BANK OF BARODA vs SMT DIVYA SAXENA AND OTHERS on 22 April 2025

1. 1. M/s Shagun Saree, Proprietorship concern having its office at Main Chauraha, Cement Road, Tanakpur, Tehsil Purnagiri (Tanakpur), District Champawat, Uttarakhand through its proprietor Manoj Saxena. PAN: ATEPM0210D

2. 2. Manoj Saxena S/o Sh. Bhikhari Lal Saxena (Proprietor M/s Shagun Saree), R/o Main Chauraha, Cement Road, Tanakpur, Tehsil Purnagiri (Tanakpur), District Champawat, Uttarakhand. PAN: ATEPM0210D

3. 3. Vikas Saxena S/o Sh. Bhikhari Lal Saxena, R/o Main Chauraha, Cement Road, Tanakpur, Tehsil Purnagiri (Tanakpur), District Champawat, Uttarakhand. PAN: CJTPS6768K

4. 4. Deepak Saxena (since deceased) S/o Sh. Bhikhari Lal Saxena through his legal heirs

5. 4(i). Manoj Saxena S/o Sh. Bhikhari Lal Saxena, R/o Main Chauraha, Cement Road, Tanakpur, Tehsil Purnagiri (Tanakpur), District Champawat, Uttarakhand.

6. 4(ii). Vikas Saxena S/o Sh. Bhikhari Lal Saxena, R/o Main Chauraha, Cement Road, Tanakpur, Tehsil Purnagiri (Tanakpur), District Champawat, Uttarakhand.

4(iii).Ms. Sushila alias Sheela D/o Sh. Bhikhari Lal Saxena, R/o Main Chauraha, Cement Road, Tanakpur, Tehsil Purnagiri (Tanakpur), District Champawat, Uttarakhand.

4(iv).Ms. Rajeshwari D/o Sh. Bhikhari Lal Saxena, R/o Main Chauraha, Cement Road, Tanakpur, Tehsil Purnagiri (Tanakpur), District Champawat, Uttarakhand.

4(v).Smt. Durga Chaurasia W/o Sh. Prem Shanker Chaurasia D/o Bhikhari Lal Saxena, R/o Bada Bazar, 36, Mallitaal, Nainital, District Nainital, Uttarakhand..

4(vi).Smt. Urmila Saxena W/o Sh. Manoj Saxena D/o Sh. Bhikhari Lal Saxena R/o Bhuda Mandi, Fatehgarh, District Farukhabad, Uttar Pradesh.

.....**Defendants.**

**O.A. No. 153 of 2021**

Bank of Baroda Vs. M/s Shagun Emporium &Ors.

**Between:**

Bank of Baroda, a body corporate duly constituted under the provisions of the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertaking) Act of 1970 (Act No. V of 1970) having its head Office at Mandvi, Baroda, Gujarat and Corporate Office at Baroda Corporate Centre, C-26, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai- 400051 and one of its branches amongst other places at Banbasa, District Champawat, Uttarakhand and also having Regional Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (ROSARB) at 1, Sankalan, Civil lines, Haldwani, District Nainital, Uttarakhand through its constituted attorney Chief Manager Sh. Arun Singh S/o Sh. Bhagwan Singh.

.....**Applicant Bank.**

**Versus**

1. 1. M/s Shagun Emporium, Proprietorship concern having its office at Main Chauraha, Cement Road, Tanakpur, Tehsil Purnagiri (Tanakpur), District Champawat, Uttarakhand through its Proprietor Shri Vikas Saxena. PAN:CJTPS6768K

2. 2. Vikas Saxena S/o Sh. Bhikhari Lal Saxena R/o Main Chauraha, Cement Road, Tanakpur, Tehsil Purnagiri (Tanakpur), District Champawat, Uttarakhand. PAN: CJTPS6768K

1. 3. Manoj Saxena S/o Sh. Bhikhari Lal Saxena (Prop. M/s Hotel Shagun Tower) R/o Main Chauraha, Cement Road, Tanakpur, Tehsil Purnagiri (Tanakpur), District Champawat, Uttarakhand. PAN:ATEPM0210D

2. 4. Deepak Saxena (since deceased) S/o Sh. Bhikari Lal Saxena through his Legal heirs.

3. 4(i). Manoj Saxena S/o Sh. Bhikari Lal Saxena R/o Main Chauraha, Cement Road, Tanakpur, Tehsil Purnagiri (Tanakpur), District Champawat, Uttarakhand.

4. 4(ii). Vikas Saxena S/o Sh. Bhikari Lal Saxena R/o Main Chauraha, Cement Road, Tanakpur, Tehsil Purnagiri (Tanakpur), District Champawat, Uttarakhand.

5. 4(iii). Ms. Sushila Alias Sheela D/o Sh. Bhikhari Lal Saxena R/o Main Chauraha, Cement Road, Tanakpur, Tehsil Purnagiri (Tanakpur), District Champawat, Uttarakhand.

6. 4(iv). Ms. Rajeshwari D/o Sh. Bhikari Lal Saxena R/o Main Chauraha, Cement Road, Tanakpur, Tehsil Purnagiri (Tanakpur), District Champawat, Uttarakhand.

7. 4(v). Smt. Durga Chaurasia W/o Sh. Prem Shanker Chaurasia D/o Sh. Bhikari Lal Saxena R/o Bada Bazar, 36, Mallitaal, Nainital, District Nainital, Uttarakhand

8. 4(vi). Smt. Urmila Saxena W/o Sh. Manoj Saxena D/o Sh. Bhikari Lal Saxena R/o Bhuda Mandi, Fatehgarh, District Farukhabad, Uttar Pradesh.

.....**Defendants.**

**O.A. No. 154 of 2021**

Bank of Baroda Vs. M/s Hotel Shagun Tower &Ors.

**Between:**

Bank of Baroda, a body corporate duly constituted under the provisions of the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertaking) Act of 1970 (Act No. V of 1970) having its head Office at Mandvi, Baroda, Gujarat and Corporate Office at Baroda Corporate Centre, C-26, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai- 400051 and one of its branches amongst other places at Banbasa, District Champawat, Uttarakhand and also having Regional Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (ROSARB) at 1, Sankalan, Civil lines, Haldwani, District Nainital, Uttarakhand through its constituted attorney Chief Manager Sh. Arun Singh S/o Sh. Bhagwan Singh.

.....**Applicant Bank.**


**Versus**

1. 1. M/s Hotel Shagun Tower, Proprietorship concern having its office at Main Chauraha, Cement Road, Tanakpur, Tehsil Purnagiri (Tanakpur), District Champawat, Uttarakhand through its Proprietor Shri Manoj Saxena. PAN:ATEPM0210D

2. 2. Manoj Saxena S/o Sh. Bhikhari Lal Saxena (Proprietor M/s Hotel Shagun Tower), R/o Main Chauraha, Cement Road, Tanakpur, Tehsil Purnagiri (Tanakpur), District Champawat, Uttarakhand. PAN:ATEPM0210D

3. 3. Vikas Saxena S/o Sh. Bhikhari Lal Saxena, R/o Main Chauraha, Cement Road, Tanakpur, Tehsil Purnagiri (Tanakpur), District Champawat, Uttarakhand. PAN: CJTPS6768K

4. 4. Deepak Saxena (since deceased) S/o Sh. Bhikari Lal Saxena through his Legal heirs.

5. 4(i). Manoj Saxena S/o Sh. Bhikari Lal Saxena R/o Main Chauraha, Cement Road, Tanakpur, Tehsil Purnagiri (Tanakpur), District Champawat, Uttarakhand.

6. 4(ii). Vikas Saxena S/o Sh. Bhikari Lal Saxena R/o Main Chauraha, Cement Road, Tanakpur, Tehsil Purnagiri (Tanakpur), District Champawat, Uttarakhand.

7. 4(iii). Ms. Sushila Alias Sheela D/o Sh. Bhikhari Lal Saxena R/o Main Chauraha, Cement Road, Tanakpur, Tehsil Purnagiri (Tanakpur), District Champawat, Uttarakhand.

8. 4(iv). Ms. Rajeshwari D/o Sh. Bhikari Lal Saxena R/o Main Chauraha, Cement Road, Tanakpur, Tehsil Purnagiri (Tanakpur), District Champawat, Uttarakhand.

9. 4(v). Smt. Durga Chaurasia W/o Sh. Prem Shanker Chaurasia D/o Sh. Bhikari Lal Saxena R/o Bada Bazar, 36, Mallitaal, Nainital, District Nainital, Uttarakhand.

10. 4(vi). Smt. Urmila Saxena W/o Sh. Manoj Saxena D/o Sh. Bhikari Lal Saxena R/o Bhuda Mandi, Fatehgarh, District Farukhabad, Uttar Pradesh.

.....**Defendants.**


**O.A. No. 156 of 2021**

Bank of Baroda Vs. M/s Khushi Sales & Ors.

**Between:**

Bank of Baroda, a body corporate duly constituted under the provision of the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertaking) Act of 1970 (Act No.V of 1970) having its Head Office at Mandvi, Baroda, Gujarat and Corporate office at Baroda Corporate Centre, C-26, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 and one of its branches amongst other places at Banbasa, District Champawat, Uttarakhand and also having Regional Stressed Asset Recovery Branch (ROSARB) at 1, Sankalan, Civil Lines, Haldwani, District Nainital, Uttarakhand through its constituted attorney, Chief Manager Shri Arun Singh S/o Late Shri Bhagwan Singh.

.....**Applicant Bank.**

**Versus**

1. 1. M/s Khushi Sales, Proprietorship Concern of Shri. Deepak Saxena (Since deceased) through its legal heirs, having its office at Cement Road, Raja Ram Chowk Tanakpur Purnagiri (Tanakpur) District Champawat, Uttarakhand. PAN: EMOPS9163L

2. 2. Deepak Saxena (since deceased) S/o Sh. Bhikari Lal Saxena through his Legal heirs. (PAN: EMOPS9163L)

2(i). Manoj Saxena S/o Sh. Bhikari Lal Saxena R/o Main Chauraha, Cement Road, Tanakpur, Tehsil Purnagiri (Tanakpur), District Champawat, Uttarakhand. PAN: ATEPM0210D

2(ii). Vikas Saxena S/o Sh. Bhikari Lal Saxena R/o main Chauraha, Cement Road, Tanakpur, Tehsil Purnagiri (Tanakpur), District Champawat, Uttarakhand. PAN: CJTPS6768K

2(iii). Ms. Sushila Alias Sheela D/o Sh. Bhikari Lal Saxena R/o Main Chauraha, Cement Road, Tanakpur, Tehsil Purnagiri (Tanakpur), District Champawat, Uttarakhand.

2(iv). Ms. Rajeshwari D/o Sh. Bhikari Lal Saxena R/o Main Chauraha, Cement Road, Tanakpur, Tehsil Purnagiri (Tanakpur), District Champawat, Uttarakhand.

- 2(v). Smt. Durga Chaurasia w/o Sh. Prem Shanker Chaurasia D/o Sh. Bhikari Lal Saxena R/o Bada Bazar, 36, Mallitaal, Nainital, District Nainital, Uttarakhand.

- 2(vi). Smt. Urmila Saxena W/o Sh. Manoj Saxena D/o Sh. Bhikari Lal Saxena R/o Bhuda Mandi, Fatehgarh, District Farukhaba, Uttar Pradesh.

