PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK vs MS RIDCOR INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED AND OTHERS on 27 May 2025

FINAL ORDER

1. This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 29.12.2021, through Ms. K. Meera Bai, Assistant General Manager / Principal Officer of Applicant Bank, being authorized representative, under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 against the defendant no. 1 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 259,43,95,434.05 (Rupees Two Hundred Fifty Nine Crore Forty Three Lakh Ninety Five Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Four and Paise Five only) together with pre suit, pendentelite and future interest @ 11.10% p.a. with monthly interests plus @2% penal rests from the date of filing of the present OA till the date of actual and final realization along with all cost and charges along with other relief(s).

1.2 It is pertinent to note here that this OA bearing no. 05/2022 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-154/2022.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Applicant Bank is a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 and the present OA has been signed, verified and filed through Smt. K. Meera Bai, Assistant General Manager / Authorized Signatory of the applicant bank, the duly authorized person / official of the Applicant Bank who has been authorized by the Applicant Bank vide its Power of Attorney dated 01.09.2003 executed in her favour.

2.1 It is further stated in the OA that the Defendant no. 1 is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 which is engaged in the business of infrastructure development involving the construction of runway, construction and maintenance of Bridge, Road, Highway, Tunnel etc. Performa Defendants no. 2, 3 & 4 are the other banks, who have also extended financial assistance along with the applicant bank under the consortium led by the present applicant i.e. Punjab National Bank to the defendant no. 1 for the construction and development of road in the State of Rajasthan under the "Mega Highways Project". The present applicant bank and Performa Defendants no. 2 to 4 had appointed Vistra ITCL (India) Limited (erstwhile IL & FS Trust Company Limited) to act as the Security Trustee to accept and hold the Security Interest for and on behalf of the applicant bank along with the Performa Defendants to hold the security interest. It is also stated that the original financing and security documents are held on the record of the Security Trustee. It is further stated that the applicant bank and Performa Defendants no. 2 to 4 had entered into a Security Trustee Agreement dated 28.09.2015.

2.2 It is stated in the OA that the defendant no. 1 approached the Applicant Bank for grant of credit facility(s) in the nature of term loan to the tune of Rs. 150.0 crore to part finance for the construction and development of road in the State of Rajasthan under the "Mega Highways Project". The applicant bank sanctioned the credit facility in the form of Rupee Term Loan on the terms and conditions of the Sanction Letter dated on 31.07.2015 (under Loan Account No. 216400IC00005248) at New Delhi, Tolstoy Marg Branch which was duly acknowledged and accepted by the defendant no. 1. However, due to certain modification in the sanction letter dated 31.07.2015, the applicant bank sanctioned another letter with certain modification on 26.08.2015 which was also duly acknowledged and accepted by the defendant no. 1.

2.3 It is further stated in the OA that the Defendant no. 1 also approached the erstwhile Oriental Bank of Commerce for grant of credit facility(s) in the nature of term loan to the tune of Rs. 100.0 crore to part finance for the construction and development of road in the State of Rajasthan under the "Mega Highways Project". Upon the aforesaid request, the requested credit facility was sanctioned by the aforesaid bank (applicant bank), (under Loan Account No. 00077025005324) on the basis of the Sanction Letter dated 10.08.2015 subject to compliance of the terms and conditions as stated in said sanction letter.

It is stated that the Oriental Bank of Commerce has been merged with the applicant bank i.e. PNB, w.e.f. 01.04.2020 vide Gazette of India Notification dated 04.03.2020 read with RBI Circular dated 30.03.2020 and all the rights of the erstwhile bank has been vested in the present applicant bank i.e. PNB, accordingly, the present applicant bank is entitled to recover the outstanding dues from the defendant no. 1.

However, due to certain modification in the sanction letter dated 10.08.2015, the applicant bank (erstwhile Oriental Bank of Commerce) has sanctioned another letter with certain modification on 03.09.2015.

2.4 It is further stated in the OA that in consideration of having granted the aforesaid credit facility to the Defendant no. 1 by the Applicant Bank, the Defendant no. 1 signed / executed the following loan as well as security documents:-

- (i) Common Loan Agreement dated 28.09.2015;

- (ii) Deed of Hypothecation dated 28.09.2015;

(iii) Escrow Agreement dated 28.09.2015.

