Bank argued that it is settled law that where a settlement is not fully performed and stands breached by the borrower, the lender is entitled to fall back upon its original contractual and statutory remedies. As per Defendant No 3's own version only the settlement was breached by the Defendants themselves.

Consequently, there was no novation extinguishing the liabilities forming subject matter of the present OA. On the contrary, clause 9 of the settlement agreement specifically records that in case of a default by the Defendants, the original liability of the Defendants will be reinstated. Further, the settlements and payments made thereunder constitute repeated acknowledgements of debt and liability by the Defendants. Bare perusal of the JLF meetings shows that there has been no dispute in the debt due as late as 2015 just before filing of the present OA. Even otherwise Defendant No 3 has specifically acknowledged the debt and the default and as such the present OA is liable to be accepted. Further more, the contention that an amount of Rs.204.50 Crores must necessarily be adjusted towards principal is equally untenable. The appropriation of payments is governed by the contractual terms executed by the parties and settled principles of banking law. Once the parties had contractually agreed to the applicable rate of interest, method of accounting and operation of the loan accounts, Defendant No. 3 cannot seek unilateral reworking of the accounts merely because recovery proceedings are pending. Hence, this objection of Defendant no. 3 must be rejected by this Hon'ble Tribunal.

I also find merit in the contentions raised by Ld. counsel for Applicant Bank. Accordingly, this objection of Ld. counsel for Defendant no. 3 stands rejected.

6.3 It is pertinent to note here that the Applicant Bank has also filed short written submissions vide Diary No. 3514/2024 on 18.09.2024 as well as additional written submissions on 06.10.2026 wherein it is duly informed by the Applicant Bank that the Defendants and the Applicant Bank had entered into a settlement arrangement in 2021, on the basis of the settlement request letter dated 03.02.2021 issued by the Defendants addressed to the Applicant Bank. Pursuant to the same, the Applicant Bank received a sum of Rs. 175.0 Crore and released land parcels aggregating to 22.87 acres situated in village Wazirpur, Sector 92 & 95, Gurugram, Haryana, more particularly described as Immovable Property - II in the OA. Further, as per the terms of the settlement entered into by the Defendants with the Applicant Bank, the Defendant No. 5 (Late Sh. Harbhagwan Singh) was discharged from their obligations and their Personal Guarantee was released by the Applicant Bank.

Thereafter, in 2022, the Defendants again approached the Applicant Bank for settling their dues and entered into settlement agreement dated 20.06.2022 where under, it was agreed that the Defendants will pay Rs. 67.50 crore to the Applicant Bank, over several tranches. In terms of the said settlement agreement, only an amount of Rs. 29.50 crore was received by the Applicant Bank and land parcels aggregating to 14.48 acres situated in Wazirpur and Mewaka, Sector 92, 93 and 95, Gurgaon, Haryana [part of the 26.612 acres of land parcel, more particularly described as Immovable Property — I in the OA] was released by the 

Applicant Bank. However, in breach of the terms of the settlement agreement dated 20.06.2022, the Defendants defaulted in payment of the pending tranches thereof, and hence, the said settlement agreement was revoked by the Applicant Bank. This fact was also placed on record by the Applicant Bank vide I.A. No. 2232/2022 in the present matter but when the said application came up for hearing, the same was not pressed since the Defendants had already breached the terms of the said settlement.

As such, prior the revocation of settlement agreement dated 20.06.2022 by the Applicant Bank, amounts aggregating to Rs. 204.50 Crore (Rs. 175.0 Crore in terms of settlement request letter dated 03.02.2021 and Rs. 29.50 crore in terms of settlement agreement dated 20.06.2022) were received by the Applicant Bank from the Defendants.

In the light of aforementioned facts and circumstances and the documents relied upon in the OA, Ld. counsel for Applicant Bank has prayed that the present Original Application be allowed, and Recovery Certificate be issued against the Defendants except Defendant No. 5.

Since, Applicant Bank itself is not seeking any relief qua Defendant no. 5, hence, it is directed that no recovery certificate shall be issued qua Defendant no. 5.

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

6.5 Consequently, TA No. 200/2022 is liable to be allowed in favour of the Applicant Bank and against Defendants 1 to 4 & 6 to 14 (being borrower and personal / corporate guarantors) who are liable to pay the dues of the Applicant Bank along with costs and pendentelite & future interest @14% p.a., from the date of filing of present OA, till the date of payment in full.

ORDER

- (i) TA No. 200/2022 stands allowed in favour of the Applicant Bank against Defendants no. 1 to 4 & 6 to 14 for a sum of Rs. 231,65,74,466.67 (Rupees Two Hundred Thirty One Crore Sixty Five Lakh Seventy Four Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Six and Paise Sixty Seven only) along with cost, pendentelite and future interest @14% p.a. from the date of filing of this OA till realization of the entire dues of the Applicant Bank from the sale of secured assets / mortgaged properties / hypothecated assets / stocks etc., if any, belonging to the Defendants no. 1 to 4 & 6 to 14 only.

In case of shortfall, same shall be recovered from the movable and immovable assets of Defendants no. 1 to 4 & 6 to 14.

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

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

- (iv) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer-I, DRT-III, Delhi on 14.12.2026.

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

File be closed and consigned to records.

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

(Pronounced in open court) Dated: 12.10.2026

This image shows a blank page with a light beige or cream-colored background. There are faint, vertical lines running down the page, which appear to be artifacts from the scanning process or the texture of the paper. A dark, vertical strip is visible along the right edge, likely representing the binding or the edge of the document. The overall appearance is that of a clean, empty page.