J.C Flowers Asset Reconstruction Private Limited (Ambit Flowers Asset Reconstruction Private Limited) vs DION GLOBAL SOLUTION LIMITED on 29 October 2025

**FINAL ORDER**

1. This original application has been filed by the Applicant Bank / Yes Bank Limited, on 06.07.2019, through Mr. Paresh Mehtani, President 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 3 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 152,35,80,897.13 (Rupees One Hundred Fifty Two Crore Thirty Five Lakh Eighty Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Seven and Paise Thirteen only) as on 20.05.2019 with further future interest and pendentelite interest till the date actual and final realization along with costs, charges and other relief(s).

1.2 It is pertinent to note here that this OA bearing no. 925/2019 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 November 2022 and was numbered at TA-184/2022.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Applicant Bank/Yes Bank Limited is a Company within the meaning of Companies Act, 1956.

It is also stated in the OA that Sh. Paresh Mehtani, officer of the Applicant Bank is duly authorized by way of Power of Attorney dated 14.12.2017 to institute and file necessary suits/proceedings and/or applications/ claims, petitions/complaints before the Tribunal and courts against the Defendants and inter alia to sign, verify, institute and prosecute any suit on behalf of the Applicant Bank.

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 *inter alia* engaged in the business of technology solution, partnering with global banking and financial institutions to optimize the processing of business operations and transform their customer experience.

Defendants no. 2 & 3 are the companies incorporated under the Companies Act which are the corporate guarantors who executed unconditional, irrevocable and continuing corporate guarantees as security in order to secure the said Facilities sanctioned in favour of the Defendant no. 1 by the Applicant Bank.

Defendants no. 4 & 5 are the non lender Banks, in which the Defendant no. 1 is maintaining its account.

2.3 It is stated in the OA that the Defendant no. 1 approached the Applicant Bank in the year 2012 for Working Capital Demand Loan, Overdraft (sublimit of WCDL facility) and Stand by Letter of Credit Facility. The applicant bank considered the request of the defendant no. 1 sanctioned the following facilities vide Credit Facility Letter date 11.09.2012:- <table border="1"> <thead> <tr> <th>S. No.</th> <th>Nature of Facility</th> <th>Amount (INR)</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>1.</td> <td>Working Capital Demand Loan (Facility 1)</td> <td>10,00,00,000/-</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2.</td> <td>Overdraft Facility (Sublimit of Facility 1)</td> <td>2,00,00,000/-</td> </tr> <tr> <td>3.</td> <td>Stand By Letter of Credit (SBLC Facility)</td> <td>75,00,00,000/-</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

Pursuant to sanction of the facilities by the Applicant Bank, following documents were executed by the defendants:-

- (i) Master Facility Agreement dated 24.09.2012 executed by defendant no. 1 agreeing and accepting the terms and conditions of the said Facilities;

- (ii) Demand Promissory Note for Rs. 10,00,00,000/- and Letter of Continuity for Demand Promissory Note for Rs. 10,00,00,000/- both dated 24.09.2012 executed by Defendant no. 1;

- (iii) Deed of Hypothecation dated 24.09.2012 executed by Defendant no. 1;

- (iv) Deed of Guarantee dated 24.09.2012 executed by Defendant no. 2.

2.4 Subsequently, as per request of Defendant no. 1's authorized representative, the Applicant Bank enhanced the SBLC Facility to Rs. 85,00,00,000/- granted to Defendant no. 1 vide Addendum Facility Letter dated 16.01.2013. In pursuant to the said enhancement of SBLC Facility, Supplemental Master Facility Agreement dated 17.01.2013 was executed by defendant no. 1 agreeing and accepting the terms and conditions for the enhanced SBLC Facility.

2.5 It is further stated in the OA that the Applicant Bank, at the request of the Defendant no. 1 renewed the facilities vide Facility Letter dated 14.03.2013. Further, Facility 1 was enhanced from Rs. 10.0 Crore to Rs. 15.0 Crore for Working Capital Demand Loan and upto Rs. 100.0 Crore for SBLC Facility i.e. the Standby Letter of Credit vide Facility Letter dated 16.01.2013.

In lieu of the enhancement, a Supplemental Master Facility Agreement dated 19.03.2013 was executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of the applicant bank agreeing and accepting the terms and conditions of the enhanced facilities.

In furtherance of the execution of the Supplemental Master Facility Agreement, the Defendant no. 2 also executed a Deed of Guarantee dated 19.03.2013.

Moreover, the Defendant no. 1 also executed Demand Promissory Note dated 19.03.2013 for Rs. 15.0 crore and Letter of Continuity for Demand Promissory Note dated 19.03.2013 for Rs. 15.0 crore.

Further, the Defendant no. 1 executed a Supplemental Deed of Hypothecation dated 19.03.2013 to hypothecate the Current Assets and Movable Fixed Assets (present and future) of the Defendant no. 1 in favour of the Applicant Bank.

2.6 It is also stated in the OA that at the request of the Defendant no. 1, the sanctioned facilities were enhanced to Rs. 20.0 Crore for the Facility 1 with Overdraft Facility as sub-limit, Rs. 10.0 Crore for Export Packing Credit / packing credit in Foreign Currency / Foreign Bill Discounting / post shipment credit in Foreign Currency as sub-limit of Facility 1 and Rs. 120.0 crore for Standby Letter of Credit i.e. SBLC Facility vide Renewal cum Enhancement of Credit Facility Letter dated 03.07.2014.

In order to secure the further enhanced Facility 1 sanctioned by the Applicant Bank to Defendant no. 1, the Defendant no. 1 executed Deed of Hypothecated dated 05.07.2013 [details given in Para 5(5.20) of the OA].

Moreover, the Defendant no. 1 also executed Demand Promissory Note of Rs. 20.0 Crore and Letter of Continuity for Demand Promissory Note of Rs. 20.0 crore, both dated 08.07.2013 in favour of the Applicant Bank.

Further, the Supplemental Master Facility Agreement dated 08.07.2013 was also executed by the Defendant no. 1 in favour of the Applicant Bank ageing and accepting the terms and conditions of the further enhanced facilities.

The Defendant no. 1 also executed a Supplemental Deed of Hypothecation dated 08.07.2013 to hypothecate the Current Assets and Movable Fixed Assets (present and future) of the Defendant no. 1 in favour of the Applicant Bank.

In order to secure the further enhanced Facility 1, the Defendant no. 2 also executed a Deed of Guarantee dated 08.07.2013.

2.7 It is stated in the OA that at the request of the Defendant no. 1, the Defendant no. 2 authorized the Applicant Bank to set off sum or sums standing to the credit of any one or more accounts of Defendant no. 2 under the facility granted to the Defendant no. 1 vide Application cum Letter of Set-Off (third party) dated 07.10.2013.

2.8 It is further stated in the OA that the Applicant Bank upon considering the request of Defendant no. 1, sanctioned fresh Stand-by Letter of Credit limits of Rs. 130.0 crore (Facility 2) vide the Facility Letters dated 06.03.2014. Pursuant to the sanction of said Facility 2 by the applicant bank, following documents were executed by the defendants:-

- (i) Master Facility Agreement dated 12.03.2014 executed by Defendant no. 1 through its Authorized Representative agreeing and accepting the terms and conditions of the said Facility 2;

- (ii) Deed of Guarantee dated 01.05.2014 executed by Defendant no. 3;

- (iii) Deeds of Undertaking dated 02.05.2014 executed by Defendant no. 3 [details given in Para 5(5.29) of OA];

- (iv) Memorandum of Pledge of Shares, Stocks and Securities dated 02.05.2014 executed by defendant no. 3 [details given in Para 5(5.30) of OA].

2.9 It is also stated in the OA that Defendant no. 1 executed an Acknowledgment of Debt dated 16.10.2014

acknowledging and admitting the debt against the sanctioned limits to the Applicant Bank as per Section 18 of Limitation Act, 1963.

2.10 It is stated in the OA that upon request of the Defendant no. 1 the facility for Export Packing Credit / packing credit in Foreign Currency / Foreign Bill Discounting / post shipment credit in Foreign Currency sanctioned as sub limit of Facility 1 were further enhanced from Rs. 10.0 crore to Rs. 15.0 Crore by the Applicant Bank vide Renewal cum Enhancement of Credit Facility Letter dated 06.02.2015.

2.11 It is also stated in the OA that at the request of the Defendant no. 1, the Applicant Bank further enhanced the Facility 1 from Rs. 20.0 Crore to Rs. 35.0 crore vide Renewal cum Enhancement of Credit Facility letter dated 20.01.2016 and Rs. 25.0 crore for Export Packing Credit / packing credit in Foreign Currency / Foreign Bill Discounting / post shipment credit in Foreign Currency sanctioned as sub limit of further enhanced Facility 1.

In furtherance of the further enhanced Facility 1, the following documents were executed:-

- (i) Demand Promissory Note for Rs. 35.0 crore and letter of continuity for Demand Promissory Note for Rs. 35.0 crore, both dated 27.01.2016 in favour of the Applicant Bank;

- (ii) Supplemental Deed of Hypothecation dated 27.01.2016 executed by Defendant no. 1 [details given in Para 5(5.35) of OA];

- (iii) Supplemental Master Facility Agreement dated 27.01.2016 executed by Defendant no. 1 in favour of the Applicant Bank agreeing and accepting the terms and conditions of the further enhanced Facility 1;

- (iv) Deed of Guarantee dated 28.01.2016 executed by Defendant no. 2.

2.12 It is stated in the OA that in furtherance of the said Facilities, the Applicant Bank reviewed the said Facilities granted to Defendant no. 1 vide Addendum Facility Letter dated 27.05.2016.

Pursuant to the said review, the following documents were executed by the defendants:-

- (i) Supplemental Master Facility Agreement dated 02.06.2016 executed by Defendant no. 1 in favour of the Applicant Bank agreeing and accepting the terms and conditions of the said Facilities;

- (ii) Deed of Hypothecation dated 02.06.2016 executed by Defendant no. 1 [details given in Para 5(5.40) of OA];

- (iii) Letter of Lien and set-off dated 02.06.2016 executed by Defendant no. 1 [details given in Para 5(5.41) of OA];

- (iv) Memorandum of Pledge of Shares, Stocks and Securities dated 21.07.2016 executed by Defendant no. 2 [details given in Para 5(5.42) of OA];

- (v) Second Amended and Restated Memorandum of Pledge of Shares, Stocks and Securities dated 09.03.2017 executed by Defendant no. 3 [details given in Para 5(5.43) of OA].

2.13 It is also stated in the OA that Defendant no. 1 executed an Acknowledgment of Debt dated 24.04.2017 acknowledging and admitting the debt against the sanctioned limits to the Applicant Bank as per Section 18 of Limitation Act, 1963.

2.14 Further, at the request of the Defendant no. 1, the Applicant Bank renewed the facilities granted to Defendant no. 1 vide Addendum Facility Letter dated 28.04.2017.

2.15 It is also stated in the OA that furtherance of the renewal, the Applicant Bank vide its Letter dated 20.07.2017 informed the Defendants no. 1, 2 & 3 about continuing events of Default and called upon the Defendants to provide Cash margin of Rs. 130.0 crore, clear over dues of Rs. 1.91 Crore and reduction of Working Capital exposure of Rs. 35.0 crore.

2.16 Further, the Applicant Bank stipulated additional conditions for the said Facilities granted to Defendant no. 1 vide Addendum Facility Letter dated 05.12.2017.

2.17 As the Defendants no. 1, 2 & 3 failed to make payments due to the Applicant Bank, the Applicant Bank utilized / set off the fixed deposit of Rs. 25.0 Crore which was marked as lien in favour of the Applicant Bank for reducing the outstanding dues in group companies. The information regarding the utilization of the proceeds from set-off of the fixed deposit was provided to Defendant no. 1 vide email dated 21.02.2018.

2.18 It is stated in the OA that the said Facilities sanctioned by Applicant Bank to Defendant no. 1 were duly secured [as per details given in Para 5(5.49) of OA]. Moreover, the relevant particulars of the loan and security documents have also been given in Para 5(5.50) of the OA.

2.19 It is also stated in the OA that due to default in repayment of the Loan by the Defendant no. 1, the Applicant Bank issued a Notice for Invocation of Shares dated 22.02.2018 by invoking the pledge over securities. Moreover, the Applicant Bank from time to time through its officials and also vide various correspondences called upon the Defendants no. 2 & 3 / Guarantors to repay the said Facilities. But the Defendant no. 1 and the Guarantors failed to arrange sufficient funds in the loan account to regularize the account hence, the loan account has been classified as a "Non-Performing Asset" (NPA) on 21.05.2018, as per the prudential norms laid down by RBI. In these circumstances, the Applicant Bank issued a Guarantee Invocation Notice dated 23.07.2018 to defendants no. 2 & 3 to pay the outstanding amount with interest etc.

Further, the Applicant Bank vide Statutory Notice issued under Section 176 of the Contracts Act, 1872 dated 20.07.2017 sent to Defendant no. 1 to cure the defaults in the said Facilities but the Defendant no. 1 did not take any corrective measure nor replied to the statutory notice despite of providing an opportunity for the remedial. The Applicant Bank, upon expiry of timeline under Section 176 of the Contracts Act, 1872 of the statutory notice, became entitled to the transfer of the pledged shares of Fortis Healthcare Ltd. held by Defendant no. 3 with the Applicant Bank and at its discretion, sells such shares for the purpose of clearance of overdue / outstanding amounts due the said Facilities.

It is stated in the OA that the Applicant Bank has also invoked pledge over 0.51 crore shares of Defendant no. 1 held by RHC Holding Pvt. Ltd. and have sold 0.06 crore shares till date. The proceeds recovered from sale of shares have been utilized towards recovery of outstanding dues of Defendant no. 1.

It is also stated in the OA that it came to the knowledge of the Applicant Bank that the Defendant no. 1 has receivables of Rs. 18.46 crore from various debtors [details given in Para 5(5.58) of the OA].

2.20 It is stated in the OA that the Defendants no. 1 to 3 in unequivocal terms accepted the due performance of obligations towards the Applicant Bank with a clear stipulation to perform the requisites of the sanction terms and accorded their consent. However, despite being duly served with Guarantee Invocation Notice dated 23.07.2018, the Guarantors have not made any payment within the time prescribed therein or till date.

2.21 It is further stated in the OA that the Applicant Bank has also sent letters, both dated 26.06.2019 to Defendants no. 4 & 5 for closing all the accounts opened under the name of Defendant no. 1 and transfer the balance to their respective account with the applicant bank.

2.22 It is also stated in the OA that as of now and after adjusting monies recovered from liquidation of fixed deposits and sale of shares of Fortis Healthcare Ltd. and Defendant no. 1, a sum of Rs. 152,35,80,897.13 in the said Facility inclusive of interest up to 20.05.2019 are due from Defendants no. 1 to 3 along with pendentelite and future interest at the contractual rate to be charged from 20.05.2019 till the realization of the dues in full and final payment of the amount claimed [details given in Para 5(5.64) of OA].

2.23 Since, Defendants no. 1 to 3 failed and neglected to pay the outstanding amount to 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 initially only Defendant no. 1 as well as performa defendants no. 4 & 5 appeared through their respective counsels.

3.1 It is matter of record that Defendant no. 1 filed the WS, through Ms. Kiran Sharma, one of the directors of Defendant no. 1, way back in 2020 and subsequently, it stopped entering before this Tribunal.

3.2 Since, defendants no. 2 & 3 neither appeared nor filed any WS(s), hence, the case was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 01.02.2024 passed by this Tribunal.

Thereafter, defendant no. 3 filed IA No. 437/2024 for recall of order dated 01.02.2024 for setting aside ex parte order passed against Defendant no. 3. The said application / IA was allowed vide order dated 04.07.2024 of this Tribunal subject to payment of cost of Rs. 50,000/-. Accordingly, Defendant no. 3 filed its separate WS through Sh. Rajender Kumar, authorized signatory of Defendant no. 3.

3.3 It is important to note here that defendant no. 5 has filed its WS, however, no relief has been claimed by the Applicant Bank against that defendants no. 4 & 5 being Performa Defendants.

4. In its WS, the Defendant no. 1 has raised following main objections:-

- (i) that the OA does not disclose any cause of action against Defendant no. 1;

- (ii) that the alleged loaning and security documents relied by the applicant bank are invalid, unenforceable and void as the defendant no. 1 was induced and deceived into appending signatures on unfilled forms and documents without being explained the contents, intent and purpose thereof;

- (iii) that the alleged loaning and security documents are unstamped and/or insufficiently stamped, therefore, by virtue of Sections 33 & 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, said documents are incapable of reception in evidence and liable to be impounded;

- (iv) that the applicant is guilty of charging interest at excessive and usurious rates of flagrant violation of contractual stipulations and relevant guidelines of RBI. Moreover, applicant is guilty of capitalizing and compounding penal interest which is violative of dictum of *Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra* – AIR 2001 SC 3095. Further, the applicant has placed reliance on purported statement of account(s), which contain false, fictitious and ambiguous debit entries. Moreover, the alleged certificate(s) purportedly issued under the provisions of Bankers Books Evidence Act, 1891 is defective and does not confirm to the mandatory prerequisites;

- (v) that the applicant has violated the provisions contained in Rule 9 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993 as the relevant and crucial documents necessary for adjudication of the applicant's claim have been deliberately suppressed and concealed from this Tribunal;

- (vi) that the OA has not been instituted, signed and verified by a person duly authorized to do so, thus, the captioned proceedings are incompetent;

- (vii) that the applicant bank has already received a sum of Rs. 111,44,48,483.44 by invoking the pledge over shares of defendant no. 3. The applicant, vide letter dated 07.11.2019, informed defendant no. 1 about the enforcement of pledge as aforesaid and illegally claiming a further amount of Rs. 44,90,25,218.15. the said letter would demonstrate that the applicant illegally and dishonestly chose not to adjust and appropriate the amount of Rs. 111,44,48,483.84

towards the alleged principal outstanding and sought to unjustify enrich itself by appropriating a sum of Rs. 4,33,50,099.84 towards interest. By recovering an amount of Rs. 111,44,48,483.84, the alleged and purported claim of the applicant stands satisfied in *toto*. Axiomatically, the prosecution of the instant OA is a sheer abuse of process of law as no actionable cause remains to be espoused thereby;

- (viii) that the defendant no. 1 duly informed the applicant of the prejudicial and hostile developments but the applicant did not take appropriate steps to pave way for revival and resurrection of business of defendant no. 1. The applicant violated the relevant RBI Guidelines requiring banks to appropriately support a borrow so as to keep him afloat in his business by taking recourse to sanction of corrective action plans and/or financial restructuring;

- (ix) that the OA is patently barred by limitation.

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

4.1 Defendant no. 1 has placed on reliance on the copy of Letter dated 07.11.2019 of applicant bank (D1/1) which is filed along with the WS.

5. So far as, WS of Defendant no. 3 is concerned, it is stated in the WS that the WS is being filed on behalf of defendant no. 3 wherein Sh. Rajender Kumar has been authorized by the defendant no. 3 company in terms of the Board Resolution to sign, verify all the documents and the said resolution is still in existence and has not been revoked till date.

5.1 Defendant no. 3 has raised following main objections in its WS:-

- (i) That the OA filed by the applicant bank is legally not maintainable in the eyes of law for the reason that the applicant bank has filed the OA for recovery of its alleged dues against the working capital demand loan, overdraft, WCDL facility whereas the defendant no. 3 has not signed and executed any document in respect of the working capital demand loan and overdraft WCDL;

- (ii) That the applicant has not disclosed in the entire OA about the sale of the pledged shares of the Defendants no. 2 & 3 as the value of the pledged shares has been amounting to Rs. 150.42 crore and as per the terms & conditions of the sanction letter dated 11.09.2012 and thereafter the applicant bank has been retaining the lien over the fixed deposits to the extent of 105% of the facility and thus nowhere in the OA, the applicant bank has disclosed about due appropriation of the fixed deposits retained in the standby Letter of Credit Facility account to the extent of Credit facility by way of fixed deposits and thus, the OA itself is liable to be rejected on account of non-compliance of Rule 9 of DRT(Procedure) Rules, 1993;

- (iii) that it is a known fact that the Applicant Bank generally obtain blank documents from the borrowers, those are later on filled up without the consent or knowledge of the borrower, and the same is the position in the instant case also. The documents have been filled up later on, thus making material alterations in the documents, thus, these documents are void ab initio in the eyes of law;

- (iv) That the applicant bank has charged illegal and excessive rate of interest in violation of RBI guidelines. Further, applicant bank has not filed correct and complete statement of accounts of all the accounts of the principal borrower. Moreover, Statement of Accounts has not been certified in accordance with the relevant provisions under the Bankers Books of Evidence Act and even not signed. Further, the Statement of Accounts filed is against the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of *Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra*;

- (v) that the OA has been filed by the applicant bank against the defendant no. 3 beyond the prescribed period of Limitation;

- (vi) that it is absolutely incorrect that Sh. Paresh Mehtani is the officer who is acquainted about the transaction of the Loan Account;

- (vii) That defendant no. 3 did not execute unconditional, irrevocable and continuing corporate guarantee to secure the facilities sanctioned by the applicant bank to defendant no. 1;

- (viii) That the applicant bank had not served the notice dated 22.02.2018 to the defendant no. 3 and even the bare perusal of said notice nowhere depicts that the applicant bank had issued any notice to the defendant no. 3 in respect of the default in the SBLC facility. No notice / communication has been issued by the applicant bank prior to making the payment of SBLC facility nor any Letter of Invocation in respect of the SBLC facility has been filed by the applicant bank to establish that applicant bank had issued the appropriate notice, as required under law. The Margin of the securities level, which was being maintained, was 105% of the sanctioned SBLC facility and the applicant bank has not issued any letter communicating to the Defendant no. 1 about such default including Letter to the defendant no. 3, therefore, the defendant no. 3 thus stands discharged in the present OA;

- (ix) That as per the Sanction Letter issued by the applicant bank the security level, which the defendant no. 1 had been maintaining, had been much more than the sanctioned limit and in addition to that the defendants no. 2 & 3 had pledged the shares in favour of the applicant bank for a value of Rs. 150.52 crore and the applicant bank was required to realize the amount at such appropriate time to give appropriate adjustment of the amount in the account of defendant no. 1.

In the light of above, it has been prayed to dismiss this OA against the defendant no. 3 and discharging the defendant no. 3 in the present OA.


6. So far as, defendant no. 5 / HDFC Bank Ltd. is concerned, it also filed the WS stating therein that the defendant no. 5 did not receive any notice / letter as alleged by the applicant for furnishing the details of the account of the Defendant no. 1 held with the answering defendant. It is also stated that present OA is not maintainable in the eyes of law against answering defendant no. 5 and the Applicant is not entitled for the relief as prayed for against the answering defendant, as the answering defendant itself is a financial institution i.e. the Bank, and is not liable to make good the loss. It is further stated that the answering defendant has opened the account of Defendant no. 1, after adhering all the prescribed norms under the KYC, therefore, the answering defendant cannot be held responsible for any loss if caused to the applicant bank.

It is also stated in the WS that the only allegation against the answering defendant herein is regarding not furnishing the details of the accounts. The answering defendant has given the details of the accounts of the defendant no. 1 by the name of the Account Holder, as detailed in Para 2 of Reply on Merit.

In the light of above, it has been prayed to dismiss the present OA qua the answering defendant, being devoid of any merit and also to take on record the details of the account as mentioned in the WS.

7. Applicant bank has also filed rejoinder to the WS of defendant no. 5 wherein it is stated that the applicant bank wrote a letter dated 26.06.2019 to Defendant no. 5 Bank wherein it was informed that account of defendant no. 1 has been classified as NPA. It is also matter of credit discipline which the Defendant no. 5 needs to maintain as per the RBI circular and hence, defendant no. 5 is duty bound to close the accounts of Defendant no. 1 as maintained with non-lender banks as stipulated in the RBI Circular and IBA directive. It is also stated that the defendant no. 5 is a non-lender bank, therefore, defendant no. 1 cannot continue with accounts opened with defendant no. 5, non lender bank after availing facilities from the Applicant Bank. It is stated that defendant no. 1 cannot run / operate the accounts maintained with Defendant no. 5 without the NOC from Yes Bank Ltd. It is further stated that admittedly defendant no. 5 has opened the Bank account of the defendant no. 1. It is also admitted that in violation of the guidelines of RBI and IBA and opened account of defendant no. 1 which is a non-lender bank despite being aware of the account of Defendant no. 1 is NPA. Therefore, the defendant no. 5 is the necessary and proper party for the adjudication of the captioned matter.

8. To prove its case, the Applicant Bank / Yes Bank Ltd. leads its evidence by filling the affidavit of Mr. Paresh Mehtani, President / Authorized Representative of the Applicant Bank. Moreover, additional Evidence along with documents was also taken on record vide order dated 03.09.2019 passed in IA diary no. 14481 dated 03.09.2019 of the Tribunal. Details of additional documents are as follows:-

- (i) E-mail dated 01.08.2019 sent by Price Warehouse Cooper (Advisor to Defendant no.


1. 1) to Applicant Bank enclosing the list of debtors along with receivables;

2. (ii) Balance Sheet of Defendant no. 1 for the FY 2017-18 downloaded from the official website of Bombay Stock Exchange having the URL <http://www.bseindia.com> which shows Defendant no. 1's shares/investment of various companies [details provided in Para 6(b) and 7(A)(II) to the OA]

8.1 It is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of this OA, name of J.C. Flowers Asset Reconstruction Ltd. (JCF ARC) was substituted in place of Applicant Bank / Yes Bank Ltd. vide order dated 23.10.2023 passed in IA No. 86/2023 by this Tribunal.

Thereafter, J.C. Flowers Assets Reconstruction Ltd. (JCF ARC) filed its Evidence by way of Affidavit of Sh. Ajit Godara, Associate of the Applicant, being authorized officer, who has placed reliance upon the following documents (which includes documents relied by erstwhile Applicant Bank / Yes Bank Limited) :-

1. (i) Copy of the Certificate of Registration dated 24.07.2019 issued by Reserve Bank of India in respect of JCF ARC (Ex. AW-3/A);

2. (ii) Copy of Board Resolution dated 24.12.2022 of JCF ARC in favour of deponent (Ex. AW-3/B);

3. (iii) Copy of Assignment Agreement dated 16.12.2022 executed between Yes Bank Ltd. and JCF ARC (Ex. AW-3/C);

- (iv) Copy of Power of Attorney dated 14.12.2017 of Yes Bank Ltd. in favour of Mr. Paresh Mehtani, President of Yes Bank (Ex. AW-3/1);

- (v) Credit Facility Letter dated 11.09.2012 (Ex. AW-3/2);

- (vi) Master Facility Agreement dated 24.09.2012 executed by defendant no. 1 agreeing and accepting the terms and conditions of the said Facilities (Ex. AW-3/3);

- (vii) Demand Promissory Note dated 24.09.2012 for Rs. 10,00,00,000/- executed by Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW-3/4);

- (viii) Letter of Continuity for Demand Promissory Note for Rs. 10,00,00,000/- dated 24.09.2012 executed by Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW-3/5);

- (ix) Deed of Hypothecation dated 24.09.2012 executed by Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW-3/6);

- (x) Deed of Guarantee dated 24.09.2012 executed by Defendant no. 2 (Ex. AW-3/7);

- (xi) Addendum Facility Letter dated 16.01.2013 of Applicant Bank (Ex. AW-3/8);

- (xii) Supplemental Master Facility Agreement dated 17.01.2013 executed by defendant no. 1 agreeing and accepting the terms and conditions for the enhanced SBLC Facility (Ex. AW-3/9);

- (xiii) Credit Facility Letter dated 14.03.2013 of Applicant Bank (Ex. AW-3/10);

- (xiv) Supplemental Master Facility Agreement dated 19.03.2013 executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of the applicant bank agreeing and accepting the terms and conditions of the enhanced facilities (Ex. AW-3/11);

- (xv) Deed of Guarantee dated 19.03.2013 executed by Defendant no. 2 (Ex. AW-3/12);

- (xvi) Demand Promissory Note dated 19.03.2013 for Rs. 15.0 crore executed by defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW-3/13);

- (xvii) Letter of Continuity for Demand Promissory Note dated 19.03.2013 for Rs. 15.0 crore executed by Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW-3/14);

- (xviii) Supplemental Deed of Hypothecation dated 19.03.2013 executed by Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW-3/15);

- (xix) Renewal cum Enhancement of Credit Facility Letter dated 03.07.2014 (Ex. AW-3/16);

- (xx) Deed of Hypothecated dated 05.07.2013 executed by defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW-3/17);

- (xxi) Demand Promissory Note of Rs. 20.0 Crore dated 08.07.2013 executed by defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW-3/18);

- (xxii) Letter of Continuity for Demand Promissory Note of Rs. 20.0 crore dated 08.07.2013 executed by defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW-3/19);

- (xxiii) Supplemental Master Facility Agreement dated 08.07.2013 executed by the Defendant no. 1 in favour of the Applicant Bank ageing and accepting the terms and conditions of the further enhanced facilities (Ex. AW-3/20);

- (xxiv) Supplemental Deed of Hypothecation dated 08.07.2013 executed by Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW-3/21);

- (xxv) Deed of Guarantee dated 08.07.2013 executed by Defendant no. 2 (Ex. AW-3/22);

- (xxvi) Application cum Letter of Set-Off (third party) dated 07.10.2013 (Ex. AW-3/23);

- (xxvii) Facility Letters dated 06.03.2014 of Applicant Bank (Ex. AW-3/24);

- (xxviii) Master Facility Agreement dated 12.03.2014 executed by Defendant no. 1 through its Authorized Representative agreeing and accepting the terms and conditions of the said Facility 2 (Ex. AW-3/25);

- (xxix) Deed of Guarantee dated 01.05.2014 executed by Defendant no. 3 (Ex. AW-3/26);

- (xxx) Deeds of Undertaking dated 02.05.2014 executed by Defendant no. 3 (Ex. AW-3/27);

- (xxxi) Memorandum of Pledge of Shares, Stocks and Securities dated 02.05.2014 executed by defendant no. 3 (Ex. AW-3/28);

- (xxxii) Acknowledgment of Debt dated 16.10.2014 executed by Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW-3/29);

- (xxxiii) Renewal cum Enhancement of Credit Facility Letter dated 06.02.2015 of applicant bank (Ex. AW-3/30);

- (xxxiv) Renewal cum Enhancement of Credit Facility letter dated 20.01.2016 of applicant bank (Ex. AW-3/31);

- (xxxv) Demand Promissory Note for Rs. 35.0 crore dated 27.01.2016 executed by defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW-3/32);

- (xxxvi) Letter of continuity for Demand Promissory Note for Rs. 35.0 crore dated 27.01.2016 executed by Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW-3/33);

- (xxxvii) Supplemental Deed of Hypothecation dated 27.01.2016 executed by Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW-3/34);

- (xxxviii) Supplemental Master Facility Agreement dated 27.01.2016 executed by Defendant no. 1 in favour of the Applicant Bank agreeing and accepting the terms and conditions of the further enhanced Facility 1 (Ex. AW-3/35);

- (xxxix) Deed of Guarantee dated 28.01.2016 executed by Defendant no. 2 (Ex. AW-3/36);

- (xl) Addendum Facility Letter dated 27.05.2016 of applicant bank (Ex. AW-3/37);

- (xli) Supplemental Master Facility Agreement dated 02.06.2016 executed by Defendant no. 1 in favour of the Applicant Bank agreeing and accepting the terms and conditions of the said Facilities (Ex. AW-3/38);

- (xlii) Deed of Hypothecation dated 02.06.2016 executed by Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW-3/39);

- (xliii) Letter of Lien and set-off dated 02.06.2016 executed by Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW-3/40);

- (xliv) Memorandum of Pledge of Shares, Stocks and Securities dated 21.07.2016 executed by Defendant no. 2 (Ex. AW-3/41);

- (xlv) Second Amended and Restated Memorandum of Pledge of Shares, Stocks and Securities dated 09.03.2017 executed by Defendant no. 3 (Ex. AW-3/42);

- (xlvi) Acknowledgment of Debt dated 24.04.2017 executed by defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW-3/43);

- (xlvii) Addendum Facility Letter dated 28.04.2017 of applicant bank (Ex. AW-3/44);

- (xlviii) Letter dated 20.07.2017 of applicant bank to Defendants no. 1, 2 & 3 (Ex. AW-3/45);

- (xlix) Addendum Facility Letter dated 05.12.2017 of applicant bank (Ex. AW-3/46);

- (l) E-mail dated 21.02.2018 of applicant bank (Ex. AW-3/47);

- (li) Certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act, 1872 (Ex. AW-3/48);

- (lii) Notice for Invocation of Shares dated 22.02.2018 issued by Applicant Bank (Ex. AW-3/49);

- (liii) Guarantee Invocation Notice dated 23.07.2018 issued by Applicant Bank to defendants no. 2 & 3 (Ex. AW-3/50);

- (liv) Statutory Notice issued under Section 176 of the Contracts Act, 1872 dated 20.07.2017 sent by Applicant Bank to Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW-3/51);

- (lv) Communication sent to Stock Exchange dated 27.11.2018 (Ex. AW-3/52);

- (lvi) Letters dated 26.06.2019 sent by Applicant Bank to Defendants no. 4 & 5 for closing all the accounts opened under the name of Defendant no. 1 and transfer the balance to their respective account with the Yes Bank along with speed post receipt (Ex. AW-3/53 & AW-3/54);

- (lvii) Statement of Account transpiring recoverable from the Defendants with interest periodically mentioned (Ex. AW-3/55);

- (lviii) Certified in accordance with Bankers Book of Evidence Act in respect of said Accounts (Ex. AW-3/56);

- (lix) A copy with working of its break-up, as duly maintained by the Yes Bank (Ex. AW-3/57);

- (lx) Statement of Account transpiring recoverable from the Defendants with interest periodically mentioned (Ex. AW-3/58);

- (lxi) Certificate u/s 2A of Bankers Book of Evidence Act 1891 with respect to Defendant's Account (Ex. AW-3/59);

- (lxii) A copy with working of its break-up, as duly maintained by the Yes Bank (Ex. AW-3/60);

- (lxiii) Latest Statement of Account Statement of Account (Ex. AW-3/61).

9. So far as, evidence of Defendant no. 1 is concerned, during the pendency of this case, Ld. counsel for Applicant Bank informed this Tribunal that CIRP proceedings have been initiated qua defendant no. 1 company and thereafter the resolution professional has also been appointed for Defendant no. 1. In this regard, applicant bank has also filed copy of relevant order(s) passed by Ld. NCLT, Delhi. In the meantime, Defendant no. 1 stopped entering before this Tribunal.

10. So far as, Defendant no. 3 is concerned, it has filed evidence by way of Affidavit of Sh. Rajender Kumar, authorized signatory of Defendant no. 3 who has relied upon following documents:-

- (i) copy of Board Resolution dated 23.02.2018 authorizing Sh. Rajinder Kumar to sign on behalf of the Defendant no. 3 (Annexure D-3/1);

- (ii) complete Chart of the pledged Shares in favour of the Applicant Bank (Annexure D-3/2);

11. So far as, Defendant no. 5 / HDFC Bank Ltd. is concerned, it has filed evidence by way of Affidavit of Sh. Tilak Raj Chauhan, Assistant Vice President of Defendant no. 5 who has relied upon following documents:-

- (i) Account statements of the account of Defendant no. 1 (Ex. DW-5/1).

12. In the present case, Applicant as well as Defendant no. 3 have also filed their respective written synopsis.

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

14.1 In the present case, Applicant Bank has sought relief qua defendants no. 1 to 3 and rest of the Defendants i.e. Defendants no. 4 & 5 are the performa defendants against whom no relief has been claimed by the Applicant Bank.

14.2 It is admitted fact that CIRP proceedings have been initiated qua defendant no. 1 before Ld. NCLT, Delhi and Resolution Professional 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, at this stage.

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.

It is also directed that Applicant shall be at liberty to revive the OA qua defendant no. 1 in case NCLT proceedings are quashed / withdrawn in future, in accordance with law.

14.3 Since, defendant no. 1 is already before Ld. NCLT, Delhi, as discussed above, hence, no final order can be passed against the said Defendant. In these circumstances, this Tribunal is of the view that there is no need to deal with the objections raised by Defendant no. 1 in its WS, at this stage.

14.4 So far as, Defendant no. 2 is concerned, it is already ex parte since 01.02.2024, hence, the case of applicant bank remained uncontested by Defendant no. 2.

14.5 It is also pertinent to note here that no relief has been claimed by the Applicant Bank qua defendants no. 4 & 5 which are the non-lender Banks, in which the Defendant no. 1 is maintaining its account.

14.6 Now I would like to deal with the objections raised by Defendant no. 3 in its WS in following paras:-

- (i) Defendant no. 3 has raised an objection that the OA filed by the applicant bank is legally not maintainable in the eyes of law for the reason that the applicant bank has filed the OA for recovery of its alleged dues against the working capital demand loan, overdraft, WCDL facility whereas the defendant no. 3 has not signed and executed any document in respect of the working capital demand loan and overdraft WCDL.

Record reveals that Applicant has already filed loaning and security documents executed by the defendants including defendant no. 3 which have been duly proved by the Applicant. Record reveals that Applicant Bank has filed relevant documents executed by Defendant no. 3 viz. Deed of Guarantee dated 01.05.2014 (Ex.AW-3/26) which shows that the said Guarantee is a continuing one. Hence, this objection of defendant no. 3 does not hold any water and same stands rejected.

- (ii) Next objection raised by Defendant no. 3 is that the applicant has not disclosed in the entire OA about the sale of the pledged shares of the Defendants no. 2 & 3 as the value of the pledged shares has been amounting to Rs. 150.42 crore and as per the terms & conditions of the sanction letter dated 11.09.2012 and thereafter the applicant bank has been retaining the lien over the fixed deposits to the extent of 105% of the facility and thus nowhere in the OA, the applicant bank has disclosed about due appropriation of the fixed deposits retained in the standby Letter of Credit Facility account to the extent of Credit facility by way of fixed deposits and thus, the OA itself is liable to be rejected on account of non-compliance of Rule 9 of DRT(Procedure) Rules, 1993.

Record reveals that in para 5(5.48) of OA, it is clearly stated that since defendants no. 1 to 3 failed to make payment due to the applicant bank, the applicant bank utilized / set off the fixed deposit of 

Rs. 25.0 crore which was marked as lien in favour of the applicant bank for reducing the outstanding dues in group companies. Moreover, the information regarding the utilization of the proceeds from set-off of the fixed deposits was provided to Defendant no. 1 vide email dated 21.02.2018 (Ex. AW-3/47).

In Para 5(5.50) also, it is clearly stated that due to default in repayment of the loan by the Defendant no. 1, the Applicant Bank issued Notice for Invocation of Shares dated 22.02.2018 (Ex. AW-3/49) by invoking the pledge over securities. Similarly, in Para 5(5.51), it is stated by the Applicant Bank that Applicant Bank also issued a Guarantee Invocation Notice dated 23.07.2018 to Defendants no. 2 & 3 (Ex. AW-3/5) to pay the outstanding amount under the said Facilities.

Further, in para 5(5.64) of the OA, applicant bank has duly stated that after adjusting the monies recovered from the liquidation of fixed deposits and sale of shares of Fortis Healthcare Ltd. and Defendant no. 1, a sum of Rs. 152,35,80,897.13 till 20.05.2019 are due from Defendants no. 1 to 3 along with pendente lite and future interest at the contractual rate to be charged from 20.05.2019. In support of its contention, Applicant Bank has also filed Statement of Account transpiring recoverable from the Defendant with interest periodically mentioned, certificate in accordance with Bankers Book of Evidence Act and copy with working of its break-up (Ex. AW-3/55 to AW-3/57).

Moreover, in the Evidence filed by JCF ARC/assignee of Yes Bank Ltd., it is clearly stated that *during the pendency of the present matter, the Applicant Bank received Rs. 111,44,48,483.84 and the present outstanding as on 05.12.2019 is sum of Rs. 44,99,77,995.93.* In order to corroborate this averment, Applicant herein has also filed Statement of Account, Certificate u/s 2A of Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 as well as copy with working of its break-up and the latest Statement of Account (Ex.AW-3/58 to AW-3/61). On the other hand, Defendant no. 3 has not filed any documentary proof to prove its contention. Hence, this objection of Defendant no. 3 is liable to be rejected and same stands rejected.

(iii) Defendant no. 3 has also raised an objection that it is a known fact that the Applicant Bank generally obtain blank documents from the borrowers, those are later on filled up without the consent or knowledge of the borrower, and the same is the position in the instant case also. The documents have been filled up later on, thus making material alterations in the documents, thus, these documents are void ab initio in the eyes of law.

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. 3 has also raised an objection that the applicant bank has charged illegal and excessive rate of interest in violation of RBI guidelines. Further, applicant bank has not filed correct and complete statement of accounts of all the accounts of the principal borrower. Moreover, Statement of Accounts has not been certified in accordance with the relevant provisions under the Bankers Books of Evidence Act and even not signed. Further, the Statement of Accounts filed is against the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of *Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra*.

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 already discussed in above paras. Even otherwise, defendant no. 3 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. 3 is also hereby rejected.

- (v) Defendant no. 3 has raised an objection that the OA has been filed by the applicant bank against the defendant no. 3 beyond the prescribed period of Limitation.

Record reveals that Defendant no. 3 had executed Second Amended and Restated Memorandum of Pledge of Shares, Stocks and Securities on 09.03.2017 (Ex. AW-3/42) and this OA was filed on 06.07.2019. Hence, it is clear that this OA has been filed well within the period of limitation. In these circumstances, this objection of Defendant no. 3 does not hold any water and same stands rejected.

- (vi) Defendant no. 3 has also taken a plea that it is absolutely incorrect that Sh. Paresh Mehtani is the officer who is acquainted about the transaction of the Loan Account.

Record reveals that this OA was originally filed by Yes Bank Ltd. through Sh. Paresh Mehtani and applicant bank has filed Power of Attorney dated 14.12.2017 of Yes Bank Ltd. in his favour which gives authority to Sh. Paresh Mehtani to file and institute this OA. In these circumstances, this plea of Defendant no. 3 stands rejected.

- (vii) Next objection raised by defendant no. 3 is that it did not execute unconditional, irrevocable and continuing corporate guarantee to secure the facilities sanctioned by the applicant bank to defendant no. 1.

As already discussed above, Applicant has filed the Deed of Guarantee dated 01.05.2014 executed by Defendant no. 3 (Ex. DW-3/26). Moreover, Defendant no. 3 has not denied the signatures / stamp of defendant no. 3 affixed on the said document. In these circumstances, this Tribunal is of the view that this plea of defendant no. 3 is liable to be rejected and same stands rejected.

(viii) Next objection of Defendant no. 3 is that the applicant bank had not served the notice dated 22.02.2018 to the defendant no. 3 and even the bare perusal of said notice nowhere depicts that the applicant bank had issued any notice to the defendant no. 3 in respect of the default in the SBLC facility. No notice / communication has been issued by the applicant bank prior to making the payment of SBLC facility nor any Letter of Invocation in respect of the SBLC facility has been filed by the applicant bank to establish that applicant bank had issued the appropriate notice, as required under law. The Margin of the securities level, which was being maintained, was 105% of the sanctioned SBLC facility and the applicant bank has not issued any letter communicating to the Defendant no. 1 about such default including Letter to the defendant no. 3, therefore, the defendant no. 3 thus stands discharged in the present OA.

Record reveals that Applicant herein has filed Guarantee Invocation Notice dated 23.07.2018 issued by Applicant Bank to Defendants no. 2 & 3 (Ex. AW-3/50) which is duly addressed to Defendants no. 2 & 3. Even otherwise, for non-service of said notice, Defendants cannot be absolved from their liability towards the Applicant 

Bank. Accordingly, this plea of Defendant no. 3 stands rejected.

- (ix) Next objection of Defendant no. 3 is that as per the Sanction Letter issued by the applicant bank the security level, which the defendant no. 1 had been maintaining, had been much more than the sanctioned limit and in addition to that the defendants no. 2 & 3 had pledged the shares in favour of the applicant bank for a value of Rs. 150.52 crore and the applicant bank was required to realize the amount at such appropriate time to give appropriate adjustment of the amount in the account of defendant no. 1.

As already discussed in above paras, this plea of Defendant no. 3 does not hold any water and same stands rejected.

14.7 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 unrebuted and there is no question of disbelieving the evidence lead by the applicant bank and applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, the Applicant is entitled to recover the entire amount, as claimed in the OA from the defendants no. 2 & 3 along with pendentelite and future interest @12% p.a. and costs as agreed between the parties.

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

Since defendant no. 1 is already before Ld. NCLT, Delhi, hence no final order can be passed qua said Defendant, as discussed above.

14.9 Consequently, TA No. 184/2022 is liable to be allowed in favour of the Applicant and against defendant 2 & 3 only being corporate guarantors of defendant no. 1 as well as pledgors which are liable to pay the dues of the Applicant 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.

Since, JCF ARC/assignee of Yes Bank Ltd. has clearly stated in its Evidence that *during the pendency of the present matter, the Applicant Bank received Rs. 111,44,48,483.84 and the present outstanding as on 05.12.2019 is sum of Rs. 44,99,77,995.93.* Hence, it is directed that the Applicant shall give dues adjustment of the aforesaid amount already received by it.

ORDER

- (i) TA No. 184/2022 stands allowed and the defendants no. 2 & 3 are directed to pay to the Applicant, within 30 days, a sum of Rs. 152,35,80,897.13 (Rupees One Hundred Fifty Two Crore Thirty Five Lakh Eighty Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Seven and Paise Thirteen only) 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 failing which, the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of the secured assets / mortgaged properties / hypothecated assets / stocks / pledged shares etc., if any, belonging to the defendants no. 2 & 3 only.

In case of shortfall, same shall be recovered from the movable and immovable assets of defendants no. 2 & 3.

(ii) Since, JCF ARC/assignee of Yes Bank Ltd. has clearly stated in its Evidence that *during the pendency of the present matter, the Applicant Bank received Rs. 111,44,48,483.84 and the present outstanding as on 05.12.2019 is sum of Rs. 44,99,77,995.93*. Hence, it is directed that the Applicant shall give dues adjustment of the aforesaid amount already received by it.

(iii) Since, CIRP proceedings were initiated qua defendant no. 1 before Ld. NCLT, Delhi and Resolution Professional has already been appointed by Ld. NCLT, 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, at this stage.

However, it is directed that in case applicant receives any amount from CIRP proceedings, it shall give due adjustment of the same in the recovery proceedings.

It is also directed that Applicant shall be at liberty to revive the OA qua Defendant no. 1 in case NCLT proceedings are quashed / withdrawn in future, in accordance with law.

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

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

- (vi) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer-I, DRT-III, Delhi on 05.01.2026.

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

File be closed and consigned to records.

2025

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

(Pronounced in open court) Dated: 29.10.2025

This image is a scan of a blank page. The background is a uniform light beige or off-white color. There are a few small, dark specks scattered across the surface, which appear to be scanning artifacts or dust. A slightly larger, irregular dark mark is visible in the upper left corner. No text, lines, or other graphical elements are present on the page.