INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK vs SRI SHANTANU CHANDA on 6 January 2026

J U D G M E N T

1. 1. This is an application under section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, filed by the applicant bank against the sole defendant seeking issuance of Certificate of Recovery for realization of a sum of Rs. 1,07,17,414.81 (Rupees One Crore Seven Lacs Seventeen Thousands Four Hundred Fourteen And Paise Eighty One) only with interest calculated upto 26.07.2014 and future interest from 27.07.2014 @12.50% p.a. with monthly rests till realization of the entire amount along with injunction restraining the defendant from disposing of and/or alienating and/or encumbering the personal charged and uncharged assets and also costs.

2. 2. The facts in brief, giving rise to the present application as pleaded are that considering the application of the defendant, the Applicant Bank sanctioned the Term Loan under CGTMSE Scheme to the tune of Rs.99.45 lacs, vide Credit Sanction Advise dated 29.06.2012. The defendant on 29.06.2012 executed Demand Promissory Note, Deed of Hypothecation, Supplementary Deed of Hypothecation, Letter of Undertaking, Consent-Cum- Authorization Letter. The defendant duly availed and enjoyed the said term loan limit and acquired and purchased the said 4 Nos. of Trippe Trucks Model 2518. After availing the loan, the defendant failed to repay the dues of the said loan amount and as such the account was classified as N.P.A. The bank issued letters to the defendant with (Contd...)

06.01.2026

Siliguri a request to regularize the loan account but inspite of the said notices the defendant failed to repay the loan amount. The applicant bank issued a Notice dated 22.05.2014 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 but the defendant did not comply with the said notice. After giving credits for all sums of moneys paid by and/or realized on behalf of the defendant a sum of Rs. 1,07,17,414.81p (Rupees One Crore Seven Lacs Seventeen Thousands Four Hundred Fourteen And Paise Eighty One) only with interest calculated upto 26.07.2014 was due against the defendant in respect of the term loan account No. 045803271200010.

1. 3. This case was initially filed before the DRT-2, Kolkata and after filing of the instant case the defendant appeared through his counsel and filed his written statement-cum-counter claim before the DRT-II, Kolkata. After transfer of the case to this Tribunal Ltd. Counsel for the defendant appeared at the initial stage of the proceedings, but on 20.09.2021 the counsel for the defendant withdrew his vakalatnama.

2. 3. In the written statement-cum-counter claim it has been pleaded by the defendant that the instant application is not maintainable in law and fact and the instant application is barred by the principle of law of limitation as well as barred by the principle of estoppels, waiver and acquiescence bad for non-joinder of necessary and proper parties. The plea of the defendant is that they have never availed any credit facility by way of Term Loan under CGTMSE Scheme to the limit of Rs. 99.45 lakhs. It has been pleaded by the defendant that the defendant intending to purchase 4 four Nos. of AMW Trippe Trucks visited the dealer/showroom/supplier/re-seller of AMW Trippe Trucks viz ; Blue Sharks Auto Works Private Limited where one Sri Sumit Das introduced himself to the defendant as the owner of above said showroom of AMW Trippe Trucks and assured the defendant that he could arrange loan facility for the defendant for purchasing 4 AMW vehicles and believing the version of said Sumit Kumar Das the defendant put his signature on those documents as advised by said Sumit Kumar Das and after few days the defendant deposited a sum of Rs. 17,55,000/- as Booking/Advance money and also deposited money in the cash counter of Blue Shark Autoworks Pvt. Ltd at regular intervals as per the advice of said Sumit Kumar Das. According to the defendant he has deposited a sum of Rs. 46,20,000/- in the cash counter of Blue Shark Autoworks Pvt. Ltd. towards the payment of advance installments of the loan facility which was (Contd...)

26.7.2026

Siliguri supposed to be arranged in favour of the answering defendant. That the said Sumit Kumar Das then delivered to the answering defendant one number of AMW Trippe Truck of Make/Description AMW 2518 TP Model, bearing Registration No. WB 73 C 3009, having Engine No. 11G84013324 and Chassis No. MBYB97600BGA19459 from said Blue Sharks Autoworks Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs. 29,25,000/- but inspite of lapse of one year the defendant was not provided the rest three numbers of AMW Trippe Trucks and as such he informed the said Sumit Kumar Das that he is not interested to purchase the rest 3 numbers of trucks and requested to refund the remaining booking/advance money and installments paid by the defendant but the same was not refunded to the defendant yet. The plea of the defendant is that after receiving the summons from Kolkata DRT-II dated 7^th August, 2014 in case No. OA/921/2024 only he learned that he was granted a loan of Rs. 99,45,000/- by the applicant for purchase of four numbers of 2518 Trippe Trucks and immediately after receipt of the said summons he rushed to the said Sumit Kumar Das and enquired about the forged and fraudulent loan facility and delivery of the said rest 3 numbers of AMW Trippe Trucks but the said Sumit Kumar Das threatened the defendant with dire consequences and also threatened that big mafias are involved with him in this scandalous offence and its root are very deep. Thereafter the defendant immediately rushed to the Chief Manager of Siliguri Branch of the applicant bank and informed him about the forged and fraudulent loan facility and fraudulent delivery of the said rest 3 numbers of AMW Trippe Trucks but the applicant bank remained silent in connection to the entire chain of incidents and therefore, having no other alternative the answering defendant lodged a written complaint before the Officer-in-Charge of Matigara Police Station and Matigara Police Station Case No. 453 dated 13.07.2015 is under investigation corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2434 of 2015 now pending before Ld. ACJM, Siliguri. According to the defendant the said Sumit Kumar Das and employees of said Indian Overseas Bank are involved in the alleged offence and in its conspiracy have dishonestly, fraudulently and by commission of forgery, misappropriation, cheating and criminal breach of trust with malafide and ulterior intention have willfully perpetrated the offence of execution of the forged Loan Agreement and thereafter showing a fraudulent delivery/transfer of the rest 3 numbers of AMW Trippe Trucks misappropriated the entire money amounting to Rs.

(Contd...)

08.1.2026

Siliguri

99,45,000/- . The contention of the defendant is that the applicant bank have failed and neglected to make refund of Rs. 33,04,150/- after repeated requests by the answering defendant. As per the defendant he does not come within the purview of the 'Debtor' as per law.

4. The Applicant Bank in support of its case has filed evidence by way of affidavit as affirmed by Sri Ashish Shridhar, the then Chief Manager of the Applicant Bank and also relied upon the following documents:- <table border="1"> <thead> <tr> <th>Sl. No.</th> <th>Name of the documents</th> <th>Exhibit No.</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>1.</td> <td>Loan application and Interview cum appraisal dated 28.08.2012</td> <td>1</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2.</td> <td>Credit Sanction Advised dated 29.06.2012</td> <td>2</td> </tr> <tr> <td>3.</td> <td>Demand Promissory Note of Rs.99,45,000/- dated 29.06.2012</td> <td>3</td> </tr> <tr> <td>4.</td> <td>Deed of Hypothecation dated 29.06.2012</td> <td>4</td> </tr> <tr> <td>5.</td> <td>Supplementary Deed of Hypothecation dated 29.06.2012</td> <td>5</td> </tr> <tr> <td>6.</td> <td>Letter of undertaking dated 29.06.2012</td> <td>6</td> </tr> <tr> <td>7.</td> <td>Consent- Cum- Authorization Letter dated 29.06.2012</td> <td>7</td> </tr> <tr> <td>8.</td> <td>Certified copy of Registration</td> <td>8</td> </tr> <tr> <td>9.</td> <td>Statement of Term Loan Account</td> <td>9</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

5. The applicant bank has filed rejoinder to the written statement cum counter claim filed by the defendant stating that the written statements are not maintainable in law and in facts and the said written statements are misconceived, motivated and frivolous in nature. Further, the written statement is devoid of any true facts and the same are misleading. The applicant bank has reiterated the statements made in their original application.

6. Ld. Counsel of the applicant bank has been heard but no one appeared on behalf of the defendant during the course of hearing although Written Statement - cum- Counter Claim and some documents have been filed by him.

7. It is a case of CGTMSE loan where Rs.99,45,000/- was sanctioned as Term Loan for purchase of 4 Nos. of AMW Trucks, Model -2518 and margin money of Rs. 17,55,000/- has been paid by the defendant/borrower. The applicant bank has proved the Loan Application Form (Ext-'1') and Credit Sanction Advise document dated 29.06.2010 (Ext-'2'). Demand Promissory Note and Deed of Hypothecation have also been proved (Ext-'3' & '4'). Out of four vehicles three vehicles were registered at Nagaland bearing Registration No. NL-01K-6808, NL-01K-6809 and NL-01K-6811 (Ext-'8') and one vehicle (Contd...)

28/7/2012

Siliguri bearing Registration No.WB-73C-3009 was registered at Siliguri, West Bengal. Post Inspection Report (Ext.-10) and Tax Invoices of the vehicles (Ext.-'11', '11/1', '11/2' & '11/3') have been produced by the applicant bank upon the direction of this Tribunal.

8. Defendant's case is that he never availed under the scheme of CGTMSE the limit of Rs. 90,45,000/-. His case is that he intended to purchase 4 Nos. of AMW Trippe Trucks and thus he visited the dealer/showroom of the Blue Sharks Autoworks Pvt. Ltd. and one Sumit Kumar Das assured to provide the Trucks by arranging financial assistance from Indian Overseas Bank and then introduced with the Manager of the Bank who got signature over various documents and the defendant was asked to deposit Rs. 17,55,000/- as Advance/Booking money and later on also he made cash deposits with the Blue Sharks Autoworks Pvt. Ltd. and his total deposit is Rs. 46,20,400/- but instead of four trucks only one AMW Trippe Truck 2518 Make was delivered bearing Registration No. WB 73 C 3009, Engine No. 11G84013324, Chassis No. MBYB97600BGA19459 by the said Blue Sharks Autoworks Pvt. Ltd.

9. The applicant bank in support of its case has proved the Certificate of Registration of four vehicles (Ext.-'8' series'). The registration No. of all four vehicles including Chassis No. and Engine No. and other details is described here-in-below :- <table border="1"> <thead> <tr> <th>Sl.No.</th> <th>Registration No.</th> <th>Date</th> <th>Chassis No.</th> <th>Engine No.</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>1.</td> <td>NL 01 K 6808</td> <td></td> <td>MBYB10110CJA26968</td> <td>21J84072747</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2.</td> <td>NL 01 K 6809</td> <td></td> <td>MBYB10110CJA27048</td> <td>21J84074061</td> </tr> <tr> <td>3.</td> <td>NL 01 K 6811</td> <td></td> <td>MBYB24900CJA26971</td> <td>21J84072745</td> </tr> <tr> <td>4.</td> <td>WB 73 C 3009</td> <td></td> <td>MBYB97600BGA19459</td> <td>11G84013324</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

10. All the above four vehicles are AMW Trippe Trucks and the owner is the defendant Shantanu Chanda but except of Truck of Sl.No.4 i.e. WB 73 C 3009 the defendant has denied the delivery of other three Trucks.

11. From perusal of the record it transpires that vide order dated 18.01.2017 this Tribunal had appointed Ld. Receiver Sri. Kamal Chakraborty with the following directions :-

1. (1) I hereby appoint Shri Kamal Chakraborty, Advocate, (Mobile No. 9830037716) as Learned Receiver of this Tribunal with the direction and authority to visit the Registration authority of four vehicles and ascertain present status of vehicles as described in Schedule X of the OA and whether the said vehicles still stand in the name of the Defendant.

2. (2) Learned Receiver is authorised and directed to ascertain the location of the vehicles. In this regard assistance of Applicant Bank may be sought for ascertaining the location of the vehicles.