It is also stated that the defendant no. 1 also undertook to make the repayment of the amount in respect of the aforesaid credit along with interest as well as penal interest etc. [details given in Para 5 (5.9) of the OA].

2.5 It is further stated that pursuant to the Security Trustee Agreement dated 28.09.2015 entered amongst the applicant, defendant no. 1 and performa defendants no. 2 to 4, the applicant bank and the performa defendants no. 2, 3 & 4 had appointed the Performa defendant no 5 i.e. Vistra ITCL (India) limited to act as Security Trustee for and on behalf of the consortium banks.

2.6 It is also stated in the OA that the defendant no. 1 had availed the aforesaid credit facility under the consortium arrangement, formed amongst the applicant bank and performa defendants no. 2 to 4. Thereby, the applicant bank had entered into an Inter-se Arrangement Agreement dated 28.09.2015, whereby the members of the Consortium i.e. applicant bank and performa defendants no. 2 to 4 had agreed to abide by the terms and conditions as contained the said agreement. In terms of clause 5.6 of the said agreement, any lender shall be entitled to bring a suit or other legal proceedings of their own in respect of the outstanding dues owed to the Secured Parties i.e. the Lenders by the defendant no. 1. It is further stated defendant no. 1 had executed a pari passu letter dated 28.09.2025, thereby inter-alia confirming the pari passu rights of the applicant bank along with the performa defendants no. 2 to 4.

It is also stated that the loan availed is secured by first pari-passu charge in favour of applicant bank with the performä defendants [details given in Para 5(5.12) of OA].

2.7 It is stated in the OA that the defendant no. 1 has been specifically admitted and acknowledging its liability and creation of securities in wring from time to time and lastly on 14.03.2018 vide Revival Letter.

The aforesaid securities were created in favour of the Performa defendant no. 5, acting as the security trustee on behalf of the applicant bank and performa defendants no. 2 to 4.

2.8 It is further stated that the loan facilities granted to the defendant no. 1 were covered under the Consortium arrangement as state above, whereby the defendant no. 1 acknowledged the receipt of loan facilities from applicant bank and performa defendants no. 2 to 4, which are members of the aforesaid Consortium. The details of the facilities sanctioned and availed by the defendant no. 1 from the applicant bank are as under:- <table border="1"> <thead> <tr> <th>S. No.</th> <th>Name of the Senior Lender</th> <th>Sanctioned Amount (Rs. in Crores)</th> <th>Pro-rata allocation (credit facility availed by the defendant no. 1)</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>1.</td> <td>Punjab National Bank</td> <td>150.00</td> <td>112.72</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2.</td> <td>Oriental Bank of Commerce (presently known as Punjab National Bank)</td> <td>100.00</td> <td>74.00</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

It is stated in the OA that various financing / security documents were executed by the Defendant no. 1 in favour of the applicant bank and performa defendants no. 2 to 4. Moreover, applicant bank i.e. PNB was appointed as the Facility Agent in terms of the Facility Agent Agreement dated 28.09.2015.

It is also stated that in consideration of granting the aforesaid financial assistance and for the purpose of execution of the financing and security documents, the defendant no. 1 furnished the Board Resolution dated 18.08.2015.

2.9 It is pertinent to mention here that a Substitution Agreement dated 29.09.2015 was executed amongst the Government of State of Rajasthan (defendant no. 6), defendant no. 1 and PNB, acting in the capacity of the Facility agent for the applicant bank and Performa defendants no. 2 to 4, wherein the Government of State of Rajasthan and defendant no. 1 agreed, that upon occurrence of any event of default applicant bank shall have the right to substitute the defendant no. 1 with any other entity without prejudice to the other rights of the applicant bank and performa defendants no. 2 to 4. Further, the Government of State of Rajasthan shall be titled to deposit the termination payments to the escrow account and the applicant bank along with performa defendants no. 2 to 4 shall be entitled to receive the termination payment without any reference to or consent of the defendant no. 1 towards the satisfaction of the outstanding dues.

2.10 It is stated in the OA that it is relevant to mention here that the defendant no. 1 is a special purpose vehicle incorporated by Road Infrastructure Development Company of Rajasthan Limited (RIDCOR), which is a joint venture of Government of Rajasthan and Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services (IL&FS). RIDCOR is a group company of the ILFS. The ILFS was reported to commit default on certain of its financial liabilities and failed to honor its commitments, hence, the Union of India (UOI) / Government has taken over the operations of ILFS and dissolved the original Board of the ILFS in terms of the applicable law and regulations. The UOI has appointed its own representatives on the Board of ILFS to look after its operations.

In pursuant thereof, NCLAT in an appeal filed by UOI, has passed the order dated 15.10.2018 (Order) maintaining the status quo pertaining to the factual position of IL&FS. The NCLAT has basically stayed and barred any person, financial institutions, entities etc. from proceeding against the IL&FS and enforcing any right against the IL&FS with respect to inter-alia any commitment / financial commitment of IL&FS towards any person, financial institutions. The NCLAT has passed the orders taking into consideration the section 241 and 242 of the Companies Act and Section 14 of the Code. The Section 14 deals with the moratorium declared by NCLT in the CIRP proceedings initiated under the Code. It is also stated that RIDCOR is a group company of the IL&FS and is in the list of companies furnished by the IL&FS to NCLAT. It is further stated in the OA that the name of the defendant no. 1 is not included in the list of group companies furnished by the IL&FS. It is stated that the applicant bank reserves its right to initiate proceedings against the RIDCOR and IL&FS, as and when, the moratorium is lifted against the said companies and there is no stay order against the said companies. It is also pertinent to mention here that defendant no. 1 has issued a letter dated 22.05.2020 to the applicant bank, thereby acknowledging the fact that the defendant no. 1 is not included in the list of 348 companies of IL&FS group over which moratorium has been imposed by NCLAT vide its order dated 15.10.2018. Moreover, the RIDCOR had furnished a sponsor's undertaking dated 28.09.2015 to the applicant bank and performa defendants no. 2 to 4. Similarly, the IL&FS had furnished an undertaking dated 05.10.2015 to the applicant bank and performa defendants no. 2 to 4.

2.11 It is further stated in the OA that in terms of the requirement of the applicant bank, the defendant no. 6 had furnished an undertaking dated 03.09.2015 to the Performa Defendant no. 5 (acting as the security trustee for the applicant bank) thereby confirming the infusion of the required equity of Rs. 40.0 crore into the Project of the defendant no. 1. Further, the defendant no. 6 undertook to hold the equity capital in RIDCOR in the ratio of 50:50 at all time during tenor of the credit facility / loan availed by the defendant no. 1.

2.12 It is stated in the OA that the defendant no. 1 had availed the facilities as mentioned above, but has failed to maintain proper financial discipline and became highly irregular in maintaining its conduct and regularity in repayment of the outstanding dues of the applicant bank. Since, the defendant no. 1 miserably failed to regularize the account even after repeated requests made by the applicant bank, hence, the applicant bank was constrained to classify the accounts of the defendant no. 1 as Non-Performing Assets on 30.12.2018 in terms of the Directives of the RBI and internal guidelines of the Applicant Bank. Since, Defendant no. 1 has failed to adhere financial discipline and remained irregular in conduct of the aforesaid loan facilities and repayment obligations towards the applicant bank, despite several requests and reminders, the applicant bank was forced to send notice of demand dated 14.12.2021 to the defendant no. 1 calling upon them to repay the outstanding amount but despite receipt of the said notice (served through post), defendant no.

1 has failed to liquidate the outstanding amount, therefore, the Applicant Bank is left with no option but to the present OA for recovery of outstanding amount payable by defendant no.

1. It is also stated that the applicant bank maintains the statement of accounts during its usual and ordinary course of day to day business and as per the same as on 19.12.2021, the defendant no. 1 is liable and under obligation to pay the following dues to the applicant bank:-

- (i) Rs. 154,15,08,844.75 (in Loan Account No. 216400IC00005248)

- (ii) Rs. 105,28,86,589.30 (in Loan Account No. 00077025005324)

Thus, as on 19.12.2021, a sum of Rs. 259,43,95,434.05 is due and payable under the term loan which was granted to the defendant no. 1 along with pendentelite and future interest as well as penal interest.

3. Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and defendants no. 1 & 2 appeared through their respective counsels. However, defendants no. 3 to 6 neither appeared through counsel nor filed any WS.

3.1 So far as, defendant no. 1 is concerned, it filed its Written Statement along with IA No. 1830/22 for seeking condonation of delay of 38-days in filing the WS, however, said IA was dismissed vide order dated 23.08.2023 passed by this Tribunal and consequently, the WS of defendant no. 1 was not taken on record.

3.2 So far as, defendant no. 2 is concerned, since it failed to file the WS within stipulated period, hence, right of defendant no. 2 was also closed vide order dated 23.08.2023 passed by this Tribunal.

3.3 So far as, defendants no. 3 to 6 are concerned, despite sufficient service, these defendants neither appeared nor filed any WS, hence, the case was directed to proceed ex parte against defendants no. 3 to 6 vide order dated 20.12.2023 of this Tribunal. Hence, the case of Applicant Bank with regard to defendants no. 2 to 6 remained uncontested / unrebuted.

3.4 It is pertinent to note here that in this OA defendants no. 2 to 5 have been impleaded as the performa defendants [defendants no. 2 to 4 being consortium members and defendant no. 5 being Security Trustee] and no relief has been claimed qua these defendants by the applicant bank.

So far as, defendant no. 6 i.e. State of Rajasthan is concerned, in the light of Substitution Agreement dated 29.09.2015 executed amongst defendant no. 6, defendant no. 1 and PNB, acting in its capacity of Facility Agent for itself and defendants no. 2 to 4, applicant bank has prayed in Para 6(g) of the OA to direct defendant no. 6 to deposit the termination payments into the Escrow Account held with the Escrow Bank for the purpose of realization of the outstanding dues of the applicant bank.

4. To prove its case, the Applicant Bank leads its evidence by filling the affidavit of Smt. K. Meera Bai, Assistant General Manager and the Authorized Representative of the Applicant Bank.

4.1 Smt. K. Meera Bai, officer of the Applicant Bank has placed reliance upon the documents filed by the Applicant Banks which includes :-

- (i) Power of attorney dated 01.09.2003 executed by the applicant in favour of the deponent (Ex. AW1/1);

- (ii) Sanction Letter dated 31.07.2015 of applicant bank (Ex. AW1/2);

- (iii) Modified Sanction Letter dated 26.08.2015 of applicant bank (Ex. AW1/3);

- (iv) Sanction Letter dated 10.08.2015 issued by erstwhile Oriental Bank of Commerce (Ex. AW1/4);

- (v) Another sanction letter with certain modification dated 03.09.2015 (Ex. AW1/5);

- (vi) Common Loan Agreement dated 28.09.2015 executed by defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW1/6);

- (vii) Deed of Hypothecation dated 28.09.2015 executed by defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW1/7);

- (viii) Escrow Agreement dated 28.09.2015 executed by defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW1/8);

- (ix) Security Trustee Agreement dated 28.09.2015 entered into amongst the applicant bank, defendant no. 1 and performa defendant no 2 to 4 appointing defendant no. 5 to act as Security Trustee for and on behalf of the consortium banks (Ex. AW1/9);

- (x) Inter-se Arrangement Agreement dated 28.09.2015 executed amongst applicant bank and performa defendants no. 2 to 4 (Ex. AW1/10);

- (xi) Pari passu confirmation letter dated 28.09.2015 executed by defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW1/11);

- (xii) Revival Letter dated 14.03.2018 executed by defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW1/12);

- (xiii) Facility Agent Agreement dated 28.09.2015 (Ex. AW1/13);

- (xiv) Board Resolution dated 18.08.2015 furnished by defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW1/14);

- (xv) Substitution Agreement dated 29.09.2015 executed amongst the Government of State of Rajasthan (defendant no. 6), defendant no. 1 and applicant bank / PNB (Ex. AW1/15);

- (xvi) Copy of the letter dated 22.05.2020 issued by defendant no. 1 to the applicant bank (Ex. AW1/16);

- (xvii) Sponsor's Undertaking dated 28.09.2015 furnished by RIDCO to the applicant bank and performa defendants no. 2 to 4 (Ex. AW1/17);

- (xviii) Undertaking dated 05.10.2015 furnished by IL&FS to the applicant bank and performa defendants no. 2 to 4 (Ex. AW1/18);

- (xix) Undertaking dated 03.09.2025 furnished by defendant no. 6 to the performa defendant no. 5 (Ex. AW1/19);

- (xx) Notice of Demand dated 14.12.2021 sent by applicant bank to defendant no. 1 along with its postal receipts (Ex. AW1/20);

- (xxi) Statement of Account of the defendant no. 1 duly certified under the Bankers Books' Evidence Act (as amended) (Ex. AW1/21);

- (xxii) Calculation Sheet for the statement of dues (Ex. AW1/22);

- (xxiii) Certificate under Bankers Book Evidence Act (Ex. AW1/23).

5. It is also matter of record that the Defendant no. 1 has also filed written submissions.

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

6.1 In the present case, though the WS of the defendant no. 1 was not taken on record, however, arguments were addressed by Ld. counsel for defendant no. 1. Moreover, written submissions have also been filed by defendant no. 1 wherein certain objections have been taken by defendant no. 1. Hence, I would like to deal with the said objections in following paras:-

- (i) Defendant no. 1 has raised an objection that since 2021, and to date, the applicant bank (along with other banks forming part of a consortium) has been engaged in discussions and negotiations with Defendant no. 1 seeking to restructure the loan amount i.e. meetings held on 28.12.2021, 31.01.2022, 17.06.2023, 27.02.2024, 17.06.2024, 03.07.2024 and 16.08.2024, however, applicant bank has pursued the present proceedings and the applicant bank has not even disclosed the details of the negotiations and restructuring before this Tribunal. It is stated that even after filing the present OA, and till date, the Applicant Bank (as part of the consortium banks) has held various discussions, wherein, the banks are actively discussing alternative to restructure the debt, therefore, the present OA ought to be dismissed as premature and should not be entertained at this stage.

Record reveals that the account of defendant no. 1 was declared as NPA on 30.12.2018 and thereafter notice of demand dated 14.12.2021 was also sent by the applicant bank to defendant no. 1 to repay the outstanding amount but the defendant no. 1 failed to do so. This Tribunal is of the view that though defendant no. 1 may have approached the Applicant Bank for restructuring of the account from time to time but it is matter of record that the account of defendant no. 1 has not been restructured till date. Moreover, on the ground of efforts made by the defendant no. 1 for restructuring its account which is not accepted by the Applicant Bank till date, defendant no. 1 cannot be absolved from its liability nor this OA can be dismissed on this ground. Even otherwise, settlement / restructuring of account is the sole prerogative of the Applicant Bank / consortium members and they cannot be forced to do so and in case defendant approaches for the said purpose during the pendency of OA, OA cannot be dismissed on the ground of settlement talks going on between the parties. Hence, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the objection of defendant does not hold any water and same stands rejected accordingly.

(ii) Next objection raised by the defendant no. 1 is that this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the OA. It is stated that in terms of Sanction Letter dated 31.07.2015, issued by the Applicant Bank in favour of Defendant no. 1, the jurisdiction, in case of an event of default, is with the Court of Rajasthan.

Record reveals that the defendant no. 1 availed loan facilities from the applicant bank's Delhi branch and the loan account was maintained in the Delhi branch of the applicant bank, and the loan was declared Non-Performing Asset (NPA) at the same branch of applicant bank. So far as, question of jurisdiction with the Court of Rajasthan as per Sanction Letter dated 31.07.2015 is concerned, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the statutory framework of the RDB Act overrides any such jurisdictional agreements between the parties. As per the provisions of the RDB Act, the jurisdiction of a DRT is determined strictly by the location of the cause of action, the branch maintaining the debt account, or the defendant's residence or place of business. Jurisdiction cannot be conferred merely through an agreement between the parties, as it would contravene the statutory mandate. Hence, this Tribunal is of the view that this Tribunal is having jurisdiction to entertain this OA, accordingly, this plea of defendant no. 1 is hereby rejected.

- (iii) Defendant no. 1 has also raised an objection that as per the terms of the Sanction Letter dated 25.09.2015, the applicant bank was entitled to default penal interest of @1% p.a. on the defaulted amount for the period of such delay. However, the applicant bank has sought repayment at an exorbitant rate of @2% penal interest.

In this case, Ld. counsel for defendant no. 1 has not denied availment of loan facilities. Even otherwise, Applicant bank has filed Revival Letter dated 14.03.2018 executed by defendant no. 1 (AW1/12). Moreover, in support of its contention, Ld. counsel for defendant no. 1 has neither filed any statement of accounts and failed to challenge even a single entry of statement of accounts. Hence, this Tribunal is of the view that defendant no. 1 has failed to convince this Tribunal on this ground and same stands rejected.

- (iv) Next objection raised by the defendant no. 1 is that there is huge difference and variance in the rates of interest debited and charged from time to time and the rate of interest interpolated and filled in the documents filed by the applicant bank. However, there has not been any communication qua the change or variance in the rates of interest. Thus, the rate of interest applied by the Applicant Bank and sought to be claimed from defendant no. 1 is clearly contrary to the terms of the Agreements and are, therefore, unfair, exorbitant, usurious, inequitable and untenable in law as well as on facts of the case. Moreover, the applicant bank has failed to annex the statutory Section 65-B certificate of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 along with present application. In support of this contention, Ld. counsel for defendant no. 1 has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of *Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs. Kailas Khusanrao Gorantyal & Ors.* (2020) 3 SCC 216.

It is matter of record that defendant no. 1 has not denied the availment of loan facilities and applicant bank has also filed Revival Letter dated 28.09.2015 executed by defendant no. 1 (AW/12) and same has been duly proved by the applicant bank. It appears that after availing the loan facilities, now at the time of paying the dues of the bank, defendant no. 1 is raising such type of objections. Record further reveals that the Applicant Bank has already filed duly certified Statement of Account of defendant no. 1 under the Bankers Books' Evidence Act, Calculation Sheet for the statement of des and Certificate under Bankers Book Evidence Act (AW1/21, 1/22 and 1/23).

In the light of above discussion, this Tribunal is of the view that no illegality / infirmity is found in the Statement of Account(s) filed by the applicant bank. Accordingly, this plea of defendants does not hold any water and same stands rejected.

- (v) Defendant no. 1 has also raised an objection that the present OA has been incorrectly valued and the Court Fees has not been affixed with the application.

Record reveals that this OA has been filed by the applicant bank for recovery of more than Rs. 259.0 crore and applicant bank has already deposited a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- (i.e. the maximum court fees as per RDB Act), hence, this plea of defendant being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.

- (vi) Next objection raised by defendant no. 1 is that the applicant bank has repeatedly and surreptitiously recovered amounts from the escrow account without communicating any intentions of withdrawing the said amount to either defendant no. 1 or this Tribunal. It is stated that as of now, the Applicant Bank has recovered an exorbitant sum of Rs. 38,10,24,599.02 as interest amount and Rs. 74,00,30,768/- towards the satisfaction of the principal amount. Defendant no. 1 has given a table evidencing the amounts debited from time to time in the written submissions and stated that applicant bank, despite recovering over Rs. 100.0 Crore, continues to pursue the present application with blatant disregard for transparency. Thus, the applicant bank has deliberately misled this Tribunal by knowingly suppressing and concealing the recovery of the said amounts, hence this OA must be dismissed on this ground alone.

Record reveals that in its written submissions, defendant no. 1 has given details of auto debited amount of interest and principal amount by the applicant bank from 29.12.2021 till 29.03.2025 and this OA was filed on 29.12.2021.

Record further reveals the Substitution Agreement dated 29.09.2015 executed amongst defendant no. 6, defendant no. 1 and PNB, acting in its capacity of Facility Agent for itself and defendants no. 2 to 4, is a crucial documents. In the said Agreement in Para 6.2 it is stated that *The parties hereby verify and affirm that in case of an event of default in terms of the Partnership and Development Agreement dated August 07, 2005, or any other Project / financing Document, GoR shall be responsible for payment and shall make payment of all amounts due under the Facility to the Lenders as on the date of termination alongwith interest until payment in the designated Escrow Account created for the Facility. However, GoR does not assume any responsibility for any amount that is defaulted and overdue from RIPL to the Lenders on the date of the termination of the Facility.* Accordingly, in this case, the applicant bank has prayed in Para 6(g) of the OA to direct defendant no. 6 to deposit the termination payments into the Escrow Account held with the Escrow Bank for the purpose of realization of the outstanding dues of the applicant bank.

In the light of above, it appears that in case the applicant bank had received any amount(s) after filing of this OA and applicant bank will be liable to give due adjustment of the same while pursuing its case before Ld. Recovery Officer. But for this reason, defendant no. 1 cannot be absolved from its liability. Accordingly, this plea of defendant no. 1 is also not going to give any benefit and same stands dismissed.

6.2 So far as, defendants no. 2 to 6 are concerned, right of defendant no. 2 to file the WS was closed vide order dated 23.08.2023 passed by this Tribunal whereas defendants no. 3 to 6 were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 20.12.2023 of this Tribunal, hence, the case of applicant bank with regard to these defendants remained uncontested.

Even otherwise, defendants no. 2 to 5 are Performa defendants and no relief has been claimed by the Applicant against the said defendants.

So far as, defendant no. 6 is concerned, applicant bank has made limited prayer qua this defendant in Para 6(g) of the OA to direct defendant no. 6 to deposit the termination payments into the Escrow Account held with the Escrow Bank for the purpose of realization of the outstanding dues of the applicant bank.

6.3 On the other hand, the witness of Applicant Bank has fully corroborated the averments made in the OA. Even otherwise the whole case of the applicant bank is based on the documents and the witness has duly proved all these documents. The evidence filed by the applicant bank gone unrebuted and there is no question of disbelieving the evidence lead by the applicant bank and applicant has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the entire amount, as claimed in the OA from the defendant no. 1 along with pendentelite interest i.e. @11% p.a. and costs as agreed between the parties, however, prayer for granting penal interest is hereby declined.

6.4 In this OA, applicant has prayed to issue recovery certificate against defendant no. 1 only wherein the defendant 1 is principle borrower. Moreover, limited prayer is made qua defendant no. 6 by the applicant bank for directing the defendant no. 6 to deposit the termination payments into the Escrow Account held with the Escrow Bank for the purpose of realization of the outstanding dues of the applicant bank.

7. Consequently, TA No. 154/2022 is liable to be allowed in favour of the Applicant Bank and against the Defendant no. 1 being principal borrower which is liable to pay the dues of the Applicant along with costs and pendentelite & future interest @11p.a. from the date of filing of present OA, till the date of payment in full.

So far as, defendant no. 6 is concerned, now defendant no. 6 is directed to deposit the termination payments into the Escrow Account held with the Escrow Bank for the purpose of realization of the outstanding dues of the applicant bank (if not deposited).

ORDER

- (i) TA No. 154/2022 stands allowed and the Defendant no. 1 is directed to pay to the Applicant Bank, within 30 days, a sum of Rs. 259,43,95,434.05 (Rupees Two Hundred Fifty Nine Crore Forty Three Lakh Ninety Five Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Four and Paise Five only) along with costs, pendentelite and future interest @11% p.a. from the date of filing of this OA till realization of the entire dues of the Applicant which, the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of secured assets (belonging to defendant no. 1) and in case of shortfall from the sale of movable and immovable assets of the defendant no. 1.

- (ii) It is also directed that the sale proceeds of the secured assets shall be distributed amongst the members of consortium (amongst applicant bank and defendants no. 2 to 4), as per inter-se agreements executed amongst them.

- (iii) Defendant no. 6 is also directed to deposit the termination payments into the Escrow Account held with the Escrow Bank for the purpose of realization of the outstanding dues of the applicant bank (if not deposited).

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

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

- (vi) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer-II, DRT-III, Delhi on 25.07.2025.

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

File be closed and consigned to records.

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

(Pronounced in open court) Dated: 27.05.2025