NATIONAL ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED vs METENERE LTD AND ORS on 3 October 2025

**FINAL ORDER**

1. 1. This original application has been filed by the Applicant, on 19.05.2018, through Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, AGM/Authorized Signatory 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 no. 1 to 4 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 190,33,95,688.53 (Rupees One Hundred Ninety Crore Thirty Three Lakh Ninety Five Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Eight and Paise Fifty Three only) as on 30.04.2018 together with further interest pendente lite and future interest on the amounts due interest @contractual rate of interest from 01.02.2018 till the date actual and final realization along with costs and charges along with other relief(s).

1.2 It is pertinent to note here that this OA bearing no. 718/2018 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 December 2022 and was numbered at TA-348/2022.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Applicant Bank/IDBI Bank Limited is a Company within the meaning of Companies Act, 2013 and a Banking Company within the meaning of Section 5(c) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949.

It is also stated in the OA that Sh. Vijay Kumar Sinha, AGM who is fully conversant with the facts of the present case and as such is competent to sign and verify all types of documents and do all the acts necessary for proper conduct of legal proceedings filed on behalf of the Applicant Bank in terms of the Authorization / revised Delegation of Power dated 23.11.2017 of Applicant Bank in his favour.

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, 1956 which is the borrower. Defendant no. 1 [Metenere Limited erstwhile Met Trade (India) Ltd.] is engaged in recycling of various types of discarded scraps and manufacturer of value added downstream products of lead, aluminum and tin and has diversified into aluminium extrusions, aluminium alloys, solder alloys, tin & tin alloys, gold sputtering targets, bimetallic products besides lead products. It is further stated that on 21.11.2013, the Defendant no. 1 changed its name from Met Trade (India) Ltd. to Metenere Ltd.

Defendant no. 2 is promoter of Defendant and along with Defendant no. 3 has given personal guarantee for the loan availed by Defendant no. 1. The Defendant no. 4 is a group company of Defendant no. 1 and has given corporate guarantee for the loan availed by Defendant no. 1.

So far as Defendants no. 5 to 17 are concerned, they are the Performa party as certain facility was granted by them in consortium, hence, defendants no. 5 to 17 have been arrayed as Performa Defendants and no relief is sought by the Applicant Bank. The Defendant no. 18 is acting as a trustee of all members of the consortium and is holding all original documents on behalf of all consortium members.

2.3 It is stated in the OA that the Defendant no. 1 started banking with Applicant Bank in July 2005, with limits of Rs. 18.0 crore (FB & NFB interchangeable Rs. 15.0 crore and LER limit of Rs. 3.0 crore). It is further stated that on request of Defendant no. 1, applicant bank sanctioned of LCBD limit of Rs. 10.0 crore and also approved renewal of WC Limits aggregating to Rs. 28.0 crore [CC/WCDL- Rs. 15.0 crore, LCBD – Rs. 10.0 crore, LER – Rs. 3.0 crore, with NFB limits (LC/BG) of Rs. 15.0 crore as a inner limit to FB Limits.

On further request of Defendant no. 1, applicant bank sanctioned additional limit of Rs. 15.0 crore for buyers' credit to the defendant no. 1 and approved waiver of margin on LC/BG. In June 2007, Applicant Bank approved enhancement of overall credit facilities from Rs. 43.0 crore to Rs. 48.0 Crore. In January 2008, Applicant Bank on request of defendant no. 1, renewed cum enhanced the WC Limits from Rs. 48.0 crore to Rs. 78.0 crore [CC limits of Rs. 45.0 crore, NFB limit of Rs. 20.0 crore, LCBD Limit of Rs. 10.0 crore and LER limit of Rs. 3.0 crore].

In May, 2009, on request of Defendant no. 1, applicant bank sanctioned fresh term loan of Rs. 55.0 crore and enhanced WC Limits from Rs. 78.0 crore to Rs. 83.0 crore (including LER limit of Rs. 3.0 crore). In September 2010, on request of Defendant no. 1, Applicant Bank renewed WC Limits of Rs. 83.0 crore, which was again renewed cum enhanced, from Rs. 83.0 crore to Rs. 115.0 crore. On 16.07.2013, on request of defendant no. 1, Applicant Bank approved renewal cum enhancement of WC facilities from Rs. 115.0 crore to Rs. 161.0crore (within consortium – Rs. 136.0 crore and outside consortium – Rs. 25.0 crore) and 

reviewed of term loan it its outstanding level of Rs. 12.61 crore.

Again in November, 2014 on request of Defendant no. 1, applicant bank approved renewal cum enhancement of WC Facilities from Rs. 161.0 crore to Rs. 180.0 crore (within consortium – Rs. 165.0 crore and outside consortium – Rs. 15.0 crore) and review of term loan at its outstanding level of Rs. 6.85 crore. Lastly on 13.05.2016, on request of Defendant no. 1, Applicant Bank approved renewal cum enhancement of WC Limits at Rs. 232.0 crore [CC limit of Rs. 89.50 crore, NFB limit of Rs. 127.50 crore and LCBD Limit of Rs. 15.0 crore]. The Applicant Bank cancelled the un-utilized Working Capital Limit (NFB Limit of Rs. 35.00 crore and LCBD of Rs. 15.00 crore) in September 2017.

2.4 It is further stated that based on request of the Defendant no. 1, the Applicant Bank renewed and enhanced Working Capital Limits of Rs. 232.0 crore [CC limit of Rs. 89.50 crore, NFB limit of Rs. 127.50 crore and LCBD Limit of Rs. 15.0 crore] to the Defendant no. 1 vide Sanction Letter dated 23.05.2016. [Details of Security being Primary, Collateral and Guarantees have been given in Para 5(5.10) of the OA].

2.5 It is stated in the OA that the board of directors of Defendant no. 1 vide its Board Resolution dated 25.06.2016 authorized Defendant no. 2 to accept sanction and to sign loan and security documents and also to create / extend equitable mortgages to secure the financial facilities availed by Defendant no. 1 from Applicant Bank.

2.6 As per the terms of Sanction Letter dated 23.05.2016, the Defendants were required to execute and subsequently executed following documents in favour of the Applicant Bank **LCBD-Rs. 15.0 crore & Working Capital Loan of Rs. 217.00 crore (with Consortium)**

**Loan agreements and other documents of security executed in favour of IDBI Bank Limited**

- (i) Facility Agreement dated 26.05.2016 in favour of IDBI Bank (LCBD of Rs. 15.0 crore);

- (ii) Facility Agreement dated 26.05.2016 in favour of IDBI Bank (Working Capital of Rs. 217.00 crore);

- (iii) Deed of Hypothecation dated 26.05.2016 in favour of IDBI Bank;

- (iv) Undertaking dated 26.05.2016 furnished by the company (Defendant no. 1);

- (v) Guarantee Agreement dated 26.05.2016 executed by Sh. Raman Gupta in favor of IDBI Bank;

- (vi) Guarantee Agreement dated 26.05.2016 executed by Smt. Kiran Gupta in favor of IDBI Bank;

- (vii) Guarantee Agreement dated 26.05.2016 executed by M/s Metenere (Global) Limited in favor of IDBI Bank;

- (viii) Undertaking dated 26.05.2016 to create mortgage;

- (ix) Omnibus Counter Guarantee dated 26.05.2016;

- (x) Demand Promissory Note dated 26.05.2016.

**Loan agreements and other documents of security executed in favour of IDBI Bank Limited with other members of consortium**

- (i) Third Supplemental Working Capital Consortium Agreement dated 20.07.2016;

- (ii) Third Supplemental to the Inter Se Agreement dated 20.07.2016 amongst the Lenders and the Security Trustee;

- (iii) Borrower's confirmation to the Inter Se Agreement dated 20.07.2016;

- (iv) Third Supplemental to the Deed of Hypothecation for working capital facility dated 20.07.2016, executed by the Borrower in favour of the Security Trustee;

- (v) Third Supplemental to the Deed of Guarantee dated 20.07.2016, executed by Sh. Raman Gupta and Smt. Kiran Gupta in favor of the Security Trustee;

- (vi) Third Supplemental to the Security Trustee Agreement dated 20.07.2016, amongst the Lenders, the Borrower and Security Trustee;

- (vii) Third Supplemental to the Letter of Authority by Lenders in favour of SBI (First Lead) dated 20.07.2016;

- (viii) Third Supplemental to the Letter of Authority by Lenders in favour of IDBI (Second Lead) dated 20.07.2016;

- (ix) Corporate Guarantee dated 20.07.2016 of M/s Metenere (Global) Limited in favor of Security Trustee;

- (x) Letter of Continuity dated 20.07.2016 executed by the Borrower, SBI and Security Trustee;

- (xi) RBI Clause executed by the Borrower dated 20.07.2016;

- (xii) Memorandum of Entry, Letter of Mortgage Confirming Deposit of Title Deeds (Dadri & Ors.) and Declaration and Undertaking by defendant no. 1 dated 20.07.2016;

- (xiii) Memorandum of Entry, Letter of Mortgage Confirming Deposit of Title Deeds (Kangra, Himachal Pradesh) and Declaration and Undertaking by defendant no. 1 dated 20.07.2016;

- (xiv) Memorandum of Entry, Letter of Mortgage Confirming Deposit of Title Deeds (Kathua, J&K Bank) and Declaration and Undertaking by defendant no. 1 dated 20.07.2016;

- (xv) Memorandum of Entry, Letter of Mortgage Confirming Deposit of Title Deeds (Plot No. F-73, Preet Vihar, Delhi) and Declaration and Undertaking by defendant no. 3 dated 20.07.2016.

2.7 It is stated in the OA that the Defendants failed to maintain financial discipline in accordance with the terms and conditions of sanctions as well as loan and security documents, and failed to repay the dues of the Applicant Bank. Accordingly, the Defendant's account went irregular and later classified NPA as per guidelines of Reserve Bank of India November 2017, w.e.f. 30.08.2017. Thereafter, the Applicant Bank on 27.12.2017 recalled all the financial facilities granted to the Defendants thereby calling upon Defendant no. 1 to pay the entire dues of Rs. 188,04,60,558.20 as on 01.12.2015 together with further interest, liquidated damages thereon at the contractual rate.

But the Defendant no. 1 failed and neglected to pay the outstanding amount in spite of Recall Notice dated 27.12.2017, therefore, the Applicant Bank vide Letter dated 16.04.2018 has invoked the Personal Guarantee as well as Corporate Guarantee demanding to pay the entire dues but all in vain. Since, the defendants have failed and neglected to repay the outstanding dues of the Applicant Bank, hence, the Applicant Bank has been compelled to file this Application before this Tribunal.

3. Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and some of the defendants i.e. defendants no. 1 to 4 as well as performa defendants appeared through their respective counsels.

3.1 It is matter of record that vide order dated 25.10.2018 of the Tribunal, last chance was granted to the contesting defendants to file their WS but no WS was filed, hence, the right of all the defendants to file the WS stood closed in pursuance to order dated 25.10.2018.

Thereafter, Defendants no. 1 to 4 filed IA No. 343/2019 for taking on record the WS of defendants no. 1 to 4 and Counter Claim of Defendants no. 1 to 3 but the said IA was dismissed vide order dated 06.12.2023 of the Tribunal. It is also pertinent to note that the Defendants no. 1 to 4 approached Hon'ble DRAT, Delhi and filed Misc. Appeal No. 16/2024 against the Order dated 06.12.2023 and said Appeal was allowed subject to cost of Rs. 1.0 Lakh and the WS was taken on record. Thereafter, Defendants no. 1 to 4 again filed an application for seeking extension of time for depositing the aforesaid cost which was dismissed vide order dated 07.04.2025 passed by Hon'ble DRAT. Hence, defendants no. 1 to 4 approached Hon'ble High Court of Delhi against the aforesaid order dated 07.04.2025 of Hon'ble DRAT and vide order dated 28.05.2025 passed in WP(C) 5072/2025 (Metenere Global Ltd. Vs. NARCL), Hon'ble High Court ordered to deposit the cost of Rs. 2.0 Lakh with the respondent bank (applicant bank herein) and order dated 07.04.2025 of Hon'ble DRAT was set aside. In these circumstances, the WS filed by defendants no. 1 to 4 as well as Counter Claim filed on behalf of Defendants no. 1 to 3 were taken on record by this Tribunal.

3.2 It is important to note here no relief has been claimed by the Applicant Bank against that defendants no. 5 to 18 being Performa Defendants.

4. Defendants no. 1 to 4 filed their common WS wherein they have raised following main objections:-

- (i) that the applicant bank along with its OA has not filed any documents to show that defendant no. 1 took any loan from applicant bank in 2005, therefore, in absence of any documents to corroborate its claim, it cannot be believed that the alleged loan facility was granted in the year 2005. Even the statement of accounts filed with the OA starts from the year 2017 and in Loan Recall Notice dated 16.04.2018 of applicant bank, it has been mentioned that the alleged facilities were sanction to the Defendant no. 1 on the terms and conditions more particularly set out in the Loan Agreement dated 26.05.2016. Hence, applicant bank cannot take the averments with regard to sanction of loan in 

2005, 2007, 2013, 2014 etc. without any documentary evidence, For this reason, the present OA is liable to be set aside by this Tribunal;

- (ii) that this OA has not been signed, verified nor instituted by duly authorized and competent person;

- (iii) that applicant bank is relying upon being fabricated, interpolated and manufactured documents on which the signatures of the defendants were taken by exercising undue influence and misrepresentation by the bank. Moreover, the alleged documents were blank and in a stipulated proforma and the officers of the bank used the dominant position of the bank to get the signatures of the defendants against the prefixed pencil mark 'X' and similarly to get the resolutions signed in stipulated preforms;

- (iv) that the Applicant Bank has charged interest at exorbitant, excessive and usurious rates. It is stated that the applicant bank is not entitled to either charge or claim interest at the rates claimed in the present OA or on the rates that have been interpolated and illegally inserted in the documents relied upon by the applicant bank;

- (v) that the subject matter of this OA does not fall within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal;

- (vi) that this OA is not within the period of limitation;

- (vii) that defendants no. 2 & 3 did not stand sureties for the defendant no. 1 nor defendant no. 4 has furnished the Corporate Guarantees to secure the due repayment of all the amounts payable by the defendant no. 1.

In the light of above, it has been prayed to dismiss this OA with exemplary costs.

4.1 Further more, Counter Claim has been filed by defendants no. 1 to 3 only stating therein that non-claimant Bank not only acted in breach of their contractual obligations by delaying the processing of the working capital requirements of the Defendant no. 1 company but also acted in breach of their duties under the Reserved Bank of India Guidelines on Joint Lenders Forum to cause the complete ruin of the Defendant no. 1 Company.

It is stated in the Counter Claim that with intense quality control and strong marketing strategies, Defendant no. 1 / Claimant Company was able to increase its turnover to Rs. 3791.0 crore in 2017 from Rs. 130.0 crore in 2005. It is further stated that for the increase in turnover to be achieved, the Defendant no. 1 company required a working capital and the said requirement was duly placed before the Non-Applicant Bank with the commissioning of the plants and the Applicant / non-claimant bank was requested to expeditiously process the same in view of the capital expenditure incurred in the expansion project and the manpower having been engaged for manufacturing as well as for marking. But, the processing of the proposal for enhancement working capital required by defendant no. 1 company was commenced very late by the non claimant no. 1 bank and despite repeated requests of defendant no. 1, the applicant bank had been inordinately delaying the processing of the said proposal for enhancement. It is also stated the processing of the proposal for enhanced working capital required by defendant no. 1 was commenced only in

2016 despite the fact that the request for release for non-fund based limit was already with the bank, much prior to it. Even the working capital requirement for the previous year, 2014-15 had not been released by the applicant bank in full by this time. Defendant no. 1 had also vide emails dated 03.03.2017, 01.04.2017 and 05.04.2017 apprised the applicant bank about the urgency of the matter and for the expenditure consideration of the utilization of fund. But, the non-claimant bank without any justification whatsoever had been in-ordinarily delaying the release of limits. Due to which, the work of the Claimant Company got affected very badly. In these circumstances, the defendant no. 1 company in a meeting dated 29.05.2017 held with the non-claimant bank, duly pointed out that it was imperative that the remaining limit should be released urgently. But the non-claimant bank never released the limit to defendant no. 1. Due to which the work of the defendant no. 1 company suffered immensely and defendant no. 1 company started to incur the losses. Consequently, the defendant no. 1 / claimant company reached a precarious financial condition and grave losses were caused to the defendant no. 1 company on a continued basis. Therefore, the instant case is clearly covered by the Doctrine of Lenders Liability duly recognized by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of *Mardia Chemicals Vs. UOI* and the non-claimant bank is liable for the losses caused to the defendant no. 1. As a result, Defendant no. 1 has been subjected to grave losses, which it is entitled to recover from the non-claimant Bank as under:- (a) Losses caused during operations It is stated that on account of lack of the working capital, the defendant no. 1 had to incur extra costs on arranging the necessary inventory or raw material as also on the sales. Consequently, the defendant no. 1 suffered the losses of Rs. 232.42 crore for FY 2016-17 and Rs. 318.54 crore for the FY 2017-18.

(b) Loss in business

It is stated that the defendant no. 1 incurred losses which is also attributable to the aforesaid acts of omission and commission, and misfeasance and malfeasance on the part of the applicant bank. Therefore, the defendant no. 1 is entitled to recover the loss for the years 2016-17 and 2017-18 amounting to Rs. 550.96 crore for the losses calculated for the aforesaid period.

(c) Loss of equity investment in the company It is stated that the defendants no. 2 to 4 had made substantial investment in the defendant no. 1 company, by way of equity contribution and unsecured loans. As a result of the aforesaid acts of omission and commission, and misfeasance and malfeasance on the part of the applicant bank leading to the loss in the unit, the aforesaid entire equity investment and contributions have been lost and reduced to zero. Therefore, the defendants no. 2 to 4 are entitled to recover the said amount of Rs. 200.83 crore from the applicant bank.

(d) Loss of receivables

It is stated that due to the aforesaid acts misfeasance and malfeasance on the part of the applicant bank, leading to the closure of the unit, the debtor of the defendant no. 1 company had though the years 2016-17 and 2017-18 onwards started 

sensing that defendant no. 1 company was in a state of deep financial crises as the defendant no. 1 was unable to make regular supplies to such debtors. Thus, such debtors stopped repaying their debts owned by them to the defendant no. 1. As a result, the defendant no. 1 company had lost receivables of Rs. 471.31 crore, therefore, defendant no. 1 company is entitled to recover the said amount from the applicant bank.

(b) Loss of reputation and goodwill and brand value It is stated that defendant no. 1 company had incurred a substantial expense of Rs. 100.0 crore on the advertising and marketing for building its brand image. But as a result of the acts of misfeasance and malfeasance on the part of the applicant bank, the defendant no. 1 suffered grave loss of reputation as it was not able to meet the market demands since 2014-15. Therefore, it has suffered irreparable loss of its reputation and the same brand image has been completely tarnished. Thus, the defendant no. 1 is entitled to recover the said amount of Rs. 100.0 crore from the applicant bank.

It is further staged that the defendants are entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 1641.64 crore detailed above and raising the counter claim for the said amount on the applicant bank. Hence, request is made to declare and hold that the defendant no. 1 / claimant is entitled to the Counter Claim of Rs. 1641,64,00,000.00 from the applicant bank and direct the applicant bank to pay the said amount to the defendants no. 1 to 3 along with pendentelite and future interest and other relief(s).

5. To prove its case, the Applicant Bank / IDBI Bank Limited leads its evidence by filling the affidavit of Mr. Vijay Sinha, Asst. General Manager / Authorized Signatory of the Applicant Bank.

5.1 Mr. Vijay Sinha, officer of the Applicant Bank has placed reliance upon the following documents :-

- (i) Copy of the extracts of the Manual of Delegation of Powers dated 01.03.2016 of Applicant Bank in favour of the officers of applicant bank (Ex. AW-1/1);

- (ii) Sanction Letter dated 23.05.2016 issued by applicant bank to defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW-1/2);

- (iii) Board Resolution dated 25.06.2016 of defendant no. 1 authorizing Defendant no. 2 to accept sanction and to sign loan and security documents etc. etc. (Ex. AW-1/3);

- (iv) Facility Agreement dated 26.05.2016 in favour of IDBI Bank (LCBD of Rs. 15.0 crore) (Ex. AW-1/4);

- (v) Facility Agreement dated 26.05.2016 in favour of IDBI Bank (Working Capital of Rs. 217.00 crore) (Ex. AW-1/4A);

- (vi) Deed of Hypothecation dated 26.05.2016 in favour of IDBI Bank (Ex. AW-1/5);

- (vii) Undertaking dated 26.05.2016 furnished by the company (Defendant no. 1) (Ex. AW-1/6);

- (viii) Guarantee Agreement dated 26.05.2016 executed by Sh. Raman Gupta in favor of IDBI Bank (Ex. AW-1/7);

- (ix) Guarantee Agreement dated 26.05.2016 executed by Smt. Kiran Gupta in favor of IDBI Bank (Ex. AW-1/8);

- (x) Guarantee Agreement dated 26.05.2016 executed by M/s Metenere (Global) Limited in favor of IDBI Bank (Ex. AW-1/9);

- (xi) Undertaking dated 26.05.2016 to create mortgage (Ex. AW-1/10);

- (xii) Omnibus Counter Guarantee dated 26.05.2016 (Ex. AW-1/11);

- (xiii) Demand Promissory Note dated 26.05.2016 (Ex. AW-1/12);

- (xiv) Third Supplemental Working Capital Consortium Agreement dated 20.07.2016 (Ex. AW-1/13);

- (xv) Third Supplemental to the Inter Se Agreement dated 20.07.2016 amongst the Lenders and the Security Trustee (Ex. AW-1/14);

- (xvi) Borrower's confirmation to the Inter Se Agreement dated 20.07.2016 (Ex. AW-1/15);

- (xvii) Third Supplemental to the Deed of Hypothecation for working capital facility dated 20.07.2016, executed by the Borrower in favour of the Security Trustee (Ex. AW-1/16);

- (xviii) Third Supplemental to the Deed of Guarantee dated 20.07.2016, executed by Sh. Raman Gupta and Smt. Kiran Gupta in favor of the Security Trustee (Ex. AW-1/17);

- (xix) Third Supplemental to the Security Trustee Agreement dated 20.07.2016, amongst the Lenders, the Borrower and Security Trustee (Ex. AW-1/18);

- (xx) Third Supplemental to the Letter of Authority by Lenders in favour of SBI (First Lead) dated 20.07.2016 (Ex. AW-1/19);

- (xxi) Third Supplemental to the Letter of Authority by Lenders in favour of IDBI (Second Lead) dated 20.07.2016 (Ex. AW-1/20);

- (xxii) Corporate Guarantee dated 20.07.2016 of M/s Metenere (Global) Limited in favor of Security Trustee (Ex. AW-1/21);

- (xxiii) Letter of Continuity dated 20.07.2016 executed by the Borrower, SBI and Security Trustee (Ex. AW-1/22);

- (xxiv) RBI Clause executed by the Borrower dated 20.07.2016 (Ex. AW-1/23);

- (xxv) Memorandum of Entry, Letter of Mortgage Confirming Deposit of Title Deeds (Dadri & Ors.) and Declaration and Undertaking by defendant no. 1 dated 20.07.2016 (Ex. AW-1/24);

- (xxvi) Memorandum of Entry, Letter of Mortgage Confirming Deposit of Title Deeds (Kangra, Himachal Pradesh) and Declaration and Undertaking by defendant no. 1 dated 20.07.2016 (Ex. AW-1/25);

- (xxvii) Memorandum of Entry, Letter of Mortgage Confirming Deposit of Title Deeds (Kathua, J&K Bank) and Declaration and Undertaking by defendant no. 1 dated 20.07.2016 (Ex. AW-1/26);

- (xxviii) Memorandum of Entry, Letter of Mortgage Confirming Deposit of Title Deeds (Plot No. F-73, Preet Vihar, Delhi) and Declaration and Undertaking by defendant no. 3 dated 20.07.2016 (Ex. AW-1/27);

- (xxix) Copy of Recall Notice dated 27.12.2017 issued by Applicant Bank to Defendant no. 1 (Mark-"A");

- (xxx) Copy of the Notice for Invocation of Personal Guarantee and Corporate Guarantee dated 16.04.2018 issued by Applicant Bank to the Guarantors (Mark-"B");

- (xxxii) Statement of Account (Ex. AW-1/28);

- (xxxii) Chart showing change in BPLR of applicant bank (Ex. AW-1/29);

- (xxxiii) Certificate in support of statement of account as per Banker's Book of Evidence Act, 1891 (Ex. AW-1/30);

- (xxxiv) Present OA (Ex. AW-1/32).

6. So far as, evidence of Defendant no. 1 to 4 is concerned, defendant no. 4 has filed an application being IA No. 481/2025 along with Affidavit of Mr. Virender Pal Singh, Director of Defendant no. 4 regarding admission and denial of the documents filed by the Applicant Bank in which Defendant no. 4 has denied all the documents relied by the applicant bank.

7. It is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of this case, Ld. counsel for Defendants no. 1 to 4 informed this Tribunal that CIRP proceedings have been initiated qua defendant no. 1 company and thereafter the resolution plan has also been approved against Defendant no. 1 on 04.10.2024. It was also informed by Ld. counsel for defendants no. 1 to 4 that personal insolvency proceedings have also been initiated qua defendants no. 2 & 3.

8. It is also pertinent to note here that during the pendency of this OA, Applicant Bank / IDBI Bank Limited assigned its debt in favour of National Asset Reconstruction Company Limited (NARCL). In these circumstances, one application i.e. IA No. 654/2024 was filed for seeking substitution of NARCL in place of Applicant Bank / IDBI Bank Limited which was allowed vide Order 02.07.2024 by this Tribunal and amended memo of parties was filed.

8.1 Moreover, due to merger of certain Defendants (Performa Defendants) with other banks, the name of said Defendant Banks were substituted vide order dated 09.04.2025 passed in IA No. 181/2025 by the Tribunal. Accordingly, amended memo of parties was also filed by the Applicant Bank.

9. In the present matter, Applicant Bank as well as Defendant no. 4 have also filed their respective written submissions.

10. Heard Ld. counsel for applicant bank and perused the entire record.

10.1 In the present case, Applicant Bank has sought relief qua defendants no. 1 to 4 only and rest of the Defendants no. 5 to 18 are the performa defendants against whom no relief has been claimed by the Applicant Bank.

10.2 It is admitted fact that CIRP proceedings have been initiated qua defendant no. 1 before Ld. NCLT, Delhi. Since, Resolution Plan of Defendant no. 1 has already been approved by Ld. NCLT and Resolution Professional / Liquidator has also been appointed, as stated above, hence, secured assets / hypothecated goods / stocks of defendant no. 1 shall be disposed off as per directions of Ld. NCLT, Delhi and no order for recovery of dues can be passed by this Tribunal qua defendant no. 1. However, it is directed that in case applicant bank receives any amount from CIRP proceedings, it shall give due adjustment of the same in the recovery proceedings.

10.3 Since, personal insolvency proceedings have also been initiated by Ld. NCLT, Delhi qua defendants no. 2 & 3 as well, hence, no final order qua these defendants can be passed by this Tribunal at this stage.

However, it is directed that Applicant 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 Applicant Bank receives any amount from the proceedings pending before Ld. NCLT, Delhi, they shall give due adjustment of the same in the recovery proceedings.

10.4 It is also pertinent to note here that no relief has been claimed by the Applicant Bank qua defendants no. 5 to 18 which are the banks / FIs and Security Trustee who have been impleaded as Proforma Defendants.

10.5 Since, defendants no. 1 to 3 are already before Ld. NCLT, Delhi, as discussed above, hence, no final order can be passed against these defendants. In these circumstances, this Tribunal is of the view that there is no need to deal with the objections raised by defendants no. 1 to 3 in their WS nor any order can be passed in the Counter Claim filed by defendants no. 1 to 3, at this stage.

10.6 Now I would like to deal with the objections raised by defendant no. 4 [in the common WS of defendants no. 1 to 4] in following paras:-

- (i) Defendant no. 4 has raised an objection that the applicant bank along with its OA has not filed any documents to show that defendant no. 1 took any loan from applicant bank in 2005, therefore, in absence of any documents to corroborate its claim, it cannot be believed that the alleged loan facility was granted in the year 2005. Even the statement of accounts filed with the OA starts from the year 2017 and in Loan Recall Notice dated 16.04.2018 of applicant bank, it has been mentioned that the alleged facilities were sanction to the Defendant no. 1 on the terms and conditions more particularly set out in the Loan Agreement dated 26.05.2016. Hence, applicant bank cannot take the averments with regard to sanction of loan in 2005, 2007, 2013, 2014 etc. without any documentary evidence, For this reason, the present OA is liable to be set aside by this Tribunal.

Record reveals that the applicant bank has mentioned in the OA that the defendant no. 1 company started banking with Applicant Bank in 2005 and given details of loans sanctioned to the defendant no. 1 from time to time and lastly in May 2016 and the details of loaning documents with regard to sanction of 2016 have been given. The applicant bank is seeking the relief with regard to facilities sanctioned lastly in 2016. Defendant no. 4 has merely denied the execution of documents as well as sanctioning / availment of loan facilities by defendant no. 1 but it has failed to prove the same. In these circumstances, this Tribunal does not find any merit in this objection of defendant no. 4 and same stands rejected.

- (ii) Defendant no. 4 has also taken a plea that this OA has not been signed, verified nor instituted by duly authorized and competent person.

In the case in hand, the applicant bank has filed extracts of the Manual of Delegation of Powers dated 01.03.2016 of Applicant bank in favour of the officers of the applicant bank (Ex. AW-1/1) which shows that this OA has been filed by a duly authorized person. In these circumstances, this plea of defendant no. 4 is hereby rejected.

- (iii) Next objection of defendant no. 4 is that applicant bank is relying upon being fabricated, interpolated and manufactured documents on which the signatures of the defendants were taken by exercising undue influence and misrepresentation by the bank. Moreover, the alleged documents were blank and in a stipulated proforma and the officers of the bank used the dominant position of the bank to get the signatures of the defendants against the prefixed pencil mark 'X' and similarly to get the resolutions signed in stipulated preforms.

This Tribunal is of the view that plea of blank documents is no plea in the eyes of law as has been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of "Indian Bank Vs. Cheese Wafers (India) Pvt. Ltd. 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 blank / unfilled documents, alleged to be misused by the applicant bank for creating false claims, is not maintainable after filing of the suit and the same is rejected.

(iv) Defendant no. 4 has also raised an objection that the Applicant Bank has charged interest at exorbitant, excessive and usurious rates. It is stated that the applicant bank is not entitled to either charge or claim interest at the rates claimed in the present OA or on the rates that have been interpolated and illegally inserted in the documents relied upon by the applicant bank.

It is matter of record that all the Applicant Bank has filed the respective Statement of Account(s) duly certified under Bankers Books of Evidence Act as well as Chart Showing change in BPLR of applicant Bank (Ex. AW-1/28 to AW-1/30). Even otherwise, defendant no. 4 was always at liberty to file its own statement of accounts with correct figures but it has failed to do so. In these circumstances, this plea of answering defendant no. 4 is also hereby rejected.

(v) Defendant no. 4 has also taken a plea that the subject matter of this OA does not fall within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

In the present case, defendants no. 1 to 4, all are residents of Delhi. Moreover, this OA has been filed for recovery of more than Rs. 190.0 crore. Hence, it is clear that this OA has been filed well within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Accordingly, this plea of defendant no. 4 does not hold any water and same stands rejected.

(vi) Defendant no. 4 has also raised an objection that that this OA is not within the period of limitation.

Record reveals that security documents were executed by the defendants on 26.05.2016 as well as 20.07.2017 whereas this OA was filed on 19.05.2018 which is well within the period of limitation. Hence, this plea of defendant no. 4 is also liable to be rejected and same stands rejected.

(vii) Next objection of defendant no. 4 is that it did not furnish the Corporate Guarantees to secure the due repayment of all the amounts payable by the defendant no. 1.

Record reveals that defendant no. 4 had executed Corporate Guarantee dated 26.05.2016 and 20.07.2016 (Ex. AW-1/9 & Ex. AW-1/21). Defendant no. 4 has not disputed the signatures / stamp of defendant no. 4 on the said documents. On perusal of aforesaid Corporate Guarantee(s), it came to the knowledge of this Tribunal that Defendant no. 4 is jointly and severally liable to pay the dues of the applicant bank in the event of default on the part of the borrower in payment / repayment of the Loan and /or other monies due and payable under or in terms of the Loan Agreement etc. Moreover, the said Guarantee is continuing one and shall remain in full force and effect till such time the Borrower repays in full the Loan together with all interest, liquidated damages, costs etc. that may become due and payable and remain unpaid to the Lender under the Loan Agreement.

In the light of above, this Tribunal is of the view that defendant no. 4 is taking such a plea just to get absolve from its liability. Hence, this plea of defendant no. 4, being devoid of merit, is liable to be rejected and same stands rejected.

10.7 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 unrebutted 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 defendant no. 4 along with pendentelite interest i.e. @13% p.a. and costs as agreed between the parties.

10.8 In this OA, applicant has prayed to issue recovery certificate against defendants no. 1 to 4 wherein the 

defendant 1 is the principle borrower and defendants no. 2 & 3 are the personal guarantors and defendant no. 4 is the corporate guarantor.

Since defendants no. 1 to 3 are already before Ld. NCLT, Delhi, hence no final order can be passed qua these defendants, as discussed above.

10.9 Consequently, TA No. 348/2022 is liable to be allowed in favour of the Applicant Bank and against defendant 4 only being corporate guarantor of defendant no. 1 which is liable to pay the dues of the Applicant Bank along with costs and pendentelite & future interest @13% p.a. from the date of filing of present OA, till the date of payment in full.

ORDER

- (i) TA No. 348/2022 stands allowed and the defendant no. 4 is directed to pay to the Applicant Bank, within 30 days, a sum of Rs. 190,33,95,688.53 (Rupees One Hundred Ninety Crore Thirty Three Lakh Ninety Five Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Eight and Paise Fifty Three only) along with cost, pendentelite and future interest @13% p.a. from the date of filing of this OA till realization of the entire dues of the Applicant failing which, the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of the secured assets / mortgaged properties / hypothecated assets / stocks / etc., if any, belonging to the defendant no. 4 only.

In case of shortfall, same shall be recovered from the movable and immovable assets of defendant no. 4.

(ii) Since, CIRP proceedings were initiated qua defendant no. 1 before Ld. NCLT, Delhi and Resolution Plan of Defendant no. 1 has already been approved by Ld. NCLT and Resolution Professional / Liquidator has also been appointed, as discussed above, hence, secured assets / hypothecated goods / stocks of defendant no. 1 shall be disposed off as per directions of Ld. NCLT, Delhi and no order for recovery of dues can be passed by this Tribunal qua defendant no. 1. However, it is directed that in case applicant bank receives any amount from CIRP proceedings, it shall give due adjustment of the same in the recovery proceedings.

(iii) So far as, defendants no. 2 & 3 are concerned, since, personal insolvency proceedings have also been initiated by Ld. NCLT, Delhi qua defendants no. 2 & 3 as well, hence, no final order qua these defendants can be passed by this Tribunal at this stage.

However, it is directed that Applicant 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 Applicant receives any amount from the proceedings pending before Ld. NCLT, Delhi, it shall give due adjustment of the same in the recovery proceedings.

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

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

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

- (vii) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer-II, DRT-III, Delhi on 01.12.2025.

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

File be closed and consigned to records.

03/10/2025 (SHIV KUMAR - I) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, DELHI

(Pronounced in open court) Dated: 03.10.2025

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