CFM Asset Reconstruction Private Limited. vs MALVINDER MOHAN SINGH on 5 December 2025

FINAL ORDER

1. This original application has been filed by the applicant bank i.e. Yes Bank, on 24.01.2018, through Mr. Puneet Sharma, Senior Vice President of the Applicant Bank, under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 against the Defendant praying therein to pass a decree against the Defendant and issue a Recovery Certificate for a sum of Rs. 569,64,38,356.16 (Rupees Five Hundred Sixty Nine Crore Sixty Four Lakh Thirty Eight Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Six and Sixteen only) as on 31.12.2017 in favour of the Applicant Bank and against the Defendant with interest from 31.12.2017 and future and pendetelite interest till the realization of the dues in full and final payment of the amount claimed along with costs and other relief(s).

1.2 It is pertinent to note here that this OA bearing no. 101/2018 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 October 2022 and was numbered at TA-14/2022.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Applicant Bank is a company incorporated within the meaning of the Companies Act 1956 and it is a Banking Company within the meaning of Section 5(c) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. It is further stated that Mr. Puneet Sharma 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 Defendant and to inter alia to sign, verify, institute and prosecute any suit on behalf of the Applicant Bank.

2.1 It is stated in the OA that the Defendant i.e. Mr. Malvinder Mohan Singh is a Director in the Borrower Company and has provided a Personal Guarantee as security for the Facility.

2.2 It is further stated in the OA that in the year 2016, the Borrower, through its Director, Mr. Malvinder Mohan Singh (Defendant) approached the Applicant Bank for grant of the Term Loan Facility of Rs. 565,00,00,000/- (the Facility) for the purpose of extending loan and advances to non group companies. The Applicant Bank, at the request of the Borrower and Defendant, sanctioned the Facility vide Facility Letter No. YBL/DEL/FL/1385/2016-17 dated 23.12.2016 to the Borrower. To avail the Facility in terms of the Facility Letter, the Borrower and the Applicant Bank entered into a Loan Agreement dated 17.01.2017 agreeing and accepting the terms of the Facility. As per the terms of the Facility Letter and Loan Agreement for the Facility sanctioned by Applicant Bank to Borrower, the Facility was to be, inter alia, secured by *unconditional and irrevocable personal Guarantee of Mr. Malvinder Mohan Singh, to remain valid during entire tenor of credit facilities.*

It is stated in the OA that the relevant particulars of the loan and security documents executed in relation to the Facility signed by the Borrower and Guarantor to this Application are as follows:-

- (i) Accepted Facility Letter with Ref. No. YBL/DEL/FL/1385/2016-17 for an amount of Rs. 565,00,00,000/- dated 23.12.2016;

- (ii) Loan Agreement for the said Facility dated 17.01.2017;

- (iii) Deed of Guarantee dated 17.01.2017.

It is stated in the OA that in order to secure the aforesaid Facility, the Defendant executed Deed of Guarantee dated 17.01.2017 in favour of the Applicant Bank, thereby guaranteeing and securing the repayment of the Facility. As per the terms of the Deed of Guarantee, the liability of the Defendant is joint and several and co-extensive with that of the Borrower towards repayment of the Facility.

2.3 It is stated in the OA that as per the terms and conditions of Loan Agreement, the Borrower was obliged to make the repayment towards the Facility as mentioned in the Loan Agreement. The Applicant Bank from time to time through its officials and also vide various correspondence called upon the Borrower to observe the financial discipline with respect to repayments of the Facility, but the Borrower failed to comply with the terms of the Loan Agreement. Further, there were continuing Events of Default including inter alia persistent overdues under the Facility and Material Adverse Effect on the Borrower's capability to service the Facility resulting from factors including inter alia worsening financial health of the Borrower and consequently deterioration in their credit rating(s) which was in contravention in the terms mentioned in the Facility Letter and Loan Agreement.

It is stated in the OA that the Applicant Bank vide Letter dated 20.07.2017 apprised the Borrower about these continuing events of default and called upon the Borrower to reduce / repay the Facility and clear overdues of Rs. 4.61 crore within three days from the receipt of letter by the Applicant.

In view of the defaults committed by the Borrower, the Applicant Bank apprised the Defendant vide Letter dated 05.09.2017 that the Borrower had not complied with letter dated 20.07.2017 and in view of the Deed of Guarantee executed by the Defendant, the Applicant Bank requested the Defendant to either arrange the Borrower to pay the outstanding dues or have the repayment of dues made in terms of the letter dated 20.07.2017 within a period of 3-days from the date of receipt of the letter.

As neither the Borrower complied the terms of the exposure reduction notice dated 20.07.2017 nor the Defendant complied with letter dated 05.09.2017, the Applicant Bank became entitled to invoke the guarantee executed by the Defendant in view of the continuous defaults committed by Borrower. As a result the Applicant Bank called upon the Defendant to remit the outstanding dues of Rs. 569,80,96,735.60 under the Facility within a period of 3-days from the date of receipt of the Guarantee Invocation Notice dated 08.11.2017. However, the Defendant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the executed Deed of Guarantee dated 17.01.2017 till date and the Guarantee Invocation Notice dated 08.11.2017 for repayment of the Facility.

2.4 In these circumstances, the present OA is being filed under Section 19 of RDB Act 1993 for recovery of its dues from the Defendant [details of amount dues given in Para 5(5.14) of the OA].

3. Notices of this O.A. were issued to the Defendant and the Defendant appeared through counsel and filed the Written Statement (WS).

3.1 In the WS, Defendant has given a brief summary of the case which is as follows:-

- (a) Admittedly the alleged loan facility, which is subject matter of the OA was granted to Oscar Investment Limited (**Borrower**). However, the Borrower has not been made a party to the OA, for which no reasons have been given by the Applicant. In the absence of the Borrower being a party, it is impossible to ascertain and verify the quantum of the claim, and therefore, the prayers the OA against the Defendant, which is merely a guarantor, ought to be replaced with exemplary costs.

- (b) It appears from the alleged Loan Agreement dated 17.01.2017 (**Loan Agreement**) read with the Facility Letter dated 23.12.2016 (**Facility Letter**) that the Loan Facility was granted on security of a Farm House in Gadaipur and Immovable Property being land admeasuring 10.35 acres located at Gurgaon (reference is made to schedule I of the said Loan Agreement). However, there is no explanation in the OA as to why the Applicant without taking any recourse to the aforesaid alleged securities has approached this Tribunal directly and only against the Defendant.

- (c) Further, it appears from Schedule I of the said Loan Agreement that a put option agreement with Fortis Healthcare Holding Private Limited (**FHHPL**) seems to have also been executed with respect to those shares for which pledge was already created. However, neither these documents, which includes the Put Option Agreement with FHHPL and the abovementioned pledge have been placed on record.

- (d) It is also stated that though the Borrower has not been made a party, and the guarantor alone has been made a party and there has been no impleadment of the Put Option Provider, being FHHPL by the Applicant Bank. It is clear that the Applicant Bank is only interested in arm twisting the Defendant / Guarantor who satisfying the debt without following the due process of law. Thus, this non-joinder not only smacks of malafides but also renders the present OA inadmissible and liable to be rejected.

- (e) It is also stated that it is an established principle of law that all and every document referred to in the OA and the corresponding documents, ought to be placed on record by the party, however, there is no reference to the documents or the facts mentioned in the preceding paras in the OA. The Applicant is completely silent on the aforesaid, as such, this OA has been filed in abuse of the process of law and deserves to be rejected on these grounds alone.

3.2 In his WS, Defendant has taken following main objection :-

- (i) That the person who has filed the OA is not duly authorized by the Bank;

- (ii) That there has been no proper verification and affidavit in support of the OA;

- (iii) That complete set of documents not filed on record;

- (iv) That this OA is not maintainable on account of non-joinder of necessary and proper parties. It is stated in the WS that it is settled principal of law that a Guarantee can only be invoked if the default of the Principal Obligor is established. Such a default cannot be established unless and until the principal obligor (in the present case the borrower) is made a party to proceedings seeking enforcement of guarantee. In these circumstances, it was necessary for the Applicant to implead the Borrower as a party to the present OA. Similarly, the Applicant ought to have impleaded the alleged providers of the securities mentioned in Schedule – I of the Loan Agreement namely RHC Holding Pvt. Ltd. [exclusive charge on immovable property farm house located at Gadaipur near Sultanpur in Delhi] and R.S. Infrastructure Private Limited [exclusive charge on immovable property located in Gurgaon (10.35 acres land)];

- (v) That there is concealment of material and relevant facts-particulars and status of securities mentioned in Schedule – I of the alleged Loan Agreement has not been disclosed;

- (vi) That the Applicant has no Cause of Action to institute the present proceedings;

- (vii) That Statement of Account on records of this Tribunal is factually incorrect as well as in Non-compliance of the Mandatory provisions of Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891;

- (viii) That there is non-compliance of Section 176 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. It is stated in the WS that Section 176 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 stipulates that a prior reasonable notice of invocation of shares ought to be sent to the Borrower. It is further stated that before invocation of pledged shares in favour of the Applicant, it was obligated to comply with the mandatory requirement of sending out a reasonable notice to the Borrower. After invocation of pledged shares, the Applicant ought to have adjusted / appropriated the same towards the loan account of the Borrower but the Applicant has acted in an illegal and hasty manner and has not adjusted the recovered value of shares against the loan account of the Borrower. This Hon'ble Tribunal vide its order dated 24.05.2018, has taken note of the said fact and directed the Applicant Bank to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 176. Thereafter, Applicant has issued letter dated 01.06.2018 to FHHPL stating that it has sold 246017 shares pledged in its favour and recovered about Rs. 36,82,297,221/-

- (ix) That the Debt claimed in the OA is not a 'debt' within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Act;

- (x) That the Defendant does not have any ownership interest or title in the artworks (beneficial or otherwise), therefore, the Applicant's prayer for attachment / sale of these artworks or an appointment of receiver over the same is entirely and hopelessly misconceived and ought to be rejected with costs;

- (xi) That the receipt of the Reduction of Credit Exposure Letter dated 20.07.2007, as alleged by the Applicant was never received by the Borrower. Further, a bare perusal of said letter shows that the same was issued at incorrect address. Moreover, Applicant bank has failed to place on record any proof of service / document to substantiate its claim of service of the said Letters to the Borrower or the Guarantor. Similarly, the alleged letters dated 05.09.2017 and 08.11.2017 issued to the Defendant herein was never received by it. Applicant has failed to place on record any proof of service and reasonable opportunity / notice to the borrower;

- (xii) That it is a matter of public record that Daiichi Sankyo Company Limited has filed an Execution Petition before Hon'ble Delhi High Court titled as *Daiichi Sankyo Company Limited Vs. Malvinder Mohan Singh and Ors.* bearing no. OMP (EFA) (COMM) 6/2016 to execute the Arbitral Award dated 29.04.2016 (**Execution Petition**). Though Applicant Bank is not a Defendant in the said Execution Petition, however, upon order / direction passed in IA No.


6681/2018 filed on behalf of Axis Bank, Hon'ble High Court issued notice to the Applicant Bank herein and the Applicant Bank herein, entered its appearance and submitted that it has no objection in case the unencumbered shares which are listed / traced on the stock exchange belong to the Respondent no. 1 (**the Defendant herein**) are sold and proceeds are deposited in Hon'ble High Court which would be subject to issue of apportionment to be adjudicated upon a later stage.

It is further stated that the abovementioned IA 6681/2018 filed in Execution Petition refers to the OA No. 206/2018 filed by Axis Bank and specifically mentions the interim order dated 21.03.2018, vide which this Hon'ble Tribunal had restrained the answering Defendant herein from transferring or alienating the movable and immovable assets without the prior permission of this Tribunal.

On the basis of the abovesaid, it most clearly emerges that the Applicant Bank herein is essentially attempting to ambush and arm twist the Answering Defendant herein by any and all means possible, including without limitation for filing vexatious and frivolous litigation against them. It is clear that the Applicant Bank being aware that there is no case in its favour and is taking all extraneous and excessive steps to satisfy its alleged debt, which is due from Oscar Investment Limited (**Borrower**) and not from the answering Defendant;

(xiii) That the alleged Deed of Guarantee is inadequately stamped and cannot be relied by this Tribunal;

(xiv) That this Tribunal has no jurisdiction over the present dispute of the OA in its entirety;

(xv) That this OA has not been filed within the period of limitation.

4. Applicant Bank has also filed Rejoinder, through Sh. Ankit Jain, Senior Vice President of the Applicant, a duly competent and authorized signatory of the Applicant herein as Sh. Puneet Sharma is no longer associated with the Applicant Bank. Hence, the Power of Attorney dated 12.07.2019 authorizing Sh. Ankit Jain to file, verify, institute and prosecute the present OA against the Defendant and Board Resolution dated 12.03.2019 issued in favour of the executor of Power of Attorney dated 12.07.2019 have been annexed with the Rejoinder. In its Rejoinder to the WS of the Defendant, Applicant Bank has denied the allegations levelled against it and reiterated the averments made in the OA.

4.1 It is also pertinent to note here that along with the Rejoinder, the Applicant Bank has also filed following documents as well:-

- (i) True copy of Board Resolution dated 12.03.2019 and Power of Attorney dated 12.07.2019 (Annexure A-colly);

- (ii) True copy of Board Resolution dated 11.11.2016 of the Borrower (Annexure – B);

- (iii) True copy of the Statement of Account of the Borrower as maintained by the Applicant Bank (Annexure – C);

- (iv) True copy of postal receipts showing delivery of Letter dated 20.07.2017 (Annexure – D);

- (v) True copy of the postal receipts showing delivery of the Letters dated 05.09.2017 and 08.11.2017 (Annexure – E-colly).

5. To prove its case, the Applicant Bank / Yes Bank leads its evidence by filling the affidavit of (s) of Sh. Paresh Mehtani, Executive Vice President – Legal and Sh. Ankit Jain, Senior Vice President, both authorized representatives of the Applicant Bank. They have relied upon the documents filed by the Applicant Bank along with the OA.

5.1 It is pertinent to note here that this OA was originally filed by Yes Bank and during the pendency of this OA, the debt was assigned by Yes Bank to J.C. Flowers Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the name of J.C. Flowers Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. was substituted in place of Yes Bank vide order dated 01.03.2024 passed in IA No. 185/2023 by this Tribunal.

5.2 In the light of above, J.C. Flowers Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. (JCF ARC) / assignee of Yes Bank filed fresh Evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Ankit Jain, Associate Director of the Applicant who has relied upon the following documents:-

- (i) Certificate of Registration dated 24.07.2019 issued by Reserve Bank of India in respect of J.C. Flowers Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. (Ex. AW-3/1);

- (ii) Board Resolution dated 24.12.2002 of JCF (ARC) in favour of the deponent (Ex. AW-3/2);

- (iii) Assignment Agreement dated 16.12.2022 executed by Yes Bank in favour JCF ARC (Ex. AW-3/3);

- (iv) Power of Attorney dated 14.12.2017 executed by Yes Bank in favour of Mr. Puneet Sharma, Senior Vice President of Yes Bank who filed this OA (Ex. AW-3/4);

- (v) Board Resolution dated 25.11.2206 passed by the Board of Directors of Yes Bank in favour of Mr. Rana Kappor, the then Managing Director of the Yes Bank who was duly constituted Attorney of the Yes Bank and he had been given authority to sub-delegate the power granted to him (Ex. AW-3/5);

- (vi) Board Resolution dated 11.11.2016 passed by the Borrower Company i.e. Oscar Investment Ltd. giving approval to the Borrower company to avail Term Loan Facility of upto Rs. 600.0 Crore (Ex. AW-3/6);

- (vii) Facility Letter No. YBL/DEL/1385/2016-17 dated 23.12.2016 issued by Yes Bank to the Borrower Company (Ex. AW-3/7);

- (viii) Loan Agreement dated 17.01.2017 executed between Borrower Company and the Yes Bank (Ex. AW-3/8);

- (ix) Deed of Guarantee dated 17.01.2017 executed by the Defendant (Ex. AW-3/9);

- (x) Letter dated 20.07.2017 of Yes Bank to Defendant (Ex. AW-3/10);

- (xi) Letter dated 05.09.2017 of Yes Bank to Defendant (Ex. AW-3/11);

- (xii) Guarantee Invocation Letter 08.11.2017 issued by Yes Bank to the Defendant along with receipts (Ex. AW-3/12-colly);

- (xiii) Certified copy of the Statement of Account showing recoverable from the Defendant as on 31.12.2017 (Ex. AW-3/13);

- (xiv) Letters dated 20.07.2017 and 05.09.2017 duly received by Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW-3/14-colly);

- (xv) Certificate issued u/s 2A of Bankers Books Evidence Act (Ex. AW-3/15-colly);

- (xvi) Latest Statement of Account of JCF ARC (Ex. AW-3/16-colly).

6. So far as Defendant / Mr. Malvinder Mohan Singh is concerned, he also filed the Evidence by way of his own Affidavit and relied upon the following documents:-

- (i) complete transaction statement for invocation of the shares pledged with the Applicant Bank of M/s Fortis Healthcare Holdings Private Limited (FHHPL) (Ex. DW-1/1);

- (ii) summary statement along with rate as per Bombay Stock Exchange as on 16.02.2018 and Contract Note dated 15.03.2018 (Ex. DW-1/2).

7. It is also pertinent to note here that subsequently, JCF ARC also assigned the debt in favour of CFM Asset Reconstruction Private Ltd., hence, CFM Asset Reconstruction Private Ltd. was also substituted in place of J.C. Flowers Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. vide Order dated 11.07.2025 passed in IA No. 416/2025 by this Tribunal]

8. In the present matter, respective written submissions have been filed by the Applicant as well as Defendant.

9. Heard Ld. counsels for both the parties and perused the entire record.

10. Now I would like to deal with the defence taken by Defendant in subsequent paras.

(i) Defendant herein has raised an objection that the person who has filed the OA is not duly authorized by the Bank; Record reveals that this OA was originally filed by Yes Bank which was substituted with JCF ARC vide order dated 01.03.2024. Subsequently, CFM Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. was also substituted in place of JCF ARC vide order dated 11.07.2025 of the Tribunal.

Record further reveals that in its Evidence Applicant has filed Board Resolution dated 24.12.2002 of JCF ARC in favour of its deponent (Ex. AW-3/2), Power of Attorney dated 14.12.2017 executed by Yes Bank in favour of Mr. Puneet Sharma, Senior Vice President of Yes Bank (Ex. AW-3/4) as well as Board Resolution dated 25.11.2006 in favour of their officer (Ex. AW-3/5). Moreover, Yes Bank also filed true copy of Board Resolution dated 12.03.2019 and Power of Attorney dated 12.07.2009 (Annexure-A-colly) along with its Rejoinder. Further more, CFM Asset Reconstruction Private Limited / now impleaded in the OA as Applicant has also filed Letter of Authority dated 06.03.2025 in favour of its duly authorized Officer namely Ms. Sweta Rana who filed IA No. 416/2025 on behalf of CFM Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. for seeking its substation in place of Yes Bank.

All the aforesaid documents were executed by Applicant Bank i.e. Yes Bank as well as Assignee Banks i.e. JCF ARC and CFM Asset Reconstruction Ltd. in favour of their respective authorized officer(s), hence, present objection of Defendant does not hold any water and same stands dismissed accordingly.

- (ii) Defendant herein has also raised an objection that there has been no proper verification and affidavit in support of the OA.

Record reveals that Defendant has not filed any evidence in support of this contention, hence, the present objection of Defendant, being devoid of any merit, stands rejected accordingly.

- (iii) Defendant has also taken a plea that complete set of documents not filed on record.

I do not find any merit in the contention of Ld. counsels for Defendant since Applicant bank has duly filed all the pertinent documents in respect of the borrowed facility amount and those relating to the default and consequent invocation of the Deed of Guarantee required for the proper and effective adjudication of the present OA and same have been duly proved by the bank. In these circumstances, the objection raised by the Defendant is liable to be rejected and same stands rejected accordingly.

(iv) Defendant herein has also raised an objection that this OA is not maintainable on account of non-joinder of necessary and proper parties. It is stated in the WS that it is settled principal of law that a Guarantee can only be invoked if the default of the Principal Obligor is established. Such a default cannot be established unless and until the principal obligor (in the present case the borrower) is made a party to proceeding seeking enforcement of guarantee. In these circumstances, it was necessary for the Applicant to implead the Borrower as a party to the present OA. Similarly, the Applicant ought to have impleaded the alleged providers of the securities mentioned in Schedule – I of the Loan Agreement namely RHC Holding Pvt. Ltd. [exclusive charge on immovable property farm house located at Gadaipur near Sultanpur in Delhi] and R.S. Infrastructure Private Limited [exclusive charge on immovable property located in Gurgaon (10.35 acres land)].

It is matter of record that the Borrower company has not been impleaded as a party in this case. Since, the recovery proceedings against the Defendant herein are emanating from the invocation of the Deed of Personal Guarantee which is an independent agreement between the Applicant and the Defendant herein, hence, it cannot be said that in order to ascertain or verify the 

quantum of claim, the impleadment of Borrower Company is necessary.. In any event, the liability of the Defendant's Guarantee is joint and several with that of the Borrower and therefore, the Applicant is well within its rights to have sued the Defendant separately. Further, as per Clause 8 of the Deed of Guarantee dated 17.01.2017 (Ex. AW-3/9) executed by Defendant herein categorically provides that the Defendant's liability shall be irrevocable, continuing, joint and several with that of the Borrower.

Moreover, in its Rejoinder the Applicant Bank has denied that the Applicant was required to take any recourse in respect of the securities mentioned in Schedule 1 to the Loan Agreement as alleged before approaching this Tribunal against the Defendant.

This Tribunal is also of the view that in the event of recovery in respect of the Deed of Guarantee, the assets of the guarantor are liable to be attached in the event of default by the borrower. Further more, the Applicant is under no obligation to take recourse first in respect of the assets / securities which have been mortgaged / hypothecated or pledged by the Borrower / obligor and find mention in the Loan Agreement before approaching this Tribunal against the Defendant. On perusal of Deed of Guarantee Dated 17.01.2017 (Ex. AW-3/9) it is clear that as per Clause 8 of said Deed, the Defendant herein has an irrevocable, continuing, joint and several liability with that of the Borrower. Further, in Clause 27 of said Deed of Guarantee categorically provides that the Defendant has agreed that it shall not be necessary for the Applicant Bank to exhaust its rights and take action against the Borrower before requiring the guarantor / Defendant to make the payment under the said Deed.

In the light of above, this Tribunal is of the considered view that there is no fault found in law against the Applicant Bank in filing this OA against the Defendant. With these observations, this plea of Defendant is liable to be rejected and same stands rejected.

- (v) Next objection raised by the Defendant herein is that there is concealment of material and relevant facts-particulars and status of securities mentioned in Schedule – I of the alleged Loan Agreement has not been disclosed.

This objection has already been dealt with in Para 10(iv) above and same stands rejected.

- (vi) Defendant has also raised an objection that the Applicant has no Cause of Action to institute the present proceedings.

Admittedly, this OA has been filed qua Defendant in the capacity of Guarantor of Borrower Company who is liable to pay the dues of the Applicant. Further more, in its written submissions, Applicant has stated that the original Applicant / Yes Bank had also preferred proceedings under Section 19 of RDB Act qua the Borrower Company and said OA has already been allowed by this Tribunal vide order dated 05.03.2024 in TA No. 433/2022 titled J.C. Flowers Asset Reconstruction Private Limited Vs. Oscar Investment Limited and Ors. and thereafter Applicant has also preferred recovery proceedings before Ld. Recovery Officer DRT-III in RC No. 09/2025.

I find merit in the contention of Ld. counsel for Applicant that TA No. 433/2022 filed against Borrower Company has already been allowed vide Final Order dated 05.03.2024 and now this OA qua the Guarantor is pending adjudication before this Tribunal. Even otherwise, in the light of discussions made above in Para 10(iv), this objection of Defendant is liable to be dismissed and same stands dismissed.

- (vii) Defendant herein has also raised an objection that Statement of Account on records of this Tribunal is factually incorrect as well as in Non-compliance of the Mandatory provisions of Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891.

I have gone through the statement of accounts as on 31.12.2017 of Yes Bank (Ex. AW-3/13); as well as Certificate issued u/s 2A of Bankers Books Evidence Act (Ex. AW-3/15-colly) and Latest Statement of Account of JCF ARC (Ex. AW-3/16) and found that same is duly certified as per Bankers Book Evidence Act, hence, this plea of Defendant does not hold any water and same stands rejected accordingly.

- (viii) Next objection of Defendant is that there is non-compliance of Section 176 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. It is stated in the WS that Section 176 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 stipulates that a prior reasonable notice of invocation of shares ought to be sent to the Borrower. It is further stated that before invocation of pledged shares in favour of the Applicant, it was obligated to comply with the mandatory requirement of sending out a reasonable notice to the Borrower. After invocation of pledged shares, the Applicant ought to have adjusted / appropriated the same towards the loan account of the Borrower but the Applicant has acted in an illegal and hasty manner and has not adjusted the recovered value of shares against the loan account of the Borrower. This Hon'ble Tribunal vide its order dated 24.05.2018, has taken note of the said fact and directed the Applicant Bank to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 176. Thereafter, Applicant has issued letter dated 01.06.2018 to FHHPL stating that it has sold 246017 shares pledged in its favour and recovered about Rs. 36,82,297,221/-.

In its rejoinder, the Applicant Bank has stated that prior to invocation of the pledged shares in favour of the Applicant, the Applicant duly complied with the requirement of sending out a Notice under Section 176 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 i.e. Notice date 20.07.2017. It is also stated by the Applicant that in any event, the Notice under Section 176 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 is not a pre-requisite before invoking the Deed of Guarantee calling upon the Guarantor / Defendant herein to comply with the default. The Applicant has an independent remedy of taking recourse against the Guarantor and the Section 176 pertaining to the pledge shares has nothing to do with the recourse against the Guarantor. It is also stated that the Applicant has already adjusted the amount of Rs. 220.9 crore (including interest) against the loan of the Borrower and accordingly the revised statement of account (Annexure-C attached with the Rejoinder) is being attached with the Rejoinder. It is also stated by the Applicant Bank that as on dated Rs. 492,76,67,539.56/- is due against the Defendant as on date.

This Tribunal is also of the view that since the Applicant has already sold the pledged shares, the Applicant is bound to give due adjustment of the same from the date of sale in the recovery proceedings.

With these observations, this objection of Defendant is hereby rejected.

- (ix) Defendant herein has raised an objection that the Debt claimed in the OA is not a 'debt' within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Act.

Since Defendant herein is a guarantor to the Facility granted in favour of Borrower Company, hence, this plea of Defendant is hereby rejected.

- (x) Defendant has also raised an objection that the Defendant does not have any ownership interest or title in the artworks (beneficial or otherwise), therefore, the Applicant's prayer for attachment / sale of these artworks or an appointment of receiver over the same is entirely and hopelessly misconceived and ought to be rejected with costs.

This issue is required to be decided in execution proceedings, hence, this Tribunal is not going to pass any order in this regard.

- (xi) Defendant has also raised an objection that the receipt of the Reduction of Credit Exposure Letter dated 20.07.2007, as alleged by the Applicant was never received by the Borrower. Further, a bare perusal of said letter shows that the same was issued at incorrect address. Moreover, Applicant bank has failed to place on record any proof of service / document to substantiate its claim of service of the said Letters to the Borrower or the Guarantor. Similarly, the alleged letters dated 05.09.2017 and 08.11.2017 issued to the Defendant herein was never received by it. Applicant has failed to place on record any proof of service and reasonable opportunity / notice to the borrower.

Though Applicant has filed proof of service of aforesaid notice along with its Rejoinder as Annexure D & E, however, this Tribunal is of the view that in case the Defendant did not receive any Notice, he cannot be absolved from his liability, being Guarantor, on these technical grounds. Defendant herein has not denied the execution of Guarantee Deed dated 17.10.2017 on the basis of which this OA has been filed. In these circumstances, this objection of Defendant is hereby rejected.

(xii) Defendant has also stated in the WS that it is a matter of public record that Daiichi Sankyo Company Limited has filed an Execution Petition before Hon'ble Delhi High Court titled as *Daiichi Sankyo Company Limited Vs. Malvinder Mohan Singh and Ors.* bearing no. OMP (EFA) (COMM) 6/2016 to execute the Arbitral Award dated 29.04.2016 (**Execution Petition**). Though Applicant Bank is not a Defendant in the said Execution Petition, however, upon order / direction passed in IA No. 6681/2018 filed on behalf of Axis Bank, Hon'ble High Court issued notice to the Applicant Bank herein and the Applicant Bank herein, entered its appearance and submitted that it has no objection in case the unencumbered shares which are listed / traced on the stock exchange belong to the Respondent no. 1 (**the Defendant herein**) are sold and proceeds are deposited in Hon'ble High Court which would be subject to issue of apportionment to be adjudicated upon a later stage.

It is further stated that the abovementioned IA 6681/2018 filed in Execution Petition refers to the OA No. 206/2018 filed by Axis Bank and specifically mentions the interim order dated 21.03.2018, vide which this Hon'ble Tribunal had restrained the answering Defendant herein from transferring or alienating the movable and immovable assets without the prior permission of this Tribunal.

On the basis of the abovesaid, it most clearly emerges that the Applicant Bank herein is essentially attempting to ambush and arm twist the Answering Defendant herein by any and all means possible, including without limitation for filing vexatious and frivolous litigation against them. It is clear that the Applicant Bank being aware that there is no case in its favour and is taking all extraneous and excessive steps to satisfy its alleged debt, which is due from Oscar Investment Limited (**Borrower**) and not from the answering Defendant.

All the points with regard to liability of Defendant, being Guarantor, have already been discussed in above paras. Accordingly, this objection of Defendant also stands rejected.

- (xiii) Next objection of Defendant is that the alleged Deed of Guarantee is inadequately stamped and cannot be relied by this Tribunal.

I have gone through the alleged Deed of Guarantee and do not find any illegality in the same. Even otherwise, on this ground, Defendant herein, being guarantor to the Borrower, cannot be absolved from his liability. Hence, this objection of Defendant also stands rejected.

- (xiv) Defendant has also raised an objection that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction over the present dispute of the OA in its entirety.

On perusal of record, it is clear that this OA was original filed before Ld. Ld. DRT-II, Delhi and at that time Ld. DRT-II had jurisdiction to entertain this OA. The said OA was subsequently transferred to this Tribunal in pursuance to Gazette Notification dated 04.10.2022 issued by Govt. of India and now this Tribunal is having jurisdiction to entertain this OA. Hence, the present objection of Defendant is liable to be dismissed and same stands rejected.

- (xv) Next objection of Defendant is that this OA has not been filed within the period of limitation.

This OA has been filed against the Defendant herein, being Guarantor, on the basis of Loan Agreement dated 17.01.2017 (Ex. AW-3/8) as well as Deed of Guarantee dated 17.01.2017 executed by the Defendant (Ex. AW-3/9) whereas this OA was filed on 24.01.2018. Hence, it is clear that this OA has been filed well within the period of limitation. Accordingly, this objection of Defendant stands rejected.

- 11. On the other hand, the witness of Applicant 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 Defendant, along with pendentelite interest @10% p.a. and costs of this OA.

18. In this OA, applicant has prayed to issue recovery certificate against Defendant herein who is Guarantor to the Borrower Company.

19. Consequently, TA No. 14/2022 is liable to be allowed in favour of the Applicant and against Defendant herein who is liable to pay the dues of the Applicant along with costs and pendentelite & future interest @10% p.a. from the date of filing of present OA, till the date of payment in full.

ORDER

(i) TA No. 14/2022 stands allowed and Defendant herein is directed to pay to the Applicant a sum of Rs. 569,64,38,356.16 (Rupees Five Hundred Sixty Nine Crore Sixty Four Lakh Thirty Eight Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Six and Sixteen only) within 30 days, together with pendentelite and future interest @10% p.a. from the date of filing of this OA till its realization in full along with costs of this OA failing which, the aforesaid amount(s) shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable assets of the Defendant herein.

(ii) It is also directed that the Applicant shall give due adjustment of the amount received from the sale of Pledged Shares, if any, during the pendency of this OA.

(iii) It is also directed that the Applicant shall adjust the amount(s), if any, received from the TA-14/2022

Defendant herein as well as Borrower / other guarantors, during the pendency of this case.

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

- (v) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer-II, DRT-III, Delhi on 10.02.2026.

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

File be closed and consigned to records.

05.12.2025 (SHIV KUMAR - I) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, DELHI

(Pronounced in open court) Dated: 05.12.2025

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 near the top and bottom edges. A prominent vertical crease or fold line runs down the center-right portion of the page, suggesting it was once part of a bound volume. There is no text or other markings on the page.