PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK vs SVOGL OIL GAS AND ENERGY LTD on 21 November 2025

FINAL ORDER

1. This original application has been filed by the applicant bank i.e. Oriental Bank of Commerce on 10.02.2017, through Mr. Shankar Iyer, Assistant General Manager of Applicant Bank, being authorized representatives 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 5 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 233,05,23,674.00 (Rupees Two Hundred Thirty Three Crore Five Lakh Twenty Three Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Four only) inclusive of interest upto 31.01.2017 together with further, pendentelite and future interest and other charges thereon at the agreed contractual rate of interest from the date of disbursement to till the date of payment and for realization in full along with all costs and other relief(s).

1.2 It is pertinent to note here that this OA bearing no. 269/2017 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 November 2022 and was numbered at TA-390/2022.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Applicant Bank i.e. Oriental Bank of Commerce, is a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal with powers subject to the provisions of the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act 40 of 1970 and is represented by its authorized representative, Mr. Shankar Iyer, Assistant General Manager of applicant bank who is duly authorized and empowered by the Applicant Bank to sign, verify and file the OA and documents with it and in the interest of the Applicant Bank, in connection with the application and to do all other co-related acts on behalf of the Applicant Bank for the proper prosecution of the instant OA. He is also conversant with the facts of the instant case and present OA is accordingly being signed, verified and instituted by said Sh. Shankar Iyer on behalf of the applicant bank.

2.1 It is stated in the OA that the Defendant No. 1 (M/s Shiv-Vani Oil & Gas Exploration Services Limited) is a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in providing seismic and drilling services to the companies operating in the Oil industry and also one of the players in the onshore drilling space in India. It is further stated that the defendant no. 1


was initially incorporated under the name and style of M/s Shiv-Vani Oil & Gas Exploration Services Limited but later on changed its name to "SVOGL Oil Gas & Energy Limited" and Defendant no. 2 (Mr. Prem Singhee, CMD) and defendant no. 3 (Mr. Padam Singhee, JMD) who are the promoters and guarantor also in the capacity of personal guarantors.

2.2 It is stated in the OA that the Defendant no. 1 was availing the facility of Rs. 160.00 Crore from SREI where Rs. 100.00 Crore has been advanced by SREI Infrastructure Private Limited and the rest Rs. 60.00 Crore of Term Loan amount has advanced by the SREI Equipment Finance (P) Ltd. and on 16.08.2012 SREI has certified the same.

2.3 It is further stated in the OA that the applicant bank on 13.08.2012 provided a Term Loan Facility to the Defendant no. 1 and takeover the facilities provided by the SREI Infrastructure Private Limited and SREI Equipment Finance (P) Ltd. The applicant bank has first disbursed the Term Loan into the defendants account in August 2012 and according, taking into account the moratorium period, the repayment has to commence from December 2013 quarter and therefore the Term Loan is being sanctioned by the applicant bank on the terms and conditions, as detailed in Para 5(5.6) of the OA.

It is also stated in the OA that Mr. Prem Singhee (CMD) (defendant no. 2) and Mr. Padam Singhee (JMD) (defendant no. 3) who are the promoters and guarantor also in the capacity of personal guarantor has provided Guarantee / Security to the loan facilities granted by the Applicant Bank to the Defendants on security of pari-passu charge over certain assets of the Defendants and therefore, defendants no. 6 to 30 have been arrayed as proforma Defendants in the present OA without claiming any substantial relief against such Proforma Defendants and presented a proposal for Term Loan under Oriental Bank of Commerce where Defendants no. 6 to 30 were the part of the Consortium of which the Applicant Bank is a member and which has granted various credit facilities from time to time to the Defendants on security of pari-passu charge over certain assets of the defendants.

In consideration of the above mentioned Term Loan for the facilities, the defendants executed the necessary loaning documents which are as follows:-

- (a) Sanction Letter dated 13.08.2012;

- (b) Hypothecation Agreement dated 14.08.2012;

- (c) Term Loan Agreement dated 14.08.2012 (AHL-6);

- (d) Common Loan Agreement dated 14.08.2012;

- (e) Affidavit-cum-Undertaking by Mr. Prem Singhee dated 14.08.2012 (AHL-20);

- (f) Affidavit-cum-Undertaking by Mr. Padam Singhee dated 14.08.2012 (AHL-20);

- (g) Personal Guarantee executed by Mr. Prem Singhee dated 14.08.2012;

- (h) Personal Guarantee executed by Mr. Padam Singhee dated 14.08.2012;

- (i) Board Resolution dated 14.08.2012;

- (j) Certified copy from SREI Infrastructure Finance Limited dated 16.08.2012;

- (k) Certified copy from SREI Infrastructure Equipment (P) Limited dated 16.08.2012.

It is stated in the OA that the Defendants were granted a Term Loan of Rs. 160.00 Crore vide Sanction Letter dated 13.08.2012. The Defendants conveyed acceptance of the sanctioned loan facility by signing on the duplicate copy of the sanction letter and returned the duly signed copy of the aforesaid sanction letter, accepting the terms and conditions. Pursuant to the execution of aforesaid security documents and the deed of personal guarantee, the Applicant Bank disbursed the Term Loan Facility of Rs. 160.00 Crore to the defendants in their account No. 00077025002457 and the said amount was duly availed and utilized by the Defendants.

Pursuant to the aforesaid sanction and for availing the aforesaid credit facility, the Defendant no. 1 company passed a Resolution in the meeting of Board of Directors held on 14.08.2012 inter alia accepting the credit facilities, to execute in favour of the bank the documents as stated therein to be signed by any one of the directors namely Mr. Padam Singhee, Director or Mr. Prem Singhee, Director and for thereafter delivering the same to the Bank.

2.4 It is further stated in the OA that during the intervening period, as the loan accounts of the defendant no. 1 with the various lenders / banks were continuing to be out of order and as the company was in financial difficulties due to various internal and external reasons, the defendant no. 1 submitted a Flash Report to the Corporate Debt Restructuring Cell, IDBI Towers, Mumbai for admittance to CDR mechanism for restructuring, under a copy to all the lenders.

For availing the restructuring facility(ies), the defendants executed various documents for restructuring / rescheduling of the outstanding amounts of the Existing facilities, in furtherance for the facilities which are as follows:-

- (a) Master Restructuring Agreement dated 18.03.2014;

- (b) Sponsor Support Agreement dated 28.03.2014;

- (c) Security Trust Agreement dated 28.03.2014;

- (d) Deed of Guarantee by Prem Singhee dated 18.03.2014;

- (e) Deed of Guarantee by Padam Singhee dated 18.03.2014;

- (f) Deed of Corporate Guarantee by T.R.S. Technology Private Limited dated 28.03.2014;

- (g) Deed of Corporate Guarantee by Dharti Oil Services Private Ltd. dated 28.03.2014;

- (h) Deed of Hypothecation by Shiv-Vani Oil and Gas Exploration Services Limited in favor of IL&FS Trust Company Ltd. dated 28.03.2014;

- (i) Trust and Retention Account Agreement dated 28.03.2014;

- (j) Resolution passed by the defendant no. 1 for issuance of Equity Shares on preferential basis to lenders dated 30.06.2015.

It is stated in the OA that considering the flash report and other papers etc. by the consortium member banks, the credit facilities were restructured and the Applicant Bank granted the following facility(ies) in favour of the Defendants vide its Sanction Letter dated 28.03.2014 on the terms and conditions, as detailed in Para 5(5.15) of the OA:- <table><tr><td>Term Loan (Restructured)</td><td>-</td><td>Rs. 160.00 Crore</td></tr><tr><td>Priority Term Loan</td><td>-</td><td>Rs. 12.13 Crore</td></tr><tr><td>FITL</td><td>-</td><td>Rs. 26.47 Crore</td></tr></table>

Further, the Defendants also provided a copy of the extracts from the minutes of the annual general meeting of the shareholders of the company for enhancing the borrowing powers of the board of directors to an amount not exceeding Rs. 2500.00 Crore under Section 293(1)(d) of the Companies Act.

Pursuant to the execution of the aforesaid security documents and the deed of personal guarantee and the deed of corporate guarantee, the Applicant Bank restructured the Term Loan Facility of Rs. 160.00 Crore in the account no. 00077025002457, by allowing Funded Interest Term Loan (FITL) Rs. 26.47 Crore in the account no. 00077025003983 and Priority Loan of Rs. 12.13 Crore in the account No. 00077025004112 and the said amount was duly availed and utilized by the Defendants.

2.5 It is stated in the OA that on 16.03.2015, a Memorandum was made for Review of the Term Loan accounts and it came to notice that the present cash flow of that time does not permit servicing of interest as only 5 rigs were only operating at that time and other equipments were lying idle and waiting to be deployed for the tenders of OIL and ONGC and for these reasons the account has already been classified as SMA 2 by various banks as the account is overdue with all the lenders on account of interest dues since October 2014 and in JLF dated 12.01.2015, the lenders agreed that the CAP for the Co. would be rectification and lenders who have not implemented the package to implement the same.

Moreover, after restructuring / rescheduling of the accounts of Defendant no. 1 an approval was made for conversion of part of the overdue amount into equity of Rs. 25.85 crore, where the defendants have also failed to service interest in the loan accounts with Applicant Bank and Rs. 226,68,91,770.00 is due as on 31.10.2016

2.6 It is also stated in the OA that with the passage of time, the Defendants failed to meet with the assurances in regard to their obligations towards the Applicant Bank. Thus, the Defendants have miserably failed and neglected to pay and meet their liabilities towards the Applicant Bank and due to non-payments of EMIs, the account was classified as Non-Performing Assets (NPA) as per the Reserve Bank of India Guidelines on 31.12.2015 w.e.f. 30.04.2013. Left with no alternative, the Applicant Bank recalled the entire outstanding from the Defendants together with interest and other charges due under the abovementioned facility. In this regard, the Applicant Bank held a number of meetings with the directors / executives of the defendant no. 1 and also requested the defendants no. 2 to 5 who have executed personal guarantees to clear the overdue amounts and regularize the accounts. However, all the defendants have been deliberately neglecting to clear the overdue amounts and to adhere to the original repayment schedules and to repay their liabilities to the applicant bank, which clearly shows that they have no intention /

willingness to comply with the aforesaid lawful requests of the applicant bank. Hence, the Applicant Bank on 03.11.2016 sent a recall notice to the defendants and requested to repay the amount with upto date interest & all charges within the period of 15-days and also advised that, failing of which the Applicant Bank shall be constrained to take recourse to legal action including steps enumerated in the SARFAESI Act, filing of suits / claims in competent court / tribunal & other civil / Criminal action against the defendants no. 1 to 5 for recovery of the dues. But inspite of service of said notice, the defendants failed to regularize / repay the outstanding due amount in the account. 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 being defendants no. 2 to 5 and some of the Proforma Defendants appeared through their respective counsels. It is matter of record that Defendants no. 2 & 3 filed a common WS.

3.1 So far as, Defendants no. 4 & 5 are concerned, they did not chose to file their WS and stopped entering before the Tribunal, hence, the case was directed to proceed ex parte qua Defendants no. 4 & 5 vide Order dated 23.06.2025 of this Tribunal.

3.2 So far as, Proforma Defendants no. 6 to 30 are concerned, respective WS(s) were filed by Defendant no. 8 / Andhra Bank, Defendant no. 15 / UCO Bank, Defendant no. 17 / L&T Infrastructure Finance Ltd., Defendant no. 19 / Central Bank of India, Defendant no. 26 / Punjab National 

Bank, Defendant no. 27 / Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. and Defendant no. 29 / Yes Bank.

So far as, rest of the proforma defendants are concerned, though some of the defendants appeared through their respective counsel(s) but did not chose to file any WS.

It is pertinent to note that no relief has been claimed by the applicant bank qua defendants no. 6 to 30.

4. In their common WS, defendants no. 2 & 3 have taken following main objections:-

- (i) that the instant OA has not been filed by an authorized representative of the Applicant Bank;

- (ii) that this OA is barred by the law of limitation;

- (iii) that the Statement of Account filed by the Applicant is ex-facie wrong, false and incorrect and cannot be relied upon as the rate of interest charged by the Applicant is exorbitant and usurious and includes certain hidden charges to the loan account on various accounts, without the consent of the defendant(s);

- (iv) that the instant OA is premature since it has been filed without even classifying the Defendant no. 1 as an NPA;

- (v) that the security documents alleged to be executed by the defendants including deed of hypothecation, loan agreement, deed of guarantee etc. have been drafted in the standard format of the bank which contains several blanks which have been filled by the Applicant Bank after obtaining signatures of the Defendants;

- (vi) that the purported recall notice dated 03.11.2016 was never sent by the Applicant Bank to the answering defendants as the Applicant Bank has failed to annex tracking report in this regard;

- (vii) that due to the defaults on the part of the Banks, including the Applicant herein, the SDR Scheme could not be materialized and the said scheme also failed. Thus, the answering defendants cannot be burdened due to the default on the part of the Applicant Bank and the instant OA is liable to be dismissed on this ground. Moreover, necessary orders were also passed by Hon'ble Company Judge, Delhi High Court on 28.07.2018 and the affidavit dated 06.04.2016 filed by ICICI Bank Ltd. before Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Co. Pet. No. 446/2013 is relevant;

- (viii) that despite the CDR Scheme and taking fresh guarantees etc., which have already replaced the previous guarantees and other letters, the Applicant Bank is still relying on the original documents, qua which in any case there is no amount outstanding;

- (ix) that the OA is barred under Section 13(10) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 since the Applicant Bank has already invoked the provisions of the SARFAESI Act 2002 and it is only when the dues of the secured creditor are not fully satisfied with 

the sale proceeds of the secured assets that the secure creditor may prefer an application under the RDB Act. In the absence of any proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the instant OA is premature;

- (x) that the consent of the answering defendants has not been taken for varying and changing the terms of the Agreement between the Applicant and the Defendant no. 1. As such, the guarantee of the answering Defendants stands discharged;

- (xi) that the subject matter of the recovery of debt due does not fall within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

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

5. In their respective WS(s), proforma defendants no. 8, 15, 17, 19, 26, 27 & 29 have given details of loans sanctioned by them to the Defendants, security documents executed in this regard as well as details of their separate OA(s) filed against the defendants. They have prayed to direct that the sale proceeds of the mortgaged properties, hypothecated assets and other charged assets shall be distributed amongst the Applicant Bank, other charge holder Banks and FIs including these Proforma Defendants on the basis of their respective ranking of charges on pro-rate basis.

It is pertinent to note here that no relief has been claimed qua these defendants by Applicant Bank.

6. It is also important to note here that during the pendency of this OA, one application being IA No. 1146/2020 was filed for seeking substitution of Punjab National Bank in place of Applicant Bank i.e. Oriental Bank of Commerce which was allowed vide order dated 08.07.2022 of this Tribunal.

Similarly, one application being IA No. 137/2025 was filed for substituting the names of Defendants no. 8, 9, 14, 16, 20 and 22 with the transferee banks (due to merger or amalgamation) which was also allowed vide order dated 25.04.2025 of the Tribunal.

7. To prove their case, the Applicant Bank / Oriental Bank of Commerce leads its evidence by filling the affidavit(s) of Mr. R.C. Sharma, Assistant General Manager and Sh. Vijay B. Prasad, Chief Manager of applicant bank.

But, after substitution of Punjab National Bank (PNB) in place of Oriental Bank of Commerce(OBC), as discussed above, a fresh affidavit of Sh. D.L. Bhalla, Chief Manager of PNB was filed in order to substantiate the averments made in the OA.

7.1 Mr. D.L. Bhalla, Officer of Applicant Bank (PNB) has placed reliance upon various documents viz.

- (i) Copy of the informing letter of the change of the name of defendant no. 1 from M/s Shiv-Vani Oil & Gas Exploration Services Ltd. to SVOGL Oil Gas & Energy Limited (Ex. A-1);

- (ii) Sanction Letter dated 13.08.2012 (Ex. A-2);

- (iii) Hypothecation Agreement dated 14.08.2012 (Ex. A-3);

- (iv) Term Loan Agreement dated 14.08.2012 (Ex. A-4);

- (v) Common Loan Agreement dated 14.08.2012 (Ex. A-5);

- (vi) Affidavit-cum-Undertaking by Mr. Prem Singhee dated 14.08.2012 (Ex. A-6);

- (vii) Affidavit-cum-Undertaking by Mr. Padam Singhee dated 14.08.2012 (Ex. A-7);

- (viii) Personal Guarantee executed by Mr. Prem Singhee dated 14.08.2012 (Ex. A-8);

- (ix) Personal Guarantee executed by Mr. Padam Singhee dated 14.08.2012 (Ex. A-9);

- (x) Board Resolution dated 14.08.2012 (Ex. A-10);

- (xi) Certified copy from SREI Infrastructure Finance Limited dated 16.08.2012 (Ex. A-11);

- (xii) Certified copy from SREI Infrastructure Equipment (P) Limited dated 16.08.2012 (Ex. A-12);

- (xiii) Master Restructuring Agreement dated 18.03.2014 (Ex. A-13);

- (xiv) Sponsor Support Agreement dated 28.03.2014 (Ex. A-14);

- (xv) Security Trust Agreement dated 28.03.2014 (Ex. A-15);

- (xvi) Deed of Guarantee by Prem Singhee dated 18.03.2014 (Ex. A-16);

- (xvii) Deed of Guarantee by Padam Singhee dated 18.03.2014 (Ex. A-17);

- (xviii) Deed of Corporate Guarantee by T.R.S. Technology Private Limited dated 28.03.2014 (Ex. A-18);

- (xix) Deed of Corporate Guarantee by Dharti Oil Services Private Ltd. dated 28.03.2014 (Ex. A-19);

- (xx) Deed of Hypothecation by Shiv-Vani Oil and Gas Exploration Services Limited in favor of IL&FS Trust Company Ltd. dated 28.03.2014 (Ex. A-20);

- (xxi) Trust and Retention Account Agreement dated 28.03.2014 (Ex. A-21);

(xxii) Resolution passed by the defendant no. 1 for issuance of Equity Shares on preferential basis to lenders dated 30.06.2015 (Ex. A-22);

(xxiii) Sanction Letter dated 28.03.2014 of applicant bank (Ex. A-23);

(xxiv) Statement of Account of Defendants duly certified as per Bankers Books Evidence Act (Ex. A-24);

(xxv) Receipt of Indian Registered Post with regard to service of Recall Notice dated 03.11.2016 sent by applicant bank to the defendants (Ex. A-25).

8. So far as, evidence of Defendants no. 2 & 3 is concerned, they did not chose to file any evidence.

9. So far as, evidence(s) of Proforma Defendants No. 8, 15, 17, 19, 26, 27 & 29 is concerned, it is matter of record that though the said Defendants filed their WS(s) along with documents relied by them, however, some of the Defendants i.e. Defendants no. 19, 20 and 26 filed their respective Evidence(s) by way of affidavit(s) as well. It is pertinent to note here that no relief has been claimed by Applicant Bank qua Proforma Defendants no. 6 to 30.

10. During the pendency of this OA, it was informed by the Ld. counsel for the Applicant Bank that defendant no. 1 is under liquidation as per order passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court. However, in the written submissions filed on behalf of Applicant Bank, it is stated that winding up Petition was filed by the Citicorp International Ltd. before Hon'ble Delhi High Court against the Defendant no. 1 company and Official Liquidator has been appointed in the case and OL is in charge of Defendant no. 1 Company. It is also stated that the same Petition has been transferred by Hon'ble Delhi High Court to Hon'ble NCLT, Principal Bench, New Delhi as TP. (Co. Act.) 08/PB/2023 which is listed on 07.08.2025.

Moreover, it was also informed by the Ld. counsel for applicant bank that personal insolvency proceedings have been commenced qua defendants no. 2 & 3 before Ld. NCLT, Delhi.

In the light of above, it is clear that Defendants no. 1 to 3 are before Ld. NCLT, Delhi.

10.1 It is also matter of record that one connected TA No. 287/2022 (Indian Overseas Bank Vs. SVOGL Oil Gas & Energy Limited) was also pending before this Tribunal which has already been disposed off vide Final Order dated 30.06.2025. In the said Final Order, Applicant Bank / IOB had filed orders passed by Ld. NCLT, Delhi with regard to Defendant no. 2 namely M/s TRS Technology Pvt. Ltd. which shows that CIRP Proceedings were commenced qua defendant no. 2 before Ld. NCLT, Delhi. The said defendant has been impleaded as Defendants no. 5 in this OA, hence, it is apparent that CIRP insolvency proceedings are pending qua Defendant no. 5 herein also before Ld. NCLT, Delhi.

11. Heard Ld. counsel for Applicant and perused the entire record.

11.1 Since, defendants no. 1 to 3 and 5 are already before Ld. NCLT, New Delhi, hence, there is no need to deal with the objections raised by defendants no. 2 & 3 in their common WS.

11.2 Moreover, defendant no. 4 is already ex parte since 23.06.2025.

11.3 So far as, defendants no. 6 to 30 are concerned, they are proforma defendants and no relief has been claimed by the Applicant Bank against these defendants.

11.4 On the other hand, the witnesses of applicant has fully corroborated the averments made in the OA. Even otherwise the whole case of the applicant bank is based on the documents and the witness has duly proved all these documents. The evidence filed by the applicant bank gone 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 defendants along with pendentelite interest i.e. @13% p.a. and costs as agreed between the parties.

11.5 In this OA, Applicant Bank has prayed to issue recovery certificate against defendants no. 1 to 5 wherein the defendant 1 is principal borrower and defendants no. 2 & 3 are personal guarantors and defendants no. 4 & 5 are corporate guarantors.

11.6 It is matter of record that defendant no. 1 is under liquidation before Ld. NCLT, Delhi whereas personal insolvency proceedings have been commenced qua defendants no. 2 & 3. Moreover, CIRP proceedings qua defendant no. 5 are also pending before Ld. NCLT, Delhi. In these circumstances, no final order can be passed qua defendants no. 1 to 3 & 5, at this stage.

However, it is directed that applicant bank shall be at liberty to revive the OA qua defendants no. 1 to 3 and 5 in case Liquidation proceedings / CIRP proceedings / personal insolvency proceedings are quashed / withdrawn in future, in accordance with law.

It is also directed that in case applicant Bank receives any amount from Liquidation / CIRP / personal insolvency proceedings, it shall give due adjustment of the same in the recovery proceedings.

11.7 Consequently, TA No. 390/2022 is liable to be allowed in favour of applicant against defendant no. 4 only (being corporate guarantor to the Borrower company i.e. defendant no. 1), who is liable to pay the dues of the applicant 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. 390/2022 stands allowed and the defendant no. 4 is directed to pay to the applicant bank, within 30 days, a sum of Rs. 233,05,23,674.00 (Rupees Two Hundred Thirty Three Crore Five Lakh Twenty Three Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Four only) along with 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 secured assets / mortgaged properties /

hypothecated assets / stocks etc., if any, belonging to the defendant no. 4.

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

- (ii) Since defendants no. 1 to 3 & 5 are before Ld. NCLT, Delhi, hence, no final order can be passed qua defendants no. 1 to 3 & 5, at this stage (as discussed above).

However, it is directed that applicant bank shall be at liberty to revive the OA qua defendants no. 1 to 3 and 5 in case Liquidation proceedings / CIRP proceedings / personal insolvency proceedings are quashed / withdrawn in future, in accordance with law.

It is also directed that in case applicant Bank receives any amount from Liquidation / CIRP / personal insolvency proceedings, it shall give due adjustment of the same in the recovery proceedings.

- (iii) It is also directed that the sale proceeds of the secured assets shall be distributed between the Applicant and proforma defendants, as per inter-se agreements executed amongst them.

- (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.

TA-390/2022

- (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 18.01.2026.

- (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: 21.11.2025

This image shows a blank, aged, cream-colored page, likely an endpaper or flyleaf from an old book. The paper has a slightly textured appearance with some minor discoloration and faint smudges, particularly along the right edge and bottom. There is no text or other markings on the page.