AXIS BANK vs MALVINDER MOHAN SINGH on 15 December 2025

**FINAL ORDER**

1. Initially, this original application was filed by the Applicant Bank, on 23.02.2018, through Mr. Manoj Jain, Authorized Officer of Applicant Bank, under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 against the Defendants no. 1 to 4 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 171,56,43,672.00 along with interest from the date of recovery certificate / final order and costs of this OA along with other relief(s).

1.2 It is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of this OA, Applicant Bank filed an application i.e. IA No. 406/2018 for seeking amendment of OA viz. impleadment of Ligare Aviation Ltd. as Defendant no. 5; allow the amendments at Para 6.1 to 6.3 of OA; allow the carrying out of the necessary and consequential amendments including pagination, wherever required in the paper book; and to allow the applicant to place on record and serve the amended OA. The said IA was allowed vide order dated 30.08.2018 of the Tribunal wherein it was also recorded that *it is made clear that this IA No. 406/2018 shall remain part of this OA and there is no need for filing fresh OA this will again create delay in the matter as all the facts already available in the record.* Further more, applicant bank was directed to file amended memo of parties.

1.3 Thereafter, one more application being IA No. 99/2020 was also filed by the applicant bank for seeking certain amendments in the OA which was also allowed vide order dated 12.01.2021 of the Tribunal and the Applicant Bank was directed to file the amended OA.

1.4 **As per amended OA**, this Original Application has been filed by the Applicant Bank through Mr. Shailendra Kumar, Deputy Vice President and authorized officer of the Applicant Bank, under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 against the defendants praying therein to :-

- (i)(a) Direct that a recovery certificate be issued in favour of the Applicant against the Defendants for a sum of Rs. 73,11,52,606.37 (Rupees Seventy Three Crore Eleven Lakh Fifty Two Thousand Six Hundred Six and Paise Thirty Seven only) for default in relation to repayment obligations under Facility Agreement 2 along with pendentelite and future interest @ 10% p.a. with monthly rests along with 4% p.a. penal interest from the date of filing of the OA i.e. 22.02.2018 till realization;

- (i)(b) Direct that a recovery certificate be issued in favour of the Applicant against the Defendants for a sum of Rs. 131,13,27,023.38 (Rupees One Thirty One Crore Thirteen Lakh Twenety Seven Thousand Twenty Three and Paise Thirty Eight only) for default in relation to repayment obligations under Facility Agreement 1 along with pendentelite and future interest @ 14.15% p.a. from 01.01.2020 till realization;

- (ii) Direct that the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the forgoing sum to the Applicant Bank;

- (ii)(b) That the aircraft which is the subject of the deed of hypothecation dated 16.10.2017 (being charge identification number 100130458 and SRN Number G59507723)


owned by Ligare Aviation Ltd. / Defendant no. 5 be ordered to be sold and the proceeds thereof be permitted to be adjusted towards the outstanding amount and the balance amount be recovered from the Defendants no. 1 to 4, jointly and severally;

- (iii) Direct that the foregoing amounts be realized by way of attachment and sale of the immovable and immovable assets of the Defendants, whether held jointly or in their individual capacity as the case may be;

- (iv) Direct that a receiver of the Applicant Bank be appointed to take charge of the personal assets of the Defendants no. 1 and 2;

- (v) Direct that costs may be awarded to the Applicant;

- (vi) Any other orders that this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.

1.5 It is pertinent to note here that this OA bearing no. 149/2018 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-308/2022.

2. The brief facts of the case (as per amended OA) are that the Applicant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 and is carrying on its banking business under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. It is further stated that the Applicant Bank is filing the present Original Application for recovery of amounts extended to the Borrower and inter alia, secured by way of deeds of guarantee by the Defendants.

2.1 It is stated in the OA that defendant no. 4 is a global financial technology company and had been sanctioned a stand by letter of credit facility amounting to Rs. 100.00 crore by the Applicant through a Facility Agreement dated 19.05.2017 for the purpose of guaranteeing the performance of the first step down subsidiary of Dion / Defendant no. 4 (**"Facility Agreement 1"**). Additionally, Dion had been sanctioned short term loan facility of Rs. 140.0 crore by the Applicant through a Facility Agreement dated 19.05.2017 for the purpose of refinancing the loan of Rs. 140.0 crore taken by Defendant no. 4 from Defendant no. 3 (**"Facility Agreement 2"**). It is also stated that both the Facility Agreements 1 & 2 collectively will be referred to as **"Facility Agreement"**. It is further stated in the OA that as per clause 15.1 of each of the Facility Agreements, the following security had to be created for the loan amounts sanctioned in the respective Facility Agreements:-

- (i) Defendants no. 1 & 2 were required to provide an unconditional, irrevocable, joint and several, personal guarantee as security for the loan sanctioned;

- (ii) Equity Shares of Religare Enterprises Limited (**REL**) and Fortis Healthcare Ltd. (**FHL**) had to be pledged to the Applicant as security for the loan sanctioned; and

- (iii) Defendant no. 3 was required to provide a corporate guarantee to the Applicant as security for the loan sanctioned.

A small green rectangular stamp or mark is located at the bottom right of the page, next to the page number. It appears to be a digital watermark or a placeholder for a signature or seal.

Thus, in furtherance of clause 15.1 of each of the Facility Agreements, the following guarantees / securities were provided to the Applicant for the above-mentioned loan amount:-

- (i) Deed of Guarantee dated 19.05.2017 issued by Defendant no. 3 in favour of the Applicant as security for each of the Facility Agreements (**Corporate Guarantees**);

- (ii) Deed of Personal Guarantee dated 19.05.2017 executed by Defendants no. 1 & 2 in favour of the Applicant as security for each of the Facility Agreements (**Personal Guarantees**);

- (iii) In addition to the foregoing, following shares had been pledged as security in relation to Facility Agreement 1 and Facility Agreement 2 :-

- (a) 1,52,79,000 shares of REL were pledged as security in relation to Facility Agreement 1 and Facility Agreement 2 along with other loans extended to separate entities in the Fortis Group which stand appropriated against such other loans extended to other entities in the Fortis Group and cannot be appropriated in relation to the facilities extended to Dion;

- (b) 1,83,75,000 shares of FHL were pledged as security in relation to Facility Agreement 1 and Facility Agreement 2 along with other loans extended to other entities in the Fortis Group.

- (iv) Deed of Hypothecation dated 16.10.2017 was separately executed by Ligare Aviation Ltd. (**Defendant no. 5**), a group entity owned and controlled by Defendants no. 1 to 3, in favour of the Applicant pursuant to which an exclusive charge was created on an aircraft owned by Defendant no. 5 herein as security for both the Facility Agreements. The said charge was duly registered with the Registrar of Companies and the Directorate General of Civil Aviation. In terms of the said Deed of Hypothecation, Defendant no. 5 is jointly and severally liable to pay the outstanding amount due and payable by Defendant no. 4 to the Applicant Bank.

**Recall of the Facility Agreements by the Applicant**

2.2 It is stated in the OA that Clause 19 of the Facility Agreements set out the events of default, which are detailed in Para 5(5.5) of the OA. It is further stated that the Defendant no. 4 breached various terms of the Facility Agreements [details given in Para 5(5.6) of the OA].

Pursuant to the said breaches of the Facility Agreements, the Applicant was constrained to issue a recall of facilities notice dated 29.08.2017 to Defendant no. 4 / Borrower (**Recall Notice**). The said Recall Notice clarified that in case Dion failed to cure the default by 06.09.2017, then the Applicant will invoke the Pledged Shares. Till date no reply has been received from the Borrower / Defendant no. 4 to the said Recall Notice neither has any payment been received. It is stated in the OA that pursuant to clause D(3) of the Sanction Letter dated 19.05.2017 executed between the Applicant and Defendant no. 4, a sum of Rs. 2,46,06,452.80 is due and payable as penal interest on the principal amount from the date of recall till 20.02.2018.

As has been indicated above, the shares of FHL and REL were pledged as security for the Facility Agreements to the Applicant. Since, Defendant no. 4 / Borrower failed to cure the defaults of the Facility Agreements by 06.09.2017, the Applicant proceeded to invoke the shares pledged to it to recover its outstanding dues. The Applicant was initially restrained from appropriating the shares of FHL pledged to it and was only allowed to do so on or after 15.02.2018. The said shares of FHL could not be appropriated on or around the date of issuance of the Recall Notice on account of various reasons, as details below:-

- (i) Defendants no. 1 & 2 along with other entities owned and controlled by them are embroiled in a litigation with M/s Daiichi Sankyo Company Ltd. (**Daiichi**) arising out of an arbitral award in favour of Daiichi by a foreign seated arbitral tribunal. In terms of the said award, Daiichi has been awarded damages to the tune of Rs. 3500.0 crore approx. and Daiichi is seeking enforcement of the said award, which has been presently allowed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide its judgment dated 31.01.2018 in OMP(EFA) Comm. 6 of 2016;

- (ii) Daiichi obtained orders dated 11.08.2017 and 31.08.2017 from Hon'ble Supreme Court of India which restrained sale of shares of FHL, which included shares pledged to the Applicant (as also other banks / FIs). Vide its order dated 15.02.2018, the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified its order dated 11.08.2017 and 31.08.2017 to the effect that the status quo directions contained therein were to not apply to the FHL already encumbered as on 11.08.2017. Accordingly, the 

Applicant was permitted to appropriate the shares of FHL pledged as security;

- (iii) In the enforcement proceedings before Hon'ble Delhi High Court to Daiichi, various orders have been passed from time to time, in terms of which the Defendants herein have been directed to disclose the value of their unencumbered assts. However, these disclosures are not publicly available and have been submitted under sealed covers to Hon'ble Delhi High Court.

2.3 It is stated in the OA that the amount being claimed in the present proceedings are after setting off the value of the shares of FHL pledged as security for the Facility Agreements and duly appropriated by the Applicant.

2.4 Being aggrieved by the Borrower's egregious and continuing default in making any re-payment or otherwise curing the defaults set out in the Recall Notice, the Applicant was constrained to issue demand notices invoking the Corporate Guarantee and Personal Guarantees created as security for Facility Agreement 1 and Facility Agreement 2 vide a notice dated 09.02.2018. Vide the said notice, both the Corporate Guarantor / defendant no. 3 and the Personal Guarantors / Defendants no. 1 & 2 were called upon to make the payment of the outstanding sums under the Facility Agreements, including applicable interest, default interest, communication, enforcement costs and other amounts as payable under the term of the Facility Agreements and related financing documents within 7-business days. However, till date there is no response from the Defendants nor has there been any payment received from the said Defendants. It is 

stated in the OA that as per its records, the outstanding amount as on date is Rs. 204,24,79,629.75.

It is also stated in the OA that Defendants no. 1 to 3, being the guarantors, of the Borrower herein are liable to repay the sums outstanding and due under Facility Agreement 1 and Facility Agreement 2 and each of the Guarantors are jointly and severally liable under their respective irrevocable deeds of guarantee. In this regard relevant clauses of Corporate Guarantee [Clause 2.2, 2.11, 5.1] and Personal Guarantee [relevant Clause 1 and 4] have been reproduced in Para 5(5.12) & (5.14) of the OA.

2.5 In addition to the above, the Applicant stated in the OA that there are grave concerns in relation to the conduct of Defendants no. 1 & 2 which is evident from the newspaper reports which the Applicant has come across; including, inter alia, as under:-

- (a) Defendants no. 1 & 2 have been accused of diversion and siphoning off of funds, and digression of assets to the tune of USD 300 million by a New York based Investor [copy of newspaper article dated 29.01.2018 is annexed].

- (b) it appears from the newspaper reports that the Securities and Exchange Board of India (**SEBI**) has also issued notice and is presently undertaking an investigation in the affairs of the entities owned and operated by defendants no. 1 & 2 in view of the allegations set out above. [copy of newspaper article dated 10.02.2018 is annexed].

- (c) Moreover, it appears from recent media reports that Defendants no.1 & 2 have resigned from the board of FHL [copy of newspaper article dated 09.02.2018 is annexed].

- (d) In fact, it also appears from recent media reports that Defendants no.1 & 2 have begun disposing of their properties, including houses located in prime areas of Delhi. [copy of newspaper article dated 13.02.2018 is annexed].

2.6 It is stated in the OA that it has suffered considerable losses due to the failure of the Defendants and the Borrower to pay any sum owed by them to the Applicant under the Facility Agreements, Corporate Guarantee and the Personal Guarantees. Thus Applicant is constrained to approach this Hon'ble Tribunal due to persistent failure on the part of the Defendants to make payments of the outstanding amounts in terms of their contractual obligations through the Corporate Guarantee and Personal Guarantees. The details of the amount outstanding under Facility Agreement no. 2 at the time of filing the OA i.e. Rs. 73,11,52,606.37 have been given in Para 5(5.16) of the OA.

Further more, the details of the amount outstanding under Facility Agreement no. 1 at the time of filing the present application for amendment [as on 31.12.2019] i.e. Rs. 131,13,27,023.38 have been given in Para 5(5.16 A) of the OA.

2.7 It is also stated in the OA that the order dated 06.03.2017 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in OMP(EFA) Comm. 6 of 2016 that the aggregate book value of the investments held by all the respondents therein (including Defendants herein) was Rs. 10,217.10 crore, out of which Rs. 8707.0 crore was unencumbered. It also emanates from the said order that the book value of unencumbered investments held by Defendant no. 3 is Rs. 4996.86 crore. Moreover, Defendants no. 1 & 2 had submitted their respective net worth certificates duly issued by M/s Harish Gambhir & Company, Chartered Accountants, as a part of the Personal Guarantees pursuant to which it appears that the net worth of Defendant no. 1 as of 31.03.2016 is Rs. 6008.40 crore and the net worth of Defendant no. 2 as of 31.03.2016 was Rs. 5337.36 crore. [copy of said certificates dated 16.11.2016 is annexed with the OA].

The applicant also verily believes that various assets owned by the Defendants are included in the foregoing figures [details given in Para 5(5.18) of the OA].

2.8 It is stated in the OA that the Applicant has suffered considerable losses due to the failure of Defendants and the Borrower to pay any sum owed by them to the Applicant under the Facility Agreements, Corporate Guarantee and the Personal Guarantees. Thus, Applicant is constrained to approach this Hon'ble Tribunal for recovery of its dues from the Defendants.

3. Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and the defendants no. 1 to 5 appeared through their respective Counsels and also filed their respective WS(s) as detailed below:-

- (i) Defendants no. 1 & 2 filed their common WS;

- (ii) Defendant no. 3, 4 & 5 filed their separate WS(s).

3.1 It is pertinent to note here that the WS(s) of defendants no. 1 to 5 were filed to the OA which was initially filed by the applicant bank, however, they failed to file any other WS to the amended OA. Hence, the averments made in amended OA (which were not part of original OA) remained unrebuted by defendants no. 1 to 5.

3.2 It is pertinent to note here that though defendants no. 1 & 2 filed their common WS and defendant no. 3 has filed separate WS through Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Authorized Representative of Defendant no. 3, but all these defendants have taken similar objections in their WS(s) which are as follows:-

- (i) That the person who has filed the OA has not been 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 there is concealment of material and relevant facts-particulars and status of securities furnished against the Credit Facility not disclosed;

- (v) That the Statement of Accounts placed on record and supplied is factually incorrect as well as in non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Bankers Book Evidence Act, 1891; 

- (vi) That the in complete defiance of sub-clause 2 of Rule (9) of the DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993, the Applicant Bank has not filed the documents relied upon by it which are required to be filed neatly in double space on one side and duly attested by a senior official of the Applicant, and thereupon numbered accordingly. However, the Applicant Bank has completely disregarded the said rule and has failed to follow the same;

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

- (viii) That the corresponding prayers made by the Applicant Bank against the defendants before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi qua identical cause of action and have placed reliance upon the order dated 14.05.2018 passed by Hon'ble High Court in IA No. 6681/2018 filed in Execution Petition no. OMP (EFA)(Comm)6/2016 titled as *Daiichi Sankyo Company Limited Vs. Malvinder Mohan Singh & Ors*;

- (ix) That the alleged Deed of Guarantee filed on record is inadequately stamped and as such has no sanctity in the eyes of law.

In the light of above, it has been prayed to dismiss the OA filed by the Applicant Bank with exemplary costs.

3.3 So far as, defendant no. 4 is concerned, it has filed its separate WS through Mr. Tarun Kumar Rastogi, Vice President – Legal and Company Secretary of Defendant no. 4, wherein it has raised similar objections as raised by defendants no. 1 to 3 in their respective WS(s). Apart from the said objections, defendant no. 4 has raised some more objections which are as follows:-

- (i) that the present OA is liable to be dismissed for being defective. Firstly, the applicant bank has erred in complying with the provisions of Section 19(3-A) of the RDB Act as the Applicant has admittedly not given any particulars of the debt secured by security interest with details of the secured assets along with the estimated value. It is also relevant to take note of the pleadings of the applicant bank in Para 3A of the OA wherein the Applicant, while providing the estimate value of the alleged security interest, has failed to substantiate the same as it has failed to place on record any document in support of the alleged security interest. It is also stated that though the Applicant Bank had obtained interim order with regard to the hypothecated aircraft, as mentioned in Para 4 of the Order dated 05.03.2018, however, due to reasons best known to the applicant bank, it has failed to disclose the details of the same as required under mandate of RDB Act. It is further relevant to note that the Applicant Bank has failed to disclose the fact that the assets of the Defendants no. 1 to 3 are sufficient to clear the alleged claim of the Applicant Bank. In these circumstances, there is no occasion to pass any orders against the answering Defendant. Moreover, applicant bank has failed to disclose the valuation of the alleged hypothecated aircraft;

- (ii) that all the documents not filled by the applicant bank hence, it has violated Rule 9 of the DRT (Procedure)


Rules. It is stated in the WS that the Applicant Bank has not placed on record any document pertaining to the alleged creation of pledge of shares of Religare Enterprises Limited (REL) and Fortis Healthcare Ltd. (FHL). Though the Applicant Bank has pleaded that it has invoked and appropriated shares of REL, however, the details of amounts received, details of adjustments made etc. have not been placed on record. Further, the Applicant Bank has pleaded that it has invoked shares of FHL but it failed to bring on record the documents to the effect that shares of REL pledged as security qua the alleged facilities along with other loans extended to separate entities in the Fortis Group which as per the applicant bank stood appropriated against such other loans extended to other entities of Fortis Group but no document qua the same has been placed on record. The applicant bank has also while appropriating the shares of FHL have failed to bring on record the requisite documents in support of the same. It is also relevant to note that vide letter dated 21.02.2018, the Applicant Bank issued a communication with regard to invocation of the pledged shares being 42,01,100 shares of FHL by the Applicant Bank. In this regard, it is relevant to take note of the fact that as per the contention of the Applicant Bank in the instant OA [[@Para 5.4\(iii\)\(b\)](#) of the OA] 1,83,75,000 shares of FHL were pledged. However, in terms of the letter dated 21.02.2018, the Applicant Bank has only invoked 42,01,100 shares of FHL. The answering Defendant has no knowledge with regard to the invocation of the balance shares and adjustment, if any, of such shares. Hence, the present OA is liable to be dismissed;

(iii) that it is the case of the Applicant Bank that the assets of the Defendants no. 1 to 3 are sufficient to clear the alleged debt of the Applicant Bank as pleaded in Para 5.17, 5.18 and 5.19 of the instant OA. It is stated in the WS that the impleadment of Ligare Aviation Ltd., sale of the hypothecated asset (being the aircraft) would be sufficient to clear the alleged debt of the Applicant Bank

(iv) that the alleged outstanding as mentioned in the purported Statement of Account for a period ending on 20.02.2018 is Rs. 151,78,32,083/-, however, the OA has been filed for a sum of Rs. 171,56,43,672/-. Further more, the Statement of Account on which the Applicant Bank has placed reliance is false and fabricated and the same is not supported with a proper certificate in terms of the Bankers Books Evidence Act, 1891 and the same is not as per law as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of *Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra (2002) 1 SCC 367*. Further more, the rate of interest charged by the applicant bank is exorbitant, harsh and same was never agreed between the parties;

(v) that this OA has not been filed within the period of limitation; 3.5 So far as, defendant no. 5 is concerned, it has also filed its separate WS through Mr. Keepak Kumar Jena, Authorized 

Representative of Defendant no. 5, wherein it is stated that the answering Defendant no. 5 is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act which was initially registered as "Vidyut Travel Services Limited" on 23.09.1996 with the Registrar of Companies, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh and Chandigarh and the name of the Company was later on changed to M/s Ram Ran Air Services Limited on 24.08.2005 and thereafter on 24.02.2009, it was again changed to Religare Aviation Limited. Further on 14.08.2013, the name of the Company was changed to Ligare Aviation Limited.

It is mainly contended in the WS that the Applicant had initially filed the captioned OA inter alia for issuance of Recovery Certificate from this Tribunal against Defendants no. 1 to 4 and enforcement of Deeds of guarantees issued by Defendants no. 1 to 3. At the outset, it is stated in the WS that the answering Defendant has nothing to do with the alleged Debt as claimed in the OA, hence, this OA is liable to be dismissed.

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

3.6 In the WS, Defendant no. 5 has raised following main objections:-

- (i) That this OA has not been filed by the duly constituted attorney of the Applicant Bank;

- (ii) That the Applicant has already taken recourse to the shares of FHHPL pledged in its favour but the details of same have not been disclosed in the OA, deliberately and in a malfide manner. Resultantly, the outstanding amount claimed by the Applicant in the present OA is exaggerated and without any substance. The Applicant has not made any adjustments towards the value of the said shares that has been made by the Applicant. This factum is clear from the bare perusal of the statement of account filed with the OA which is incomplete and wrong. Further more, the Statement of Account pertains to the Borrower and doesn't pertain to the answering Defendant;

- (iii) That this Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction over the present dispute in OA qua the answering Defendant;

- (iv) That this OA is not within the limitation period as prescribed under Section 24 of RDB Act;

- (v) That the Aircraft belonging to the answering Defendant cannot be attached without going into the merits of the case and for any act or omission on the part of the other Defendants.

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

4. To prove its case, the Applicant Bank leads its evidence by filling the affidavit of Mohammad Aqib, Vice President, of applicant bank.

4.1 Mohammad Aqib, officer of the Applicant Bank has placed reliance upon the documents filed by the Applicant Banks which includes :-

- (i) Power of Attorney dated 18.05.2012 authorizing Mr. Mohammed Aqib (Deputy Vice President of Axis Bank Limited) to depose on oath (Ex. AW/1);

- (ii) Amendment Application with Annexures (Ex. AW/2);

- (iii) Facility Agreement 1 dated 19.05.2017 entered between Defendant no. 4 and Applicant (Ex. A/3);

- (iv) Facility Agreement 2 dated 19.05.2017 entered between Defendant no. 4 and Applicant (Ex. A/4);

- (v) Corporate Guarantee dated 19.05.2017 issued by the Defendant no. 3 to the Applicant as security for Facility Agreement 1 (Ex. A/5);

- (vi) Corporate Guarantee dated 19.05.2017 issued by the Defendant no. 3 to the Applicant as security for Facility Agreement 2 (Ex. A/6);

- (vii) Personal Guarantee dated 19.05.2017 issued by the Defendants no. 1 & 2 to the Applicant as security for Facility Agreement 1 (Ex. A/7);

- (viii) Personal Guarantee dated 19.05.2017 issued by the Defendants no. 1 & 2 to the Applicant as security for Facility Agreement 2 (Ex. A/8);

- (ix) Deed of Hypothecation dated 16.10.2017 entered into between Ligare Aviation Ltd. and the Applicant and other supporting documents executed for the purpose of providing the Applicant security for both the Facility Agreements (Ex. AW/9);

- (x) Recall Notice dated 29.08.2017 issued by the Applicant Bank to the Defendant no. 4 pursuant to breach of each of the Facility Agreements committed by Defendant no. 4 (Ex. AW/10);

- (xi) Sanction Letter dated 19.05.2017 executed between Defendant no. 4 and Applicant (Ex. AW/11);

- (xii) Copy of Hon'ble Delhi High Court's Order dated 04.11.2016 in terms of which the Defendants were directed to disclose the value of their unencumbered assets (Ex. AW/12);

- (xiii) Copy of Hon'ble Delhi High Court's Order dated 28.11.2016 in terms of which the Defendants were directed to disclose the value of their unencumbered assets (Ex. AW/13);

- (xiv) Copy of Hon'ble Delhi High Court's Order dated 06.12.2016 in terms of which the Defendants were directed to disclose the value of their unencumbered assets (Ex. AW/14);

- (xv) Copy of Hon'ble Delhi High Court's Order dated 06.03.2017 in terms of which the Defendants were directed to disclose the value of their unencumbered assets (Ex. AW/15);

- (xvi) Notice dated 09.02.2018 issued by the Applicant to the Defendants no. 1, 2 & 3 in order to invoke the Personal Guarantees and Corporate Guarantees pursuance to breach of each the Facility Agreements committed by Defendant no. 4 (Ex. AW/16);

- (xvii) Copy of the newspaper article 29.01.2018 which reports that Defendants no. 1 & 2 have been accused of diversion and siphoning off the funds and digression of assets to the tune of USD 300 Million by a New York based investor (Ex. AW/17);

- (xviii) Copy of the newspaper article 10.02.2018 which reports that SEBI has also issued notice and is presently undertaking an investigation in the affairs of entities owned and operated by Defendants no. 1 & 2 (Ex. AW/18);

- (xix) Copy of the newspaper article 09.02.2018 which reports that Defendants no. 1 & 2 have resigned from the board of FHL (Ex. AW/19); 

- (xx) Copy of the newspaper article 13.02.2018 which reports that Defendants no. 1 & 2 have begun disposing off their properties (Ex. AW/20);

- (xxi) Certified Statement of Account and documents from the Applicant Bank's core banking system along with certificate under Section 2A of the Banker's Books Evidence Act, 1891 in relation to facility Agreement 2 (Ex. AW/21);

- (xxii) Copy of the certificates dated 16.11.2016 issued by Harish Gambhir & Company, Chartered Accountant certifying the net worth of the Defendants no. 1 & 2 (Ex. AW/22).

It is also pertinent to note here that one application being IA No. 476/2024 was filed by the applicant bank for seeking permission to lead secondary evidence with regard to some more documents and filed Additional Affidavit of Evidence in Chief to lead secondary evidence. The said IA was allowed vide order dated 28.08.2024 of this Tribunal. Accordingly, Mr. Mohammaed Aqib, authorized officer of applicant filed additional evidence way of his affidavit and placed reliance upon the following documents:-

- (xxiii) Swift messages dated 25.04.2018 and 26.04.2018 which records the payment of the SBLC by the Applicant Bank to the Beneficiary, under the Facility Agreement 1 (Ex. AW/23);

- (xxiv) Letter dated 04.05.2018 issued by the Applicant Bank to the HDFC Bank (which was the authorized Dealer Bank for the transaction) which confirms the payment of SBLC by the Applicant Bank to the Beneficiary (Ex. AW/24);

- (xxv) Relevant extracts of the consolidated financial statement of Defendant no. 4 / Borrower, for the financial year 2017-18 wherein Defendant no. 4 has admitted that the SBLC under Facility Agreement 1 was invoked on 26.04.2018 (Ex. AW/25);

- (xxvi) Standalone financial statement of Defendant no. 4 / Borrower for the financial year 2017-18 admitting that the SBLC under Facility Agreement 1 was invoked on 26.04.2018 (Ex. AW/26);

- (xxvii) Statement of Account of Defendant no. 4 qua Facility Agreement 1 for the periods from 06.04.2018 to 31.03.2019 and from 01.04.2019 to 05.12.2019 (Ex. AW/27);

- (xxviii) Comprehensive chart setting out the breakup of the outstanding amount under Facility Agreement 1 (Ex. AW/28);

- (xxix) Comprehensive chart setting out the breakup of the outstanding amount under Facility Agreement 2 (Ex. AW/29);

- (xxx) Certificate Under Section 2-A of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 accompanied with the documents exhibited as Ex. AW/23, AW/27 & AW/28 (Ex. AW/30);

- (xxxi) Certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 accompanied with the documents exhibited as Ex. AW/25 & AW/26 (Ex. AW/31).

5. So far as, Evidence of defendants no. 1 to 5 is concerned, only Defendant no. 1 / Malvinder Mohan Singh chose to file Evidence by way of his Affidavit and relied upon the following documents:-

- (i) copy of the details of the shares of REL and FHL (DW-1/1);

- (ii) copy of complete chart of the shares aggregating to 1.25 times of the amount drawn under the Facility (DW-1/2);

- (iii) copy of the complete chart of the Shares of REL, FHL – 34164000 no. of shares (DW-1/2).

However, rest of the defendants i.e. defendants no. 2 to 4 did not chose to file their respective evidence in support of their respective WS(s).

5.1 It is also matter of record that after filing Amended OA by the Applicant Bank, vide Order dated 06.01.2022 of the Tribunal, Defendants were given four week's time to file the WS to the Amended OA and it was clarified in the said order that *no further extension to file the WS would be entertained on any ground whatsoever.* However, all the defendants failed to file any fresh WS to the Amended OA till date.

6. In the present matter, written submissions have also been filed by the Applicant Bank as well as Defendant no. [REDACTED]

7. It is pertinent to note here that Ld. counsel for applicant bank informed this Tribunal that defendants no. 4 & 5 are before Ld. NCLT, Delhi and filed the relevant orders passed by Ld. NCLT.

In the light of above, since CIRP proceedings qua defendants no. 4 & 5 are pending before Ld. NCLT, Delhi, hence, no order qua defendants no. 2, 4 & 5 can be passed against said defendant at this stage.

However, it is directed that applicant bank shall be at liberty to revive the OA qua defendants no. 4 & 5 in case NCLT proceedings are quashed / withdrawn in future, in accordance with law.

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

8. It is also matter of record that during the pendency of this OA, Applicant Bank has filed an additional Affidavit of Sh. Rohit Sood, Assistant Vice-President wherein it is stated that *the respondent no. 2 / Mr. Shivinder Mohan Singh has initiated personal insolvency proceedings before Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi under Section 94 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) bearing Company Petition (IB) 235 of 2025. The Hon'ble NCLT has taken cognizance of the application, and the matter is currently pending.....* Applicant Bank has also placed on record the copies of orders passed by NCLT, Delhi.

In the light of above, since personal insolvency proceedings have been commenced qua defendant no. 2 before Ld. NCLT, Delhi, hence, no order qua defendant no. 2 can be passed against said defendant at this stage.

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

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

9. Since, defendants no. 2 and defendants no. 4 & 5 are before Ld. NCLT, Delhi, hence, there is no need to deal with the objections of defendant no. 2 taken in their common WS filed by defendants no. 1 & 2 as well as objections taken by defendants no.4 & 5 in their respective WS(s).

10. Now I would like to deal with the defence taken by defendants no. 1 and defendant no. 3 in subsequent paras. :-

(i) Defendants no. 1 & 3 have raised an objection in their respective WS(s) that the person who has filed the OA has not been authorized by the Bank.

Record reveals that this OA was originally filed by Axis Bank through its authorized officer Mr. Manoj Jain. Thereafter, amendment application i.e. IA No. 99/2020 filed by the applicant bank was allowed vide order dated 12.01.2021 and the amended OA was filed through Sh. Shailendra Kumar, Deputy Vice President of applicant bank. Subsequently, one application i.e. IA No. 1249/2022 was filed by the applicant bank for seeking substitution of its AR. The applicant bank has already filed power of attorney dated 18.05.2012 executed by applicant bank in favour of its authorized officer (Ex. AW/1). Hence, present objection of Defendant does not hold any water and same stands dismissed accordingly.

- (ii) Next objection raised by these defendants is that there has been no proper verification and affidavit in support of the OA.

Record reveals that Defendants no. 1 & 3 have not filed any evidence in support of their contention, hence, the present objection of Defendants no. 1 to 3, being devoid of any merit, stands rejected accordingly.

- (iii) Defendants no. 1 & 3 have also raised an objection that complete set of documents not filed on record.

I do not find any merit in the contention of Ld. counsels for Defendants no. 1 & 3 since Applicant bank has duly filed all the relevant documents in respect of the borrowed facility amount and those relating to the default and consequent issuance of recall notice as well as 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 Defendants no. 1 & 3 is liable to be rejected and same stands rejected accordingly.

- (iv) Next objection raised by Defendants no. 1 & 3 is that there is concealment of material and relevant facts-particulars and status of securities furnished against the Credit Facility not disclosed.

I do not find merit in this contention of defendants no. 1 & 3 as the applicant bank has duly filed the documents relating to sanction of facility, default done by the borrower and the status of securities as well. Hence, this objection of defendants stands rejected.

- (v) Defendants no. 1 & 3 have also raised an objection that the Statement of Accounts placed on record and supplied is factually incorrect as well as in non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Bankers Book Evidence Act, 1891.

I have gone through the statement of account(s) filed by the applicant along with Certificate issued u/s 2A of Bankers Books Evidence Act (Ex. AW21 & AW/27 to AW/31) and there is no infirmity in the said documents. Even otherwise, defendants have failed to file any WS to the amended OA nor they have filed their own statement of accounts. Hence, this plea of Defendants no. 1 & 3 also does not hold any water and same stands rejected accordingly.

- (vi) Defendants no. 1 & 3 have also raised an objection that in complete defiance of sub-clause 2 of Rule (9) of the DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993, the Applicant Bank has not filed the documents relied upon by it which are required to be filed neatly in double space on one side and duly attested by a senior official of the Applicant, and thereupon numbered accordingly. However, the Applicant Bank has completely disregarded the said rule and has failed to follow the same.

I have gone through the record of this OA file and do not find any infirmity in the OA (filed initially as well as after amendment of OA) filed by the applicant bank. Hence, this plea of defendants no. 1 & 3 stands rejected accordingly.

- (vii) Defendants no. 1 & 3 have also taken a plea that the amount claimed in the OA is not a 'debt' within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the RDB Act.

Since Defendant no. 1 & 3 have been impleaded in this OA as personal and corporate guarantor to the Facility no. 1 & 2 granted in favour of Borrower Company / defendant no. 4 herein and the documents executed by these defendants have already been placed on record by the applicant bank. Hence, this Tribunal is of the view that this plea of defendants no. 1 & 3, being devoid of any merit, stands rejected.

- (viii) Next objection raised by defendants no. 1 & 3 is that the corresponding prayers made by the Applicant Bank against the defendants before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi qua identical cause of action and have placed reliance upon the order dated 14.05.2018 passed by Hon'ble High Court in IA No. 6681/2018 filed in Execution Petition no. OMP (EFA)(Comm)6/2016 titled as *Daiichi Sankyo*


*Company Limited Vs. Malvinder Mohan Singh & Ors.*

All the points with regard to liability of Defendants no. 1 & 3, being Guarantor(s), have already been discussed in above paras. Accordingly, this objection of Defendant also stands rejected.

- (ix) Defendants no. 1 & 3 also raised an objection that the alleged Deed of Guarantee filed on record is inadequately stamped and as such has no sanctity in the eyes of law.

I have gone through the alleged Deed(s) of Guarantee executed by defendants no. 1 & 3 and do not find any illegality in the same. Even otherwise, on this ground, Defendants herein, being personal and corporate guarantor to the Borrower, cannot be absolved from his liability. Hence, this objection of Defendants no. 1 & 3 also stands rejected.

11. 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 Bank is entitled to recover the entire amount, as claimed in the OA from the defendants no. 1 & 3, along with pendentelite interest @10% (amount due under Facility Agreement 2) and @12% p.a. (amount due under Facility Agreement 1) and costs of this OA.

12. In this OA, applicant has prayed to issue recovery certificate against defendants no. 1 to 5 wherein defendants no. 4 is the Principal Borrower and Defendants no. 1 & 2 are personal guarantors whereas defendant no. 3 is the corporate guarantor. So far as, defendant no. 5 is concerned, it has been impleaded in this OA on the basis of Deed of Hypothecation dated 16.10.2017 executed by defendant no. 5 in favour of applicant bank for securing the dues of the borrower company.

Since, defendants no. 2, 4 & 5 are before Ld. NCLT, Delhi hence, no order qua defendants no. 2, 4 & 5 can be passed against said defendants at this stage.

However, it is directed that applicant bank shall be at liberty to revive the OA qua defendants no. 2, 4 & 5 in case NCLT proceedings are quashed / withdrawn in future, in accordance with law.

It is directed that in case Applicant Bank receive any amount from the CIRP / personal insolvency proceedings pending before Ld. NCLT, Delhi they shall give due adjustment of the same in the recovery proceedings.

13. Consequently, TA No. 308/2022 is liable to be allowed in favour of the Applicant Bank and against defendants no. 1 & 3, as they are liable to pay the dues of the Applicant Bank along with costs and pendentelite & future interest @10% (amount due under Facility Agreement 2) from the date of filing of the OA and @12% p.a. (amount due 

under Facility Agreement 1) from 01.01.2020 till its actual realization in full.

ORDER

- (i) TA No. 308/2022 stands allowed in favour of applicant bank and defendants no. 1 & 3 who are jointly and severally liable to pay the amounts due to the Applicant Bank (**as per amended OA**). Now, defendants no. 1 & 3 are directed to pay to the Applicant Bank the following amounts within 30-days :-

- (a) a sum of Rs. 73,11,52,606.37 (Rupees Seventy Three Crore Eleven Lakh Fifty Two Thousand Six Hundred Six and Paise Thirty Seven only) for default in relation to repayment obligations under Facility Agreement 2 along with pendentelite and future interest @10% p.a. from the date of filing of the OA till its actual realization in full;

- (b) a sum of Rs. 131,13,27,023.38 (Rupees One Thirty One Crore Thirteen Lakh Twnty Seven Thousand Twenty Three and Paise Thirty Eight only) for default in relation to repayment obligations under Facility Agreement 1 along with pendentelite and future interest @12% p.a. from 01.01.2020 till its realization in full along with costs of this OA failing which, the aforesaid amount(s) shall be recovered from the sale of secured assets i.e. mortgaged properties, hypothecated assets, pledged shares etc. belonging to defendants no. 1 & 3.

In case of shortfall, same shall be recovered from the sale movable and immovable assets of the defendants no. 1 & 3.

- (ii) Since, defendants no. 2, 4 & 5 are before Ld. NCLT, Delhi, as discussed above, hence, no order qua defendants no. 2, 4 & 5 can be passed against said defendants at this stage.

However, it is directed that applicant bank shall be at liberty to revive the OA qua defendants no. 2, 4 & 5 in case NCLT proceedings are quashed / withdrawn in future, in accordance with law.

It is directed that in case Applicant Bank receive any amount from the CIRP / personal insolvency proceedings pending before Ld. NCLT, Delhi they shall give due adjustment of the same in the recovery proceedings.

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

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

TA-308/2022

- (v) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer-II, DRT-III, Delhi on 18.02.2026.

- (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.

15.12.2025

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

(Pronounced in open court) Dated: 15.12.2025

This image shows a blank page with a light beige or cream-colored background. There are faint, vertical lines running down the page, which appear to be scanning artifacts or perhaps the edges of the paper. A few small, dark specks are scattered across the surface, likely due to dust or imperfections in the paper or the scanning process. No text, images, or other markings are present.