(Contd...)

18.01.2017

Debt Recovery Tribunal Siliguri

(3) Defendant is directed to cooperate with the Learned Receiver in ascertaining the location of the vehicles in compliance of this order.

(4) Learned Receiver is also authorized to ascertain and verify the genuineness of the Registration of the Certificates, verify the Engine numbers and chassis numbers of the vehicles mentioned therein from the records of the vehicle dealer. The original Bill/Invoice of the vehicle should be examined, if necessary.

(5) After ascertaining the location of these vehicles, Learned Receiver is directed and authorized to take possession of the vehicles and keep them in safe custody.

(6) The Officer in Charge of local police station is directed to provide necessary assistance and help to the Learned Receiver for taking possession of the vehicles. Copy of this order be given/sent to Officer in Charge of local Police station and the Supdt. of Police of concerned District, where the vehicles are located and physical possession thereof is likely to be taken by Learned Receiver, for compliance of this order.

(7) Applicant Bank is directed to provide all necessary assistance and cooperation to Learned Receiver in ascertaining the genuineness of Registration Certificates, location of vehicles, and if necessary for engagement of reputed detective agency and for safe custody of the vehicles. The officers of Applicant Bank may also be deputed to accompany the Learned Receiver to visit the Registration Authority in Nagaland and West Bengal and other places, as necessary.

(8) I hereby fix remuneration of Learned Receiver at Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) excluding travelling and other misc. expenses to be borne by the Applicant Bank.

(9) Learned Receiver is directed to file his report within thirty days."

Ld. Receiver has filed his interim report and after visit of Kohima - Nagaland RTO Office Registration No. and other information of the vehicles were found correct and information was certified by the RTO.

13. Contrary to the above facts, the defendant had filed one petition on dated 18.01.2017 wherein it has been submitted that from the National Register E-Service at the e-portal of Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, Engine No. 21J84072747, Chassis No. MBYB10110CJA26968 actually bears the Registration No. PB23M3437 and copy of the Registration Certificate has also been annexed (Ext. 'A') from which it transpires that the owner of the vehicle is Randeep Singh and date of Registration is 28.03.2013 and the Registering Authority is DTO Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab. Likewise Engine No. 21J84072745, Chassis No. MBYB24900CJA26971 actually bears Registration No. PB10DZ5697 and copy of the Registration Certificate is annexed (Ext. 'A/1') from which it transpires that the owner of the vehicle is Jaspreet Singh, date of Registration is 15.05.2013 and Registering Authority is DTO Ludhiana, Punjab.

(Contd...)

hps 08.01.2017

Siliguri

14. Considering rival versions of the parties and also with an intension to clear some doubt about the registration of all three vehicles in RTO office, Kohima – Nagaland, this Tribunal passed an order on 12.03.2025 and asked the applicant bank to produce some documents. The said order runs as under :- "Item No. 30

12.03.2025

Present:

Counsel for the applicant : Mr. P. Joarder Counsel for the defendant : None The case is listed today for passing final order but from perusal of the record it transpires that for proper and final adjudication of the matter following documents are required which have not been filed by the applicant bank and they are:-

1. 1. Post Sanction verification of loan

2. 2. Details of the account in which loan amount has been credited from the loan account of the defendant,

3. 3. By whom margin money was paid and whether it was directly paid to the dealers of the vehicles or margin money was deposited in the loan account of the defendant and if margin money was deposited through demand draft then who got it prepared – entire details:

4. 4. Copy of the delivery order issued to the dealer:

5. 5. From whose account EMI was paid on various dates:

6. 6. What step was taken by the applicant bank to take possession of the hypothecated vehicles and

7. 7. Document regarding confirmation of dealer that the vehicles were delivered to the defendant In this view of the matter, direction is given to the applicant bank to file the original Post Sanction verification and Confirmation Letter of the dealer regarding delivery of vehicles and other documents mentioned here-in-above positively from two weeks from today.

List this matter on 28.03.2025."

15. After taking several adjournments, lastly the applicant bank filed the following documents :-

1. (a) Photocopy of Post Inspection Report dated 10.10.2012, marked as Ext. –'10'

2. (b) Tax Invoices of alleged Trucks, marked as Ext.-'11' to '11/3'

3. (c) Photocopy of the Registration Certificate of alleged Trucks, marked as Ext.-'12' to '12/3'.

Apart from the above documents, photocopy of statement of S.B. account of Shantanu Chanda has also been filed which is marked as Ext.-'13'.

16. It is pertinent to mention that even not a single document, which were called for by this tribunal has been filed by the applicant bank and the documents which have been filed are not the true copies and they have been filed without any affidavit.

(Contd...)

28/3/2025

Siliguri

17. The documents which were called for by this Tribunal were nothing but the very common documents which must have been available with the bank when the CGTMSE loan was sanctioned for purchase of vehicles. Let the purpose of seeking the documents be explained as under :-

(i) First document which was called for by the Tribunal is the post sanction verification of loan wherein the lending institution satisfies itself that the purpose for which loan was sanctioned is complied by the borrower and in case of vehicle loan generally a photograph of the vehicle alongwith the borrower is kept in the record. Although the documents of other case cannot be looked into in any other matter but it is pertinent to mention that in other case of same bank and of same nature (T.O.A. No. 1007/2017 arising out of O.A.546/2015) such Post Sanction Verification has been filed wherein the photo of the borrower with the vehicle has been filed and it has been kept in the record.

18. Under section 119 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 the court may presume existence of certain facts and as per illustration (g) the court may presume that the evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it. Thus law of presumption is against the applicant bank.

19. Out of four trucks three trucks whose delivery has been denied by the defendant have been registered in Kohima - Nagaland. Question arises that why instead of West Bengal or any other neighboring state, they were registered in RTO Office, Kohima (Nagaland)? It is pertinent to mention that if any vehicle is to be registered in other state, Transit Registration No. has to be given and when vehicle is purchased by taking loan from any Bank 'No Objection' has to be given by the concerned Bank but in the instant matter applicant did not disclose that whether any such 'No Objection' was given or not ? All these facts are sufficient to draw an apprehension of connivance in between the loan sanctioning Branch and the local dealer.

20. Credit Guarantee Fund Trust for Micro and Small Enterprises (CGTMSE) Scheme was formulated for the purpose of providing guarantees in respect of credit facilities by the lending institutions to the borrower in Micro & Small Enterprises. As per the guidelines of RBI Banks were mandated to provide the loans to MSMEs without any collateral security but there are certain responsibilities of lending institution under the scheme which runs as under :- (Contd...)

28/1.2026

Siliguri

(i) The lending institution shall evaluate credit applications by using prudent banking judgment and shall use their business discretion/due diligence in selecting commercially viable proposals and conduct the account(s) of the borrowers with normal banking prudence.

(ii) The lending institution shall closely monitor the borrower account.

(iii) The lending institution shall safeguard the primary securities taken from the borrower in respect of the credit facility in good and enforceable condition.

(iv) The lending institution shall ensure that the guarantee claim in respect of the credit facility and borrower is lodged with the Trust in the form and in the manner and within such time as may be specified by the Trust in this behalf and that there shall not be any delay on its part to notify the default in the borrowers account which shall result in the Trust facing higher guarantee claims.

(v) The payment of guarantee claim by the Trust to the lending institution does not in any way take away the responsibility of the lending institution to recover the entire outstanding amount of the credit from the borrower. The lending institution shall exercise all the necessary precautions and maintain its recourse to the borrower for entire amount of credit facility owed by it and initiate such necessary actions for recovery of the outstanding amount, including such action as may be advised by the Trust.

(vi) The lending institution shall comply with such directions as may be issued by the Trust, from time to time, for facilitating recoveries in the guaranteed account, or safeguarding its interest as a guarantor, as the Trust may deem fit and the lending institution shall be bound to comply with such directions.

(vii) The lending institution shall, in respect of any guaranteed account, exercise the same diligence in recovering the dues, and safeguarding the interest of the Trust in all the ways open to it as it might have exercised in the normal course if no guarantee had been furnished by the Trust. The lending institution shall, in particular, refrain from any act of omission or commission, either before or subsequent to invocation of guarantee, which may adversely affect the interest of the Trust as the guarantor. In particular, the lending institution should intimate the Trust while entering into any compromise or arrangement, which may have effect of discharge or waiver of personal guarantee(s) or security. The lending institution shall also ensure either through a stipulation in an agreement with the borrower or otherwise, that it shall not create any charge on the (Contd...)

luc 28/1/2026

Siliguri security held in the account covered by the guarantee for the benefit of any account not covered by the guarantee, with itself or in favour of any other creditor(s) without intimating the Trust. Further the lending institution shall secure for the Trust or its appointed agency, through a stipulation in an agreement with the borrower or otherwise, the right to list the defaulted borrowers' names and particulars on the Website of the Trust.

21. After sanction of the loan by the Branch Manager of the applicant bank, Siliguri Branch, loan documents must have been verified/checked by the higher authorities of the Bank and question arises that why they did not smell the conspiracy and thus higher authorities of the Bank may also be responsible for their negligence in this matter where almost one crore has been defrauded.

22. Case of the defendant is that he has received only one Trippe Truck bearing number WB 73 C 3009, Engine No. 11G84013324, Chassis No. MBYB97600BGA19459. In this view of the matter the defendant is liable to pay atleast the sale price of above Trippe Truck.

23. Four Tax Invoices (Exts-'11', '11/1', '11/2' & '11/3') have been filed by the applicant bank and none of the above four Tax Invoices are for Registration No. WB 73 C 3009, Chassis No. MBYB97600BGA19459, Engine No. 11G84013324.

24. It is pertinent to mention that it is the case of the applicant bank that CGTMSE Loan was sanctioned to the defendant for purchase of Four AMW Trippe Trucks and it has filed Registration Certificate of Four Trucks including the Truck bearing Registration No. WB 73 C 3009 to prove the purchase/delivery of the said four trucks. Four numbers of Tax Invoices (except of Trippe Truck No. WB 73 C 3009) have also been filed but in haste they did not match the Chassis and Engine number. If these Tax Invoices are presumed to be genuine there may be a case of delivery of 5 Trucks in favour of the defendant including the one which has been registered in Siliguri, West Bengal bearing No. WB 73 C 3009, Engine No. 11G84013324, Chassis No. MBYB97600BGA19459. It is also pertinent to mention that in all the four Tax Invoices signature of purchaser is missing and it may not be only a coincidence.

25. The defendant himself has pleaded in his written statement-cum- counter claim that FIR No.435 of 2015 was lodged before the Matigara Police Station for forgery and cheating (Contd...)

6/1/2026

Siliguri but the result of the investigation has not been disclosed. In the considered opinion of the tribunal it appears to be such a scam which requires thorough investigation by any Central Agency because huge money of the Central Government Scheme has been defrauded and misappropriated.

26. The defendant has accepted in his written statement-cum counter claim that he had received one AMW Trippe Truck and thus he is liable to pay an amount equivalent to the sale price of one truck as per the Tax Invoice. The sale price of one truck is Rs. 28,40,000/- as per the alleged Tax Invoices filed by the applicant bank (Ext.'11' to '11/3') and accordingly the defendant is liable to make the payment of Rs. 28,40,000/- to the applicant bank.

27. Further case of the defendant in his written statement-cum-counter claim is that first of all he had deposited Rs. 17,55,000/- and thereafter as per the instruction of Sumit Kumar Das he had deposited money in the cash counter of Blue Sharks Autoworks Pvt. Ltd. and his total deposit is Rs. 46,20,400/- but any proof of such deposit has not been brought before this Tribunal and the settled law is that mere pleading has got no importance in the eye of law without any evidence adduced in support of pleading.

28. However, the applicant bank has filed Savings Bank account statement of the defendant Shantanu Chanda (Ext.-'13') from which it transpires that on 30.06.2012 an amount of Rs. 20,04,200/- was transferred through cdcc from account No. 12938 but it is not clear that who is the account holder of the account No. 12938. It also transpires from the statement of account that Rs. 99,45,000/- has been received on transfer in the said Savings Bank account of the defendant on dated 30.06.2012 from account No. 271200010 which is the loan account of Shantanu Chanda as it transpires from the statement of account filed by the applicant bank. It further transpires from the perusal of the statement of Savings Bank account (Ext.'13') that on the same date i.e 30.06.2012 Rs. 1,17,00,000/- has been debited from the account. What this tribunal wants to portray is that the defendant has not adduced any evidence in support of his counter claim that he has deposited Rs. 46,20,400/- against the delivery of one AMW Trippe Truck whose sale price is Rs. 28,40,000/-. Even on perusal of the statement of account also it is not clear that where from an amount of Rs 20,04,200/- has come in the Savings Bank account and whether account holder of account No. 12930 is the defendant. But if Up 8/11/2028

Siliguri

(Contd...)

during the course of recovery proceedings it is proved by the defendant that Rs. 20,04,200/- was transferred from his Savings Bank account No. 12398 then the same amount may be adjusted in the dues amount.

29. The applicant bank has filed this case against the defendant within three years from the date of sanction of loan and execution of loan documents on 29.06.2012 and as such the claim of the applicant bank is within limitation.

30. Under the facts and circumstances discussed here-in-above in the foregoing paragraphs, the following order is passed ;

ORDER

(i) The Counter Claim No.03.2015 of the defendant is hereby **dismissed**.

(ii) T.A. No. 12/2017 arising out of O.A. No. 921/2014 filed by the applicant bank is **partly allowed** against the sole defendant for the recovery of Rs. 28,40,000/- (Rupees twenty eight lakhs and forty thousand) from the date of filing of the case i.e 27.07 2014 with interest @12.50% per annum with monthly rest till realization of entire balance from the defendant along with cost amount.

(iii) Amount, if any, paid by the defendant in the loan account or amount recovered by the applicant bank, if any, made towards the loan accounts after filing of the O.A be taken into account while arriving at the exact amount of outstanding payable by the defendant.

(iv) The hypothecated Vehicle bearing Registration No. WB 73 C 3009, Chassis No. MBYB97600BGA19459, ENGINE NO. 11G84013324, Make & Model: AMW make 2518 Trippler truck, as mentioned in the Schedule 'X' annexed to the original application, shall remain charged to the applicant bank and the applicant bank shall have paramount charge thereon.

(v) The defendant is debarred from transferring; alienating, encumbering or disposing of the hypothecated vehicle or any other property and assets belonging to the defendant till the aforesaid adjudicated debt amount is recovered from the defendant.

(vi) The defendant is given a time of thirty days from the date of this judgment for repayment of the above decreed debt amount with interest failing which the applicant bank is entitled to recover its dues by sale of the hypothecated vehicle as aforesaid and is also entitled to proceed against the said defendant personally and/or personal properties to recover the dues in accordance with law.

(Contd...)

AWP 28/7/2026

Siliguri

- (vii) Let the certificate of Recovery be drawn up by the Learned Registrar forthwith in terms of judgment for issuance of the same against the defendant in favour of applicant bank under Sub-Section 22 of Section-19 of The Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 and put up the same for signature and issuance.

- (viii) Learned Recovery Officer is directed to realize the dues amount from the defendant as per the recovery certificate in accordance with law.

- (ix) Let this judgment be uploaded on website of the tribunal and the Registry is directed to serve/send copy of this judgment to the parties free of cost.

- (x) Record is consigned to the record room.

This judgment is signed and pronounced in the open Tribunal on 06^th day of January, 2026.

*Rakesh Pati Tiwari* (RAKESH PATI TIWARI) 06/1/2026

**Presiding Officer DRT, Siliguri.**

Siliguri