- 3. Manoj Saxena S/o Sh. Bhikari Lal Saxena (Prop. M/s Hotel Shagun Tower) R/o Main Chauraha, Cement Road, Tanakpur, Tehsil Purnagiri (Tanakpur), District Champawat, Uttarakhand. PAN:ATEPM0210D

- 4. Vikas Saxena S/o Sh. Bhikari Lal Saxena R/o Main Chauraha, Cement Road, Tanakpur, Tehsil Purnagiri (Tanakpur), District Champawat, Uttarakhand. PAN: CJTPS6768K

.....**Defendants.**

**O.A. No. 404 of 2021**

Bank of Baroda Vs. Deepak Saxena & Ors.

**Between:**

Bank of Baroda, a body corporate duly constituted under the provisions of the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertaking) Act of 1970 (Act No. V of 1970) having its head Office at Mandvi, Baroda, Gujarat and Corporate Office at Baroda Corporate Centre, C-26, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai- 400051 and one of its branches amongst other places at Banbasa, District Champawat, Uttarakhand and also having Regional Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (ROSARB) at 1, Sankalan, Civil Lines, Haldwani, District Nainital, Uttarakhand through its constituted attorney Chief Manager Sh. Arun Singh S/o Sh. Bhagwan Singh.

.....**Applicant Bank.**

**Versus**

- 1. Deepak Saxena (since deceased) S/o Sh. Bhikari Lal Saxena (PAN:EMOPS9163L) through his Legal heirs.

- 1(i). Manoj Saxena S/o Sh. Bhikari Lal Saxena R/o Main Chauraha, Cement Road, Tanakpur, Tehsil Purnagiri (Tanakpur), District Champawat, Uttarakhand. PAN: ATEPM0210D

- 1(ii). Vikas Saxena S/o Sh. Bhikari Lal Saxena R/o Main Chauraha, Cement Road, Tanakpur, Tehsil Purnagiri (Tanakpur), District Champawat, Uttarakhand. PAN: CJTPS6768K

**1(iii).** Ms. Sushila Alias Sheela D/o Sh. Bhikhari Lal Saxena R/o Main Chauraha, Cement Road, Tanakpur, Tehsil Purnagiri (Tanakpur), District Champawat, Uttarakhand.

**1(iv).** Ms. Rajeshwari D/o Sh. Bhikari Lal Saxena R/o Main Chauraha, Cement Road, Tanakpur, Tehsil Purnagiri (Tanakpur), District Champawat, Uttarakhand.

**1(v).** Smt. Durga Chaurasia W/o Sh. Prem Shanker Chaurasia D/o Sh. Bhikari Lal Saxena R/o Bada Bazar, 36, Mallitaal, Nainital, District Nainital, Uttarakhand.

**1(vi).** Smt. Urmila Saxena W/o Sh. Manoj Saxena D/o Sh. Bhikari Lal Saxena R/o Bhuda Mandi, Fatehgarh, District Farukhabad, Uttar Pradesh.

**2.** Manoj Saxena S/o Sh. Bhikhari Lal Saxena R/o Main Chauraha, Cement Road, Tanakpur, Tehsil Purnagiri (Tanakpur), District Champawat, Uttarakhand. PAN:ATEPM0210D

**3.** Vikas Saxena S/o Sh. Bhikhari Lal Saxena, R/o Main Chauraha, Cement Road, Tanakpur, Tehsil Purnagiri (Tanakpur), District Champawat, Uttarakhand. PAN: CJTPS6768K

.....**Defendants.**

**R.A. No. 08 of 2021(O.A. No. 128 of 2020)** Bank of Baroda Vs. Smt. Divya Saxena & Ors.

**Between:**

Bank of Baroda, a body corporate duly constituted under the provision of the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertaking) Act of 1970 (Act No.V of 1970) having its Head Office at Mandvi, Baroda, Gujarat and Corporate office at Baroda Corporate Centre, C-26, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 and one of its branches amongst other places at Banbasa, P.O. Chandni, District Champawat, Uttarakhand and also having Regional Stressed Asset Recovery Branch (ROSARB) at 1, Sankalan, Civil lines, Haldwani, District Nainital, Uttarakhand through its constituted attorney, Chief Manager Shri Arun Singh.

.....**Applicant Bank.**


**Versus**

1. 1. Smt. Divya Saxena W/o Sh. Manoj Saxena, R/o Raja Ram Chowk, Tanakpur, District Champawat, Uttarakhand.

2. 2. Manoj Saxena S/o Sh. Bhikhari Lal, R/o Raja Ram Chowk, Tanakpur, District Champawat, Uttarakhand. Second Address: C/o Shagun Emporium, Cement Road, Tanakpur, District Champawat, Uttarakhand.

3. 3. Vikas Saxena S/o Bhikhari Lal, R/o Raja Ram Chowk, Tanakpur, District Champawat, Uttarakhand.

.....**Defendants**

**Present:** Sh. T. Qamar, Ld. Counsel for Applicant bank Sh. A. K. Bansal, Ld. Counsel for defendants (through VC)

Called out, Ld. Counsel for the parties present. Ld. Counsel for defendants has appeared through VC.

Ld. Counsel for defendants has stated that the concerned officer of the bank has committed theft of Rs.14,28,859.99ps (Rupees Fourteen Lacs Twenty-Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty-Nine and Paisa Ninety-Nine only) from the account of defendants even though the amount of Rs.35.00Lacs has been sanctioned by the respondent bank for which O.A. No. 152/2021 is pending before the Tribunal for recovery. There is an allegation on the part of defendants that the amount of Rs.14,28,859.99ps has not been provided to the defendants out of Rs.35.00Lacs. Again, Ld. Counsel for defendant has argued that the said amount has been withdrawn by the said officer concerned, it means that the amount sanctioned by the applicant bank is admitted to the defendants but out which Rs.14,28,859.99ps has not been provided to the defendants by the officer of the applicant bank as per Defendants.

The defendants have submitted supplementary affidavit on the basis of order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital. The said affidavit has been filed by Sh. Manoj Saxena with order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ C-528 No. 146/2025. The said order has been passed by the Hon'ble High Court in relation to criminal proceedings pending before Criminal Court not against any order passed by this Tribunal or in relation to recovery of amount in question. The writ petition was filed against the order dated 07.02.2024 passed by Ld. Judicial Magistrate, Tanakpur, District, Champawat. The Hon'ble High Court directed SHO of the concerned Police Station to verify the authenticity of the death certificate of the accused. This order has no concern with the proceedings pending before this Tribunal for recovery against defendants in all recovery petitions as original application.

Ld. Counsel for defendants has also argued that the concerned officer of the respondent bank has theft the money from the different accounts of defendants but the financial assistance to the defendants, is admitted by the Ld. Counsel for defendants.

There is a specific law in relation to theft and every person is entitled to take action under the said law in relation to offence theft, if committed by any person. The defendants have already, adopted the said recourse by lodging first information report, it is clear from the order of Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital that criminal proceedings against the said officer are in continuation and the defendants are entitled to get relief through those proceedings about alleged offence. The applicant bank has filed these petitions for recovery of the amount in relation to financial assistance provided by the applicant bank to the defendants in the year 2015. If any amount has been theft by any authority of the respondent bank, as the defendants have alleged, in that case, remedy is available to the defendants under criminal law. But not entitled to deny the liability about financial assistance in any manner and duty bound to discharge the same by repayment for which he/she is liable.

These petitions are pending before this Tribunal from 2021. Defendants are trying again and again to save themselves by adopting different tactics for avoiding liability. This practice cannot be allowed to any one, when the liability is admitted as the financial assistance has not been denied by the defendants, in that situation none can run away from discharging the liability.

Previously, the defendants have submitted version in O.A. No. 156/2021 by diary no.5755 dated 23.11.2022 by stating that Sh. Manoj Vajpayee, Branch Manager, Banwasa withdraw/transferred Rs.18 ,71,086/- and deposited only Rs.5,56,000/- in the account of the borrower firm. An FIR was lodged by defendant No. 2 on 05.07.2018 against Sh. Manoj

Vajpayee and allegation was of fraud with the bank as well as for embezzlement of the money has been mentioned by the defendants..

On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for Applicants bank has stated that in relation to account of O.A. No. 404 of 2021 Bank of Baroda Vs. Deepak Saxena & Ors., O.A. No. 152/2021 Bank of Baroda Vs. M/s Shagun Sarees & Ors., O.A. No. 153 of 2021 Bank of Baroda Vs. M/s Shagun Emporium & Ors, O.A. No. 154 of 2021 Bank of Baroda Vs. M/s Hotel Shagun Tower & Ors., and O.A. No. 156 of 2021 Bank of Baroda Vs. M/s Khushi Sales & Ors., an one time settlement has taken place between the parties in 2019 for Rs.2.00 Crores (Rupees Two Crores only) and in support of the said version documents through Annexure No. A-21 (Page No. 118-120) has been submitted on record in O.A. No.153/2021 as argued by the Ld. Counsel for applicant Bank.

The Ld. Counsel for defendants has taken plea that the signature has been done by the defendants under pressure about one time settlement but there is no denial about signature and no any reason has been clarified by Ld. Counsel for defendants about the said pressure.

The defendants have also filed I.A. No.824/2022 in O.A. No.152/2021 by diary No.5754 dated 23.11.2022, I.A. No.823/2022 in O.A. No.153/2021 by diary No.5753 dated 23.11.2022, I.A. No.822/2022 in O.A. No.154/2021 by diary No.5752 dated 23.11.2022, I.A. No.825/2022 in O.A. No.156/2021 by diary No.5755 dated 23.11.2022 in those applications specifically mentioned at page 3 as under:- "it is further pertinent to mention here that the sanction settlement (OTS) was cancelled by the bank on 13.09.2019"

It is clear from the above that the parties had come on settlement in the year of 2019 as the settlement in question was admitted by defendants on 23.11.2022 by filing interim applications. There is no question of pressure on the defendants in relation to signature on settlement as argued by Ld. Counsel for defendants. No anyone is entitled to take plea against previous admission. It is also pertinent to mention that the defendants have filed in writing about settlement, in the said situation oral version has no worth.

In the light of above, the argument advanced by Ld. Counsel for defendants in relation to settlement has no relevance and liable to be rejected. Hence rejected.

The Ld. Counsel for defendants, those are legal heirs of the original borrower has also argued that loan account of O.A. No.404/2021 Bank of Baroda Vs Deepak Saxena is also not admitted and plea during arguments has taken that the said loan is unsecured. There is no law that unsecured financial assistance cannot be granted.

No written statement or evidence in support of denial has been produced by defendants on record. In the said situation, the said argument has no worth. It is also not acceptable as the defendants have taken steps for settlement and the settlement has failed due to non-compliance on the part of defendants. If any person has already taken step in any manner, in that case he cannot be entitled to say anything in otherwise manner.

O.A. No. 152 of 2021 has been filed by the applicant bank on 12.05.2021 for recovery of Rs.50,87,581.01ps, O.A. No. 153 of 2021 was filed by the applicant bank on 11.05.2021 for recovery of Rs.49,10,425.90ps, O.A. No. 154 of 2021 has been by the applicant bank on 12.05.2021 for recovery of Rs.83,54,827.65ps, O.A. No. 156/2021 has been filed on 17.05.2021 for recovery of Rs.48,47,751.84ps, O.A. No. 404 of 2021 has been filed on 24.09.2021 for recovery of amount of Rs.45,16,354.25ps, and O.A. No. 128 of 2020 (R.A. No. 08/2021) was filed on 13.03.2020 for recovery of Rs.28,06,350.25ps which has already been decided by the Tribunal on 07.12.2020 and for which R.A. 08/2020 has been filed by the defendants which is also pending before the Tribunal.

The applicant bank has claimed total amount of Rs.3,05,23,290.90ps (Rupees Three Crore Five Lacs Twenty Three Thousand Two Hundred Ninety and Ninety paisa only) for recovery against the defendants through all above original applications.

The Ld. Counsel for defendants, in relation to whole of the accounts, has argued that an amount of Rs.14,28,859.99ps in O.A. No. 152/2021, Rs 14,07,000/- in O.A. No. 153/2021, Rs.29,60,000/- in O.A. No. 154/2021 and Rs.18,71,086/- in O.A. No.156/2021, but Rs.5,56,000/- redeposited in the said account after that i.e. in total Rs.71,10,945.99ps (Rupees Seventy- one Lacs Ten Thousand Nine-Hundred Forty-Five and Ninety-Nine paisa only) has been theft by the concerned officer from the account of the defendants as per Ld. Counsel for defendants even though previously alleged that a fraud has been committed with the defendants by the concerned officer.

In the said situation, the defendants are liable to pay the amount of Rs.2,34,12,344.91ps(Rupees Two-Crore Thirty Four Lacs Twelve Thousands Three-Hundred Forty-Four and Ninety-One paisa only) if the version of the defendants is presumed as correct even though it shall be decided by the criminal court concerned whether allegations of the defendants are correct or not?

In written statement filed in O.A. No. 152 of 2021, the defendants have mentioned that the account was classified as NPA on 31.12.2018.

As per para 1.4 of written statement, the defendants have mortgaged property plot No. 530/2, Ward No.8, Tanakpur and again in para 1.5 mentioned that the property 530/2, Ward No.8 Tanakpur, which is said to be mortgaged with the bank is a Nazool property whose owner is the State of Uttarakhand and is under the management of Nagar Palika Parishad, Tanakpur and is a lease property whose lease rent is being paid by the defendants herein in the name of "Ground Rent" to the Nagar Palika Parishad, Tanakpur hence being a Government property cannot be mortgaged with the bank and the said mortgage is not a valid mortgage.

This version itself has shown that primarily, the defendants had taken loan/financial assistance in purposeful manner as shown by defendants in written statement.

If the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for defendants is correct, in that case, the Defendants as per their version are liable to pay Rs.2,34,12,334.91Paisa (Rupees Two Crore Thirty Four Lakhs Twelve Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Four and Ninety One Paisa). As discussed already, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of applicant bank about settlement at the amount of Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crore only).

After considering the above arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for the parties and material available on record as discussed above, there is no need to hear again or for any further exercise in these matters.

In the said situation the defendants are liable to pay Rs.2,34,12,344.91ps (Rupees Two-Crore Thirty Four Lacs Twelve Thousand Three-Hundred Forty-Four and Ninety-One paisa only), If the version of the defendants may be treated correct even though it shall be decided by the criminal court after recording regular evidence. It is clear from the version of defendants as the settlement has already been taken place between the parties at the amount of Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores only) previously even though not succeed that the defendants are liable to pay Rs.2,34,12,344.91ps (Rupees Two-Crore Thirty Four Lacs Twelve Thousand Three-Hundred Forty-Four and Ninety-One paisa only) without creating any obstruction or hindrance to the applicant bank on the basis of their version only.

In the light of above detailed discussion on the basis of arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for the parties, there is no need for pending these matter, as it is, because there is no time limit fix about outcome of criminal proceedings in the light of order passed by Hon'ble High Court presently whether accused is alive or not, shall be enquired by SHO concerned.

But as per circumstances an award of Rs.2,34,12,344.91ps (Rupees Two-Crore Thirty Four Lacs Twelve Thousand Three-Hundred Forty-Four and Ninety-One paisa only) may be passed instantly in the light of arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for the parties with interest as the parties had come on settlement at an amount of Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Only) in the year 2019 specifically admitted to the defendants as already discussed above.

The applicant bank is entitled to recover the total amount of Rs.3,05,23,290.90ps (Rupees Three Crores Five Lacs Twenty-Three Thousand Two Hundred Ninety and Paisa Ninety only) against the defendants as per version of applicant bank and there is no denial about financial assistance stated by applicant bank on the part of defendants.

The applicant bank is entitled for an award of Rs.3,05,23,290.90ps (Rupees Three Crores Five Lacs Twenty-Three Thousand Two Hundred

Ninety and Paisa Ninety only) along-with cost, expenses and future interest @9.65% per annum simple rate of interest as claimed by Applicant Bank from date of filing of the OA till the date of realization in full, jointly and severally with some conditions.

**ORDER**

An award of Rs.3,05,23,290.90ps (Rupees Three Crores Five Lacs Twenty-Three Thousand Two Hundred Ninety and Paisa Ninety only) has been allowed against the defendants along-with cost, expenses and future interest @9.65% per annum simple rate of interest as claimed by Applicant Bank from date of filing of the OA till the date of realization in full, jointly and severally.

The defendants shall pay Rs.2,34,12,344.91ps (Rupees Two-Crore Thirty Four Lacs Twelve Thousand Three-Hundred Forty-Four and Ninety-One paisa only) with interest as awarded by Tribunal within 60days from the date of this award and Rs.71,10,945.99ps (Rupees Seventy-one Lacs Ten Thousand Nine-Hundred Forty-Five and Ninety-Nine paisa only) shall also be paid by the defendants subject to outcome of criminal proceedings within the same period. If the amount of Rs.71,10,945.99ps received to the applicant bank in addition to above Rs.2,34,12,344.91ps with interest, in that case the applicant bank shall be kept the said amount in the form of FDR at higher rate side and in case of success of defendants in proving the criminal case against bank authorities, the applicant bank shall return the amount of FDR with interest to the defendants upto the extent of proving the criminal case. The applicant bank shall renew the said FDR from time to time, in case of non-renewal, as the defendants shall not be liable for the same and shall entitle for interest as per FDR norms but the amount shall be paid by defendants first adjusted against the amount of clear liability.

In case of failure on the part of defendants in repayment of the aforementioned adjudicated amount within **60 days**, same shall be recovered from the sale of the hypothecated assets & mortgaged properties of the Defendants in execution proceedings. The amount, if any, already recovered by sale of any hypothecated assets/mortgage properties or otherwise shall be adjusted towards the debt and only the balance amount shall be recoverable. If the dues of Applicant Bank still remain unsatisfied, the same shall be recovered by attachment and sale of the personal movable and immovable assets of the Defendants jointly and severally. The cost of litigation be also borne by the Defendants.

The Defendants are hereby restrained by means of injunction from depleting, transferring, encumbering, alienating, selling or otherwise dealing with hypothecated assets, mortgage properties or their other immovable/movable properties/estates without first paying the above claim of Applicant Bank.

In case, any Defendant expire, the legal representatives of the said borrower/defendant shall be liable to pay in proportion to the inheritance.

Applicant Bank is directed to file revised statement of accounts from the date of filing of O.A. along-with interest as granted by this Tribunal before the Recovery Officer of this Tribunal.

All applications pending stands disposed off accordingly.

Recovery Certificate be issued forthwith in above terms U/s 19(22) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (as amended from time to time) and be sent to the Recovery Officer-II, DRT, Dehradun for execution.

The Recovery Officer shall realize the amount as per the Recovery Certificate in the manner and mode prescribed under section 25 to 28 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (as amended from time to time) from the above named Defendants. Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer-II, DRT, