Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
BANK OF INDIA vs M/S BHARAT WELDING AND ENGINEERING WORKS on 18 June 2026
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH
BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER
TA No: 223 of 2024
Date of Institution: 17.03.2015
Date of Decision: 18.06.2026
Bank of India at Veer Marg, Jammu.
……..Applicant
Vs.
1. M/s Bharat Welding and Engineering Works, Village Puro Bhana, R.S. Pura, Jammu.
2. Sh. Janak Raj s/o Milkhi Ram r/o Village Puro Bhana, R.S.
Pura, Jammu.
……….Defendants
Advocates
Sh. Vipul Dharmani proxy counsel for Sh. R.V. Mehra, Counsel for the applicant bank.
Defendants ex parte.
TA for the Recovery of ₹43,52,569.36p with interest @12.60% per annum with monthly rests from 17.03.2015.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
1. On 17.03.2015, Bank of India filed the suit for the recovery of ₹43,52,569.36p with interest against M/s Bharat Welding and Engineering Works and another (defendants) in the Court of Ld. District Judge, Jammu. However, vide order dated 23.05.2023, this suit was transferred by the Court of Additional District Judge, (Bank Cases), Srinagar to DRT-I, Chandigarh.
2. Defendant no.1 is a proprietorship firm of Defendant no.2 and engaged in the business of Work of Steel Fabrication. Bank’s case is that on 07.01.2013, it had granted a loan of ₹30.00Lacs in the form of C.C. Limit and ₹10.00Lacs in the form of Term Loan to the defendants for business purpose. To secure the loan, Defendants had hypothecated assets (fully detailed in Hypothecation cum Loan Agreement Form IFD-
X). The loans were chargeable to different rates of interest. On 28.02.2015, a sum of ₹43,52,569.36p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, the suit.
3. The Defendants filed a written statement before the Court of Ld. District Judge wherein they have alleged that the suit has not been filed as per the provisions of CPC; the suit has been instituted by unauthorized person; the loan documents were not executed by the bank as the defendants were made to sign on blank documents; they have charged interest after the declaration of N.P.A.; the statement of accounts is false. No proper court fee has been attached. 3A. After receiving the file by transfer from Jammu, this Tribunal also sent summonses to the defendants by registered post on 30.01.2025 which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance and vide order dated 10.03.2026, they were proceeded ex parte.
4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Karam Chand, Authorised Officer, along with the original loan and security documents.
5. I have perused the evidence on the record. I am of the considered view that the Bank has proved its case that it had advanced total loan of ₹40.00Lacs and on 28.02.2015, a sum of ₹43,52,569.36p was due.
6. Accordingly, the case of the bank for the recovery of ₹43,52,569.36p (Rupees Forty Three Lacs Fifty Two Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Nine and Thirty Six Paise Only) with interest @12.60% per annum with monthly rests from 17.03.2015, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of all the defendants would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants.
7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.
8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.
9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 20.07.2026.
10. A Copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to the Recovery Officer as well as the parties.
Pronounced in the open court.
(A S Narang) Dated: 18.06.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh