STATE BANK OF INDIA vs BISHAN SAROOP RAM KISHAN AGRO PVT LTD AND ORS on 9 July 2025

**FINAL ORDER**

1. 1. This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 26.02.2019, through Mr. Narinder Kumar Sharma, Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 against the defendants recovery of a sum of Rs. 140,05,92,559.10 /- (Rupees One Hundred Forty Crores Five Lacs Ninety-Two Thousand Five Hundred Fifty-Nine and Paise Ten only) as on 15.10.2018 along with further interest at contractual rates @ 13.25% per annum i.e., 4.25% above base rate with monthly rests till actual realization in full along with costs, charges and expenses etc., w.e.f., 16.10.2018 may be passed against defendants No. 1 to 4, jointly and severally, individually and co-extensively and favour of the applicant bank.

2. 2. It is pertinent to note here that this OA bearing no. 1481/2018 was originally filed before Ld. DRT-II, Delhi, however, in pursuance to Gazette Notification No. 4718(E) dated 04.10.2022 issued by Government of India, Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, this case file was transferred by Ld. DRT-II, Delhi to this Tribunal in 30.11.2022 and was numbered at TA-352/2022.

3. 3. The Applicant No.1 Bank, constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955, with its Head Office at Mumbai and branch office at New Delhi, is the Lead Bank of the consortium comprising the erstwhile State Bank of Mysore, State Bank of Patiala, State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, and Karur Vysya Bank (Defendant No.5). Pursuant to the merger of these associate banks with the Applicant Bank w.e.f. 01.04.2017, all loan accounts and credit facilities originally sanctioned by these consortium members were consolidated and merged with the Applicant Bank. The consortium banks collectively granted credit facilities to Defendant No.1, secured by equitable mortgages and guarantees executed by Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 as personal guarantors. The Applicant Bank, as the Lead Bank, is authorized to initiate and pursue recovery proceedings on behalf of itself and the member banks of the consortium for dues outstanding from the Defendants jointly and severally.

1. 4. The brief facts of the case are that The Defendant No.1, *M/s. Bishan Saroop Ram Kishan Agro Pvt. Ltd.*, is a private limited company engaged in the business of rice processing and trading. The Defendant No.1 is the principal borrower who availed credit facilities from the erstwhile State Bank of Mysore, State Bank of Patiala, State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, and Karur Vysya Bank (Defendant No.5) under a consortium lending arrangement, with State Bank of Mysore as the lead bank. Pursuant to the merger of the aforesaid associate banks with the Applicant Bank w.e.f. 01.04.2017, the credit facilities stood consolidated with the Applicant Bank.

2. 5. Defendant No.2, 3 and Defendant No.4, are the personal guarantors who have jointly and severally executed Deeds of Guarantee in favor of the consortium of banks (now merged with the Applicant Bank) for securing the credit facilities sanctioned to Defendant No.1. In addition, Defendants No.3 and 4 have mortgaged their respective immovable properties as collateral security. They are all jointly and severally liable for the repayment of the outstanding dues of Defendant No.1 and are, therefore, necessary and proper parties to the present Original Application. Defendant No.5, The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., is a proforma party, being one of the member banks of the original consortium having pari passu charge over the secured assets; no relief is sought against it, but it has been impleaded as a necessary and proper party owing to its involvement in the joint loan and security documentation.

1. 6. So far as, defendant no. 3 is concerned, since defendant no. 3 is also before Ld. NCLT, hence, no order qua defendant no. 3 can be passed against said defendant at this stage. However, it is directed that in case Applicant Banks receive any amount from the proceedings pending before Ld. NCLT, they shall give due adjustment of the same in the recovery proceedings.

2. 7. It is submitted that prior to the formation of the consortium comprising State Bank of Mysore, State Bank of Patiala, State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, and Defendant No.5 – Karur Vysya Bank – and before the sanction of their respective credit facilities, Defendant No.1 had been availing credit facilities solely from State Bank of Mysore since 1995, with securities created over its movable and immovable assets covering only that exposure. Subsequently, for availing larger working capital facilities, Defendant No.1 approached the aforementioned banks, pursuant to which State Bank of Mysore sanctioned Rs.52.00 Crores on 19.11.2013, State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur sanctioned Rs.42.50 Crores on 

18.02.2014, State Bank of Patiala sanctioned Rs.20.00 Crores on 22.02.2014, and Karur Vysya Bank (Defendant No.5) sanctioned Rs.15.00 Crores on 19.02.2014. In order to secure the credit facilities granted, Defendant Nos.1 to 4 provided the primary and collateral securities as detailed in Para-3(A) and furnished personal guarantees of Defendant Nos.2 to 4.2.3 That in consideration of sanctioning the above facilities, the authorized representatives of Defendant No.1 executed and delivered the following loan and security documents:

1. i. Board Resolution dated 03.03.2014 – Annexure A-6

2. ii. Working Capital Consortium Agreement dated 07.03.2014 – Annexure A-7 (Colly)

3. iii. Joint Deed of Hypothecation dated 07.03.2014 – Annexure A-7 (Colly)

4. iv. Agreement of Hypothecation of Movable Assets dated 07.03.2014 – Annexure A-7 (Colly)

5. v. Letter of Undertaking (not to create further charge) dated 07.03.2014 – Annexure A-7 (Colly)

6. vi. Undertakings for disclosure of names, cancellation of limits, and non-payment of guarantee commission dated 07.03.2014 – Annexure A-7 (Colly)

7. vii. Deed of Joint and Several Personal Guarantee executed by Defendant Nos.2 to 4 dated 07.03.2014 – Annexure A-7 (Colly)

8. viii. Inter Se Agreement among Banks dated 07.03.2014 – Annexure A-8 (Colly)

9. ix. Letter of Authority among Banks dated 07.03.2014 – Annexure A-8 (Colly)

- x. Extension of Equitable Mortgage (constructive delivery of title deeds) dated 09.05.2014 – (Annexure not specified in provided text)

1. 8. In order to create an extension of the equitable mortgage on a *pari passu* basis for securing the credit facilities of all the Member Banks in the consortium, Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 extended the equitable mortgage over certain immovable properties. This was effected through the constructive delivery of title deeds to the Lead Bank, which already held the original mortgage on these properties. The extension of the equitable mortgage was executed on 09.05.2014 over the following properties, with the title deeds deposited through constructive delivery.

2. 9. Copies of the relevant title deeds, the extract of the Memorandum of Entry dated 09.05.2014 as recorded in the mortgage register of the Bank, and the Confirmation of Creation of Equitable Mortgage executed by the Defendants dated 10.05.2014 are annexed hereto and collectively marked as Annexure A/9 (Colly). The detail of the properties as mentioned in para 5 (f) of OA.

3. 10. In December 2015, the Defendants approached the Banks, including the Applicant Bank, for renewal-cum-enhancement of credit facilities from Rs.152.50 Crores to Rs.170.50 Crores, offering the same level of primary and collateral securities and personal guarantees. Considering the business prospects of Defendant No.1, the Banks approved the enhancement, with State Bank of Mysore increasing its limit from Rs.52.00 Crores to Rs.87.00 Crores vide Sanction Letter dated 15.01.2016 (Annexure A/10), State Bank of Patiala issuing its Sanction Letter on 31.03.2016 (Annexure A/11), State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur issuing its Sanction Letter on 18.04.2016 (Annexure A/12). Defendant No.1 accepted the terms by passing a Board Resolution on 12.12.2016 (Annexure A/13)

1. i. Executed relevant loan, security, and guarantee documents on 13.12.2016 for the enhanced limit of Rs.170.50 Crores.

2. ii. Working Capital Consortium Agreement dated 13.12.2016.

3. iii. Joint Deed of Hypothecation dated 13.12.2016.

4. iv. Agreement of Hypothecation of Movable Assets dated 13.12.2016.

5. v. Letter of Undertaking dated 13.12.2016 for not to create any further charge over the properties and assets.

6. vi. Undertakings for disclosure of names, cancellation of limits and Non-payment of Guarantee Commission dated 13.12.2016.

7. vii. Deed of Joint and Several Personal Guarantee dated 13.12.2016 executed by the Defendant Nos.2 to 4.

8. viii. Deed of Joint and Several Personal Guarantee dated 13.12.2016 executed by the Defendant Nos.2 to 4.

9. ix. Deed of Counter Indemnity dated 13.12.2016.

10. x. Copies of the loan and security documents executed by the Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 in favor of the consortium of Banks as mentioned hereinabove are annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE A-14 (Colly).

11. xi. On 13.12.2016, following documents were executed Inter Se amongst the Banks

12. xii. Inter Se Agreement dated 13.12.2016.

13. xiii. Letter of Authority dated 13.12.2016.

11. Copies of the loan and security documents executed by the Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 in favor of the consortium of Banks as mentioned hereinabove are annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE A-15 (Colly).

1. 12. For the purpose of creating an extension of equitable mortgage on a *pari passu* basis to secure the credit facilities sanctioned by all the Member Banks of the consortium, Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 extended the equitable mortgage over certain immovable properties through constructive delivery of the title deeds to the Lead Bank, which was already holding the mortgage over the said properties. The said extension of equitable mortgage was affected on 13.12.2016 by the Defendants over the following properties, and the title deeds were deposited by way of constructive delivery. Copies of the extract of the Memorandum of Entry dated 13.12.2016, as recorded in the mortgage register of the Bank, along with the Confirmation of Creation of Equitable Mortgage executed by the Defendants on 13.12.2016, are annexed hereto and collectively marked as Annexure A/16 (Colly). As the properties mentioned on para 5 (j) of OA.

2. 13. It is submitted that prior to the execution of the consortium loan and security documents dated 13.12.2016, Defendant No.1 approached the consortium Banks for the renewal of the existing credit facilities. Pursuant thereto, the respective Banks sanctioned the renewal of credit facilities by issuing individual Sanction Letters.

1. i. Sanction Letter issued by State Bank of Mysore dated 10.02.2017 – Annexure A/17

2. ii. Sanction Letter issued by State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur dated 01.03.2017 – Annexure A/18

3. iii. Sanction Letter issued by State Bank of Patiala dated 10.03.2017 – Annexure A/19

A small green rectangular stamp or mark with a blue line above it, located at the bottom right of the page.

- iv. Board Resolution passed by Defendant No.1 dated 09.02.2017 – Annexure A/20.

As the properties mentioned on para 5 (o) of OA.

- 14. It is stated in the OA that despite having availed the aforesaid facility, the accounts in question, became irregular and the accounts were declared as NPA on 26.10.2017. Thereafter, applicant bank was constrained to issue Demand Notice dated 12.02.2018, Applicant Bank sent a legal notice to Defendants No. 1 to 4 calling upon them to repay the outstanding amount on 23.02.2018 but that yielded no result.

- 15. The Applicant Bank continuously followed up with the Defendants for repayment; however, despite repeated reminders, the Defendants continued to commit defaults in repayment of the outstanding dues. Consequently, the Applicant Bank issued a Loan Recall-cum-Demand Notice dated 12.02.2018 (Annexure A/21), calling upon the Defendants to repay an amount of Rs. 128.39 Crores, due as on 12.02.2018, along with applicable interest and costs. Despite receipt of the said notice, Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 failed to make the payment. Thereafter, the Applicant Bank issued a Demand Notice dated 23.02.2018 (Annexure A/22) under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, directing Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 to pay a sum of Rs. 129.06 Crores, due as on 22.02.2018, within 60 days from the date of receipt of the notice. However, even after the issuance of this statutory notice, the Defendants failed to comply, leaving the Applicant Bank with no alternative but to seek legal recourse and invoke the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Tribunal to recover its lawful dues from Defendant Nos. 1 to 4, jointly and severally.


1. 16. The Defendants, despite regular follow up by the Applicant Banks, failed to adhere to maintain financial discipline and started committing default, the Applicant Banks kept on reminding the Defendants to keep the loan account regular but the Defendants failed and consequently the loan accounts with the Applicant Banks were classified NPA on 26.10.2017.

2. 17. It is submitted that the Defendants, by grossly violating the terms and conditions of the loan documents and failing to adhere to the financial discipline mandated by the Applicant Bank, have rendered themselves liable for recovery proceedings. As a result, the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 140,05,92,559.10 (Rupees One Hundred Forty Crores Five Lakhs Ninety-Two Thousand Five Hundred Fifty-Nine and Paise Ten Only) as on 15.10.2018, along with further interest at the contractual rate of 13.25% per annum, i.e., 4.25% above the base rate with monthly rests, together with costs, from the Defendants jointly and severally, with effect from 15.10.2018 until the date of full realization. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to make payment of the said amount, including interest, costs, and other charges, to the Applicant Bank. Furthermore, the Applicant Bank is legally entitled to recover the outstanding dues from the proceeds of the sale of the immovable property equitably mortgaged in its favour, the particulars of which are detailed hereinbelow. It is further submitted that the aforesaid credit facilities availed by the Defendants constitute a legally enforceable debt under Section 2(g) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, and the Defendants remain jointly 

and severally liable to repay the same in full to the Applicant Bank.

1. 18. It is further stated that the applicant bank also initiated actions under SARFAESI Act and took actual physical possession of the secured assets under Section 13(4) of the said Act. It is further stated that the instant OA is without prejudice to the right of the applicant bank to proceed further under the Act, in accordance with law.

2. 19. It is further stated that since, the defendants did not pay the amount due to applicant bank, hence, the applicant bank was left with no alternative but to file the present OA and the applicant bank is entitled to recover the entire amount due from the defendants, who are jointly and severally liable to pay the same to the applicant bank along with interest.

3. 20. Notices in the present Original Application (O.A.) were duly issued to the defendants no. 1 to 4, and in response, the defendants filed their written statement. As per the record, service of notice was effectively served upon the defendants through speed post and *dasti* on 01.01.2019. Thereafter, the written statement on behalf of defendants no. 1 to 4 was filed on 08.05.2019, and the Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 respectfully submit this Written Statement in response to the averments made in the Original Application. At the outset, the Defendants deny all allegations and contentions raised therein, except those specifically admitted herein. The application is misconceived, devoid of merit, and liable to be dismissed.

4. 21. It is evident that the written statement was filed beyond the statutory period stipulated under Section 19(4) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (as amended), which mandates that the written statement must be filed 

within 30 days from the date of service of notice. Accordingly, the written statement cannot be considered as having been filed within the prescribed time limit. Hence, the factual objections raised by the Ld. counsel for defendants no. 1 to 4 in this regard are not tenable. But Ld. counsel for the Defendants No. 1 to 4 has raised factual and legal issues for consideration. But written statement is beyond the statutory period. hence, only legal issues shall be considered for final adjudication.

1. 22. Ld. counsel for the Defendants has raised the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

2. 23. The Ld. counsel for the Applicant has submitted that as per the u/s 19(1) RDB Act 1993, Applicant Bank branch or any other office of the bank or financial institution is maintaining an account in which debt claim is outstanding or the Defendants are actually and voluntarily residing or carries on business or personally work for gain.

3. 24. It is transpired from the record that the loan facilities in question were sanctioned through the following branches of the State Bank of India: (i) State Bank of India (erstwhile State Bank of Mysore), Naya Bazar, Delhi Branch, erstwhile State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Specialized Commercial Branch, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi – 110001, erstwhile State Bank of Patiala, Mid Corporate Branch, Netaji Subhash Place, New Delhi.

4. 25. It is further submitted that prior to the merger of the associate banks with the State Bank of India, State Bank of India (eSBM) was the Lead Bank of the consortium. Following the said merger, the entire loan accounts of the associate banks were consolidated and transferred to the State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch, 6th Floor, Mohan Singh Place, Baba Kharak Singh Marg, New Delhi – 110001.

1. 26. Accordingly, since the loan was sanctioned and is now being managed within the territorial limits of this Tribunal, the cause of action has clearly arisen within its jurisdiction. Therefore, this Tribunal is vested with the jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present Original Application. hence, objection raised on behalf of Defendants is not tenable.

2. 27. Another objection has raised on behalf of Ld. counsel for the Defendants that no cause of action in the present matter initially arose in favour of the Applicant Bank and against the Defendants.

3. 28. Records reveal that Defendant No.1 initially availed credit facilities from the erstwhile State Bank of Mysore (eSBM) from 1995, secured by mortgage over immovable properties. In 2013, Defendant No.1 sought fresh and enhanced facilities from eSBM and other banks, forming a consortium led by eSBM, with loan and guarantee documents executed on 07.03.2014 and mortgage continued on 09.05.2014. The credit limits were further enhanced in 2016 with corresponding documentation and continuation of mortgage on 13.12.2016. Sanction letters for renewal of facilities were issued in early 2017, but persistent defaults led to the account being declared NPA on 26.10.2017. Despite issuance of a Loan Recall Notice on 12.02.2018 and a Demand Notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 23.02.2018, the Defendants failed to repay dues. The liability is joint and several among Defendants Nos. 1 to 4, with the outstanding debt amounting to Rs. 140,05,92,559.10 as on 15.10.2018. In 

light of above discussions, objection raised by the Defendants regarding cause of action is not tenable.

1. 29. To prove its case, the applicant bank leads its evidence by filling the affidavit of Mr. Mr. Narinder Kumar Sharma, Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, who has relied upon the documents filed by the applicant bank which includes the applicant no. 1/ State bank of India would act as a Facility Agent and may exercise on its own discretion to take action in the case of default/enforcement.

1. i. Notification under SBI General Regulations – Dated: 26.09.1959, 28.08.1972, 02.05.1987– Exhibit AW/1

2. ii. Sanction Letter issued by State Bank of Mysore – Dated: 19.11.2013 – Exhibit AW/2

3. iii. Sanction Letter issued by State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur – Dated: 18.02.2014 – Exhibit AW/3

4. iv. Sanction Letter issued by State Bank of Patiala – Dated: 22.02.2014 – Exhibit AW/4

5. v. Sanction Letter issued by Karur Vysya Bank – Dated: 19.02.2014 – Exhibit AW/5

6. vi. Board Resolution passed by Defendant No.1 – Dated: 03.03.2014 – Exhibit AW/6

7. vii. Working Capital Consortium Agreement – Dated: 07.03.2014 – Exhibit AW/7

8. viii. Joint Deed of Hypothecation– Dated: 07.03.2014 – Exhibit AW/8

9. ix. Agreement of Hypothecation of Movable Assets – Dated: 07.03.2014 – Exhibit AW/9

10. x. Letter of Undertaking (not to create further charge)– Dated: 07.03.2014 – Exhibit AW/10

- xi. Undertakings for disclosure, cancellation of limits, and guarantee commission – Dated: 07.03.2014 – Exhibit AW/11

- xii. Deed of Joint and Several Personal Guarantee (Def. No.2 to 4) – Dated: 07.03.2014 – Exhibit AW/12

- xiii. Another Deed of Joint and Several Personal Guarantee (Def. No.2 to 4) – Dated: 07.03.2014 – Exhibit AW/13

- xiv. Inter Se Agreement among the Banks– Dated: 07.03.2014 – Exhibit AW/14

- xv. Letter of Authority (among Banks) – Dated: 07.03.2014 – Exhibit AW/15

- xvi. Sanction Letter - SBM (Enhancement)- 15.01.2016 -Exhibit AW/16

- xvii. Sanction Letter - State Bank of Patiala- 31.03.2016 -Exhibit AW/17

- xviii. Sanction Letter - SBBJ (Enhancement)- 18.04.2016 -Exhibit AW/18

- xix. Board Resolution - Defendant No.1- 12.12.2016 -Exhibit AW/19

- xx. Working Capital Consortium Agreement (Renewal)- 13.12.2016 -Exhibit AW/20

- xxi. Joint Deed of Hypothecation (Renewal)- 13.12.2016 -Exhibit AW/21

- xxii. Agreement of Hypothecation of Movable Assets (Renewal)- 13.12.2016 -Exhibit AW/22

- xxiii. Letter of Undertaking (Renewal)- 13.12.2016 -Exhibit AW/23

- xxiv. Undertakings (Renewal - Disclosure, etc.)- 13.12.2016 - Exhibit AW/24

- xxv. Deed of Joint & Several Guarantee (Renewal)- 13.12.2016 - Exhibit AW/25

- xxvi. Deed of Joint & Several Guarantee (Duplicate - Renewal)- 13.12.2016 -Exhibit AW/26

- xxvii. Deed of Counter Indemnity- 13.12.2016 -Exhibit AW/27

- xxviii. Inter Se Agreement Among Banks (Renewal)- 13.12.2016 - Exhibit AW/28

- xxix. Letter of Authority (Renewal)- 13.12.2016 -Exhibit AW/29

- xxx. Sanction Letter - SBM (Final Renewal)- 10.01.2017 -Exhibit AW/30

- xxx i. Sanction Letter - SBBJ- 01.03.2017 -Exhibit AW/31

- xxxii. Sanction Letter - State Bank of Patiala- 10.03.2017 -Exhibit AW/32

- xxxiii. Board Resolution - Defendant No.1- 09.02.2017 -Exhibit AW/33

- xxxiv. Loan Recall cum Demand Notice- 12.02.2018 -Exhibit AW/34

- xxxv. SARFAESI Demand Notice (Section 13(2))- 23.02.2018 - Exhibit AW/35

- xxxvi. Re-casted Statement of Account (Bankers Book Evidence)- Exhibit AW/36

30. 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 bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, the bank is entitled to recover the entire amount along with pendentelite interest and future costs as agreed between the parties. I hereby allow 

this OA as the applicant bank has proved its claim beyond any doubt.

31. In this TA, applicant bank has prayed to issue recovery certificate against defendants no. 1 to 4. In the present matter, the defendant 1 is principal borrower and defendants no. 2 to 4 stood as guarantor / mortgagors.

32. Consequently, **TA No. 352/2022** stands allowed in favour of applicant bank and against defendants no. 1 to 4, who are liable to pay the dues of the applicant bank along with costs and pendentelite & future interest @ 13% per annum, as claimed in the OA, from the date of filing of present OA, till the date of payment in full.

ORDER

TA No. 352/2022 stands allowed and the defendants no. 1,2 and 4 are directed to pay to the applicant bank, within 30 days, a sum of Rs. 140,05,92,559.10 /- (Rupees One Hundred Forty Crores Five Lacs Ninety-Two Thousand Five Hundred Fifty-Nine and Paise Ten only) less the amount received from the sale/ release of mortgaged properties along with cost and pendentelite and future interest, as claimed in OA i.e. @ 13% per annum rests from the date of filing of this OA till the date of realization failing which, the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated/charged stocks/ tangible movables and available mortgaged properties.

Further, in case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable assets of the defendants no. 1, 2 and 4.

So far as, defendant no. 3 is concerned, since defendant no. 3 is before Ld. NCLT, hence, no order qua defendant no. 3 can be passed against said defendant at this stage.

However, it is directed that applicant bank shall be at liberty to revive the OA qua defendant no. 3 in case NCLT are quashed / withdrawn in future, in accordance with law.

It is further directed that in case Applicant Banks receive any amount from the proceedings pending before Ld. NCLT, they shall give due adjustment of the same in the recovery proceedings.

It is also directed that the applicant shall adjust the amount(s), if any, received during the pendency of this case.

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

- (ii). Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer-II, DRT-III, Delhi on 28.08.2025.

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

File be closed and consigned to records.

(Pronounced in open court) Dated: 09.07.2025

71025 (SHIV KUMAR - I) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, DELHI