INDIA INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs MS MEP SANJOSE TALAJA MAHUVA ROAD PRIVATE LIMITE on 12 September 2025

**FINAL ORDER**

1. This original application has been filed by the applicants no. 1 & 2 i.e. India Infrastructure Finance Company Limited and IDBI Bank Limited on 18.09.2023, through Sh. Sanjay Pandey, Manager (Legal) and Sh. Ved Chadha, Assistant General Manager, being Authorized Representative of Applicant nos. 1 & 2 respectively, under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 against the defendants no. 1 to 3 for recovery of following amounts :- <table><tbody><tr><td>Applicant No. 1</td><td>Rs. 123,76,72,799.37 as on 31.03.2023</td></tr><tr><td>Applicant No. 2</td><td>Rs. 47,67,82,781.00 as on 31.05.2023</td></tr></tbody></table>

---

Total

Rs. 171,44,55,580.37

---

---


sd

together with pendentelite and future interest thereon at the rate of 13% at contractual rate alongwith 2% penal interest from the date of default till the date of actual and final realization along with all costs & charges and other relief(s).

1.2 It is pertinent to note here that this OA bearing dairy no. 2766/2023 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 September 2023 and was numbered at TA-08/2023.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Applicant No. 1 i.e. India Infrastructure Finance Company Limited is (Govt. of India Enterprise) a body Corporate constituted under the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at East Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi – 110023 (being the Principal Lender as well as other Lender's Agent). The Applicant no. 1 has been notified as a Public Financial Institution by the Central Government under Section 4A of the Companies Act, 1956 in view of which it is empowered to be recognized and take necessary steps under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RD&B Act). It is further stated that Sh. Sanjay Pandey, working as Manager (Legal) with Applicant No. 1, is duly authorized and empowered by the Applicant to sign, verify and file present application and he has been duly authorized vide Authority Letter dated 03.07.2023.

So far as, Applicant No. 2 i.e. IDBI Bank Limited, is concerned, it is a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) and a company within the meaning of Section 2(20) of Companies Act, 2013 and a banking company within the meaning of Section 5(c) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949) and having its registered office at Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400005 (being the Lender). It is further stated that Sh. Ved Chadha, working as Assistant General Manager with Applicant No. 2, is duly authorized and empowered by the Applicant to sign, verify and file present application and he has been duly authorized vide Authority Letter dated 03.07.2023.

2.1 It is stated in the OA that the Defendant no. 1 Company was in the business of Infrastructure Development having its registered office at Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400072. Defendant no. 1 company along with defendants no. 2 & 3 requested the consortium lenders for financial assistance for the purpose of its business and for meeting operational requirements.

2.2 It is further stated in the OA that the Defendant no. 1 is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 and defendants no. 2 & 3 have been impleaded in the capacity of being corporate and personal guarantors and pledgors to the loan facilities availed by the defendant no. 1. Defendant no. 1 is the subsidiary of Defendant no. 2 and Defendant no. 3 is the Chairman / Managing Director of defendant no. 2 who has executed personal guarantee for repaying the loan amount.

2.3 It is stated in the OA that on the request of the principal borrower i.e. M/s MEP Sanjose TalajaMahuva Road Pvt. Ltd. for executing and operating a road project envisaging development of existing two lanes of TalajaMahuva Road National Highway – 8E from Km 53.585 (design length Km 54.910) to KM 100.00 (design 100.450) in the state of Gujarat (design length 45.460 KM) and construction of additional lane on either side under design build operate and transfer basis (DBOT) of NHAI project as per the Common Loan Agreement executed between the Applicants and the Defendants vide which the Applicants agreed to provide financial assistance to the defendants as per following.

The total cost of the construction and development was estimated to be Rs. 643,05,00,000/- which was supposed to be funded as follows:-

<thead> <tr> <th>Means of Finance</th> <th>Amount (Rs. in Crore)</th> <th>Percentage (%)</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>NHAI Grant</td> <td>257.22</td> <td>40.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Equity Contribution</td> <td>96.46</td> <td>15.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Total equity</td> <td>353.68</td> <td>55.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Rupee Facility</td> <td>289.37</td> <td>45.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Total estimated project cost</td> <td>643.06</td> <td>100.00</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

2.4 It is stated in the OA that as per Schedule-1A of the Common Loan Agreement dated 09.03.2017, the Applicants have agreed to grant loan facilities to the Defendants along with FITL as on 2020 as follows:-

<thead> <tr> <th rowspan="2">Sr. No</th> <th rowspan="2">Name of the Rupee Lenders</th> <th rowspan="2">Term Loan Facility</th> <th rowspan="2">FITL</th> <th rowspan="2">Pending fees</th> <th colspan="2">Particulars of the Rupee Facility</th> </tr> <tr> <th>BG Facility (as sub limit of Rupee Facility)</th> <th>LC Facility (as sub limit of Rupee Facility)</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>1.</td> <td>IIFCL</td> <td>128.61</td> <td>3.28</td> <td></td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td>2.</td> <td>IDBI</td> <td>60.76</td> <td>2.10</td> <td>0.30</td> <td>90.70 (i.e. 60% of IDBI's Commitment) (Interchangeable with LC Facility)</td> <td>90.70 (i.e. 60% of IDBI's Commitment) (Interchangeable with BG)</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

<thead> <tr> <th></th> <th></th> <th></th> <th></th> <th></th> <th>sub limit)</th> <th>Facility limit)</th> <th>sub</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>3.</td> <td>BOI</td> <td>100</td> <td></td> <td></td> <td>22.23</td> <td>33.7</td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td><b>Total</b></td> <td><b>289.37</b></td> <td></td> <td><b>5.49</b></td> <td></td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

2.5 It is stated in the OA that the parties hereto have also executed Security Trustee Agreement dated 09.03.2017 in favour of Vistra ITCL (Limited) pertaining to the said financial facilities given to the Defendants/Borrowers.

2.6 It is stated in the OA the said Project arose out of a request in early 2016 in response to defendant no. 1's bid on 25.04.2016 and the said bid was accepted by NHAI by way of letter of acceptance dated 26.05.2016. Thereafter, on 08.07.2016, Defendant no. 1 and the NHAI entered into a Concession Agreement which set down certain milestones in Schedule-G of the said Agreement, 'titled 'Project Completion Schedule'. However, Defendant no. 1 failed to attain these milestones in a timely manner which resulted in NHAI issuing a cure period notice on 12.10.2018 stating the slow work progress rate of 11.08% against the proposed target of 24%. However, defendant no. 1 again failed to meet the schedule, forcing the NHAI to issue first Intention of Terminating (IOT) notice on 03.04.2019, but it was put on hold on the request of Defendant no. 1 that Defendant no. 1 will make up for the lost time by improving the percentage of progress in the execution of the project.

2.7 It is also stated in the OA that the Defendant no. 1 failed to achieve the targeted progress rate by 31.08.2019 and could only chalk up a progress of 0.21% of the targets set; the NHAI addressed a letter to defendant no. 1 in this regard on 05.09.2019. A copy of the said letter was also served upon the lenders including the Applicant, calling upon them to initiate the process of substitution in the wake of Concessionaire's decision to imitate the process of termination. This letter was followed by a number of extensions of time by NHAI but Defendant no. 1 could not achieve much progress in the execution of the Project.

2.8 It is stated that on 01.10.2019, the lenders including the Applicants issued a letter to NHAI setting out their intention to initiate the process of substituting the Concessionaire under the Concession Agreement, which held them entitled to a period of 180-days, extendable by a further period of 90-days at their request, for getting their affidavits in order and effecting substitution. A few days later, Applicant, NHAI and defendant no. 1 met to discuss the status of substation, the details whereon have been recorded in the Minutes of Meeting of that date. The Minutes of that date shows that Applicant also requested NHAI to not to make haste in substituting the Concessionaire at that point, since it needed some time to find a suitable private entity to nominate for substitution. Moreover, together with the Applicant, the Concessionaire asked NHAI to give it a further extension, by way of a last opportunity, so that it could achieve an additional 20% physical progress in the project work till 20.01.2020, subject to which the NHAI would consider the extension of the Schedule Completion Period. The period between 21.08.2019 and 20.01.200, which is also being called an Extension of Time (EoT) by the Concessionaires and the lenders [details of said meeting have been given in Para 5(5.13) of the OA]

2.9 It is stated in the OA that the Defendant no. 1 again remained unsuccessful in achieving the targeted progress rate in the second adjustment period as well, which became clearly by January 2020. Accordingly, on 07.02.2020, another meeting was convened between Applicant, NHAI and Defendant no.1 to discuss the status of substitution and once again, Applicant and Defendant no. 1 jointly requested NHAI to grant some more time to Defendant no. 1, as also for revision of Milestones for this period, which would extend till 30.06.2020. Again, on the request of the Applicants, NHAI further extended time for defendant no. 1 to meet the milestone by showing progress in the execution of the project but defendant no. 1 again failed to show any progress.

2.10 In the meanwhile, the Covid-19 pandemic hit the world, which was declared as a Force Majeure event by the Central Government and subsequently led to a national lockdown on 24.03.2020. However, a few days before that on 18.03.2020, defendant no. 1 had already invoked the Force Majeure Clause under Article 28 of the Concessionaire Agreement on the ground that the pandemic had decelerated its work progress and crippled its liability to meet milestones in a timely manner. Therefore, defendant no. 1 requested that the timelines under the Concession Agreement be extended.

2.11 It is stated in the OA that the NHAI wrote to the Applicants on 27.04.2020 asking them to furnish a status report detailing its target and progress inasmuch as the substitution of the Concessionaire by 30.06.2020 was concerned. This letter also stated that any failure to carry out substitution by 30.06.2020 would lead to the NHAI proceedings with the termination of the agreement.

2.12 On 13.05.2020, the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure issued a Policy Circular clarifying that the invocation of the Force Majeure Clause would be valid only in a situation where the parties to the contract were not in default of the contractual obligation as on 19^th February 2020. In line with these directions, the Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways (MoRTH) also released a circular on 18.05.2020 stating that NHAI undertook to allow extension of time to contractors under Force Majeure Clause due to COVID pandemic, subject to the instructions contained in the circular issued by the Department of Expenditure on 13.05.2020. The NHAI also released its own circular on 26.05.2020 reiterating this incentive.

In view of these circulars and guidelines, Applicant wrote to NHAI on 16.06.2020, requesting grant of further 90 days' time to the Concessionaire w.e.f. 30.06.2020, to continue carrying out the work under the Concession Agreement. In reply, NHAI, while stating that the Concessionaire was not entitled to any such extension and that the lenders were also not entitled to be granted their request either since they had failed to exercise their right of substitution within the cumulative period of 270 days' granted to them for this purpose, chose to accommodate the lenders this time till 30.09.2020.

2.13 In the interregnum, NHAI issued a Notice Inviting e-Tender (NIT) on 28.08.2020, for construction of the left out work at the project site. The NIT estimated the cost of left-over work at the project site at Rs. 646.61 crore. On seeing this NIT, defendant no. 1 wrote to the NHAI on 29.08.2020 under Article 38.2 of the Concession Agreement for the purpose of notifying disputes and initiating conciliation talks.

2.14 It is stated in the OA that in the month of September 2020, in the light of the disputes looming between the parties and the NHAI's unwavering stand that no further extension would be granted to the Concessionaires, Applicant no. 1 wrote letters to the NHAI on 08.09.2020 and 10.09.2020 requesting it to revive the Intention of Termination (IOT) notices dated 03.04.2019 and 18.09.2019 so that they could take steps in respect of substitution. In its response dated 10.09.2020, the NHAI stated that there was no question of revival since these notices were already in effect. The NHAI also stated that it had already extended significant accommodation to Defendant no. 1 at the behest of Applicant, not to mention the additional deferral of 90-days granted between 30.06.2020 and 30.09.2020, which fell within the 270 days' available with the lenders for substitution under Clause 3.3.2 of the Substitution Agreement. Thus, the NHAI emphasized that the lenders had only got time till 30.09.2020 i.e. 20 days from then, to effect substitution.

2.15 It is stated in the OA that in furtherance of the Rupee Term Facilities as sanctioned by the Lenders, following documents were executed :-

- (i) Letter of Intent dated 09.01.2017 executed between applicant no. 2 and defendant no. 1;

- (ii) Common Loan Agreement dated 09.03.2017 executed between defendant no. 1, applicant no. 1 and applicant no. 2;

- (iii) Security Trustee Agreement dated 09.03.2017 executed between defendant no. 1, applicant no. 1 and applicant no. 2, Bank of India (Rupee Lender) and Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd. (Security Trustee);

- (iv) Corporate Guarantee dated 28.02.2018/09.03.2017 executed by defendant no. 2 (guarantor) in favour of Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd. (Security Trustee);

- (v) Inter Creditor Agreement dated 09.03.2017 executed between Applicant no. 1, Applicant no. 2, Bank of India (Rupee Lender) and Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd. (Security Trustee);

- (vi) Lenders Agent Agreement dated 09.03.2017 executed between Defendant no. 1/Borrower, Applicant no. 1, Applicant no. 2 and Bank of India (Rupee Lender);

- (vii) Personal Guarantee Agreement dated 16.03.2017 executed by defendant no. 3 (Guarantor) in favour of Vistra ITCL (India) Limited (Security Trustee);

- (viii) Undertaking dated 28.02.2017/09.03.2017 issued by SanjoseIndia Infrastructure and Construction Pvt. Ltd. in favour of Applicant no. 1.

2.16 It is also stated in the OA that on 03.07.2017, the parties to the agreement amended some of the terms of Common Loan Agreement dated 09.03.2017. The said First Amendment Agreement dated 03.07.2017 was executed between the defendant no. 1, Applicant no. 1, Applicant no. 2 and Bank of India (Rupee Lender).

2.17 It is stated in the OA that the Defendant no. 1 has defaulted in servicing the dues including repayment of principal as per agreed repayment schedule as well as in performing its various obligations as set out under the financing documents. Accordingly, on occurrence of events of defaults as set out in the various agreements, the account of the defendant no. 1 was declared as Non Performing Asset (NPA) on 31.03.2021 by the Applicant no. 1 and on 22.10.2022, by the Applicant no. 2 in accordance with the guidelines and regulations as issued by the Reserve Bank of India.

2.18 It is also stated in the OA that the Applicants no. 1 and 2 issued Notice for Recall of Facility and Invocation of Guarantee dated 21.02.2023 to the defendants towards outstanding amount of Rs. 160.94.70,853.92 alongwith interest, thereby calling upon them to discharge their liability, but all in vain. Hence, the applicants were compelled to file this OA for recovery of its dues.

3. Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and the defendants appeared through counsel but did not chose to file any WS till date.

3.1 It is also pertinent to note here that the settlement talks were going on between the parties since December 2023 but no settlement could arrive at as yet.

4. To prove its case, the Applicants No. 1 & 2 i.e. India Infrastructure Finance Company Limited and IDBI Bank Limited lead their evidence by filling the affidavit(s) of Mr.

Sanjay Pandey, Manager (AW-1) and Mr. Ved Chadha, Assistant General Manager (AW-2).

4.1 Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Manager (AW-1) of Applicant no. 1 has placed reliance upon following documents:-

- (i) Authority Letter dated 03.07.2023 issued by Applicant no. 1 in favour of deponent (Ex. AW-1/1);

- (ii) Letter of Intent dated 09.01.2017 executed between applicant no. 2 and defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW-2/2);

- (iii) Common Loan Agreement dated 09.03.2017 executed between defendant no. 1, applicant no. 1 and applicant no. 2 (Ex. AW-1/3);

- (iv) Security Trustee Agreement dated 09.03.2017 executed between defendant no. 1, applicant no. 1 and applicant no. 2, Bank of India (Rupee Lender) and Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd. (Security Trustee) (Ex. AW-1/4);

- (v) Corporate Guarantee dated 28.02.2017/09.03.2017 executed by defendant no. 2 (guarantor) in favour of Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd. (Security Trustee) (Ex. AW-1/5);

- (vi) Inter Creditor Agreement dated 09.03.2017 executed between Applicant no. 1, Applicant no. 2, Bank of India (Rupee Lender) and Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd. (Security Trustee) (Ex. AW-1/6);

- (vii) Lenders Agent Agreement dated 09.03.2017 executed between Defendant no. 1/Borrower, Applicant no. 1, Applicant no. 2 and Bank of India (Rupee Lender) (Ex. AW-1/7);

- (viii) Personal Guarantee Agreement dated 16.03.2017 executed by Defendant no. 3 (Guarantor) in favour of Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd. (Security Trustee) (Ex. AW-1/8);

- (ix) Undertaking dated 28.02.2017/09.03.2017 issued by Sanjose India Infrastructure and Construction Pvt. Ltd. in favour of Applicant no. 1 (Ex. AW-1/9);

- (x) First Amendment Agreement dated 03.07.2017 executed between (i) the Defendant no. 1; (ii) Applicant no. 1 (iii) Applicant no. 2 and (iv) Bank of India (Rupee Lender) (Ex. AW-1/10);

- (xi) Notice for Recall of Facility and Invocation of Guarantee dated 21.02.2023 issued by Applicants no. 1 and 2 to the Defendants (Ex. AW-1/11);

- (xii) Statement of Account duly certified under the Bankers Books of Evidence Act, 1891 and Section 95B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in respect of the credit account, statement of accrued interest of the aforesaid accounts and the statement showing the total outstanding amount payable to the Applicants no. 1 and 2 (Ex. AW-1/12).

4.2 Mr. Ved Chadha, Assistant General Manager (AW-2) of Applicant no. 2 has also placed reliance upon following documents :-

- (i) Authority Letter dated 03.07.2023 issued by Applicant no. 2 in favour of deponent (Ex. AW-2/1);

- (ii) Letter of Intent dated 10.03.2017 executed between Applicant no. 2 and Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW-2/2);

- (iii) Statement of Account duly certified under the Bankers Books of Evidence Act, 1891 and Section 95B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in respect of the credit account, statement of accrued interest of the aforesaid accounts and the statement showing the total outstanding amount payable to the Applicants no. 1, 2 and 3 (Ex. AW-2/3).

Apart from above documents, officer of applicant no. 2 has also relied upon the documents relied by applicant no. 1 i.e. AW-1/3 to AW-1/11.

5. In the present matter, Ld. counsel for Applicants as well as Ld. counsel for Defendants have also filed their respective written submissions.

6. Heard and perused the entire record.

6.1 It is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of this case, Ld. counsel for defendants informed that defendants no. 2 & 3 are before Ld. NCLT, Mumbai and filed the relevant orders passed by Ld. NCLT.

Since, defendants no. 2 & 3 are before Ld. NCLT, Mumbai, hence, no final order can be passed qua defendants no. 2 & 3, at this stage.

However, it is directed that Applicants shall be at liberty to revive the OA qua defendants no. 2 & 3 in case NCLT proceedings are quashed / withdrawn in future, in accordance with law.

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

6.2 So far as, defendant no. 1 is concerned, it did not chose to file any WS and the matter was kept pending on the ground of settlement but the settlement could not take place. It is matter of record that defendant no. 1 has filed Written Submissions. On perusal of same, it came to the knowledge of this Tribunal that defendant no. 1 has not denied the availment of loan facilities and in fact admitted about the settlement talks going on between the parties. Ld. counsel for defendant no. 1 has argued that the Applicants are guilty of various acts of commission and omission and are totally negligent. Moreover, Applicants fails to disclose any actionable cause of action qua the answering Defendants and have come before this Hon'ble Tribunal with unclean hands. Hence, request is made to dismiss this OA with heavy and exemplary costs in favour of the answering defendants.

It is matter of record that the defendants have failed to file any WS. Moreover, it is also admitted position that the defendants tried to settle the matter with the Applicants but the Settlement could not take place. This Tribunal is of the view that once the defendants did not chose to file the WS, now at the stage of final adjudication of this case, they cannot be absolved from their liability on the ground of settlement. It is also matter of record that even in the Written Submissions, no legal issues have been raised by the Defendants. In these circumstances, this Tribunal is of the considered view that in the absence of any WS, the case of Applicants remained uncontested by all the defendants including defendant no. 1, hence, this Tribunal is empowered to pass the judgment in favour of the Applicants on the basis of the Original Application and Evidence filed by the Applicants.

6.3 On the other hand, the witness(es) of Applicants have fully corroborated the averments made in the OA. Even otherwise the whole case of the applicants is based on the documents and the witness(es) have duly proved all these documents. The evidence filed by the Applicants gone unrebutted and there is no question of disbelieving the evidence lead by the Applicants and Applicants have proved their case beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, the Applicants are entitled to recover the entire amount, as claimed in the OA from the defendants along with pendentelite interest i.e. @12% p.a. and costs as agreed between the parties. So far as, prayer for granting penal interest @ 2% is concerned, same is hereby declined.

6.4 In this OA, applicant has prayed to issue recovery certificate against defendants no. 1 to 3 wherein the defendant 1 is principle borrower and defendant no. 2 & 3 are corporate and personal guarantors and pledgors.

Since, defendants no. 2 & 3 are before Ld. NCLT, Mumbai, hence, no final order can be passed qua these defendants, at this stage (as already discussed above).

6.5 Consequently, OA No. 46/2023 is liable to be allowed in favour of the Applicants no. 1 & 2 and against defendant no. 1 (being principal borrower) only as it is liable to pay the dues of the Applicants along with costs and pendentelite & future interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing of present OA, till the date of payment in full.

**ORDER**

(i) TA No. 08/2023 stands allowed and the defendant no. 1 is directed to pay to the Applicants no. 1 and 2, within 30 days the following amount(s):- Applicant No. 1 Rs. 123,76,72,799.37

Applicant No. 2 Rs. 47,67,82,781.00

---

Total Rs. 171,44,55,580.37

---

--- along with cost, pendentelite and future interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing of this OA till realization of the entire dues of the Applicant from the sale of secured assets / mortgaged properties / hypothecated assets / stocks etc. belonging to the defendant no. 1 only.

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

(ii) Since, defendants no. 2 & 3 are before Ld. NCLT, Mumbai, hence, no final order can be passed qua defendants no. 2 & 3, at this stage.

However, it is directed that Applicants shall be at liberty to revive the OA qua defendants no. 2 & 3 in case NCLT proceedings are quashed / withdrawn in future, in accordance with law.

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

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

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

- (v) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer-II, DRT-III, Delhi on 03.11.2025.

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

File be closed and consigned to records.

2025 (SHIV KUMAR - I) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, DELHI

(Pronounced in open court) Dated: 12.09.2025

This image shows a blank page with a light beige or cream color. There are some minor scanning artifacts, including a faint vertical line or crease near the left edge and a few small, dark specks scattered across the surface. The overall texture appears slightly grainy, typical of a scanned document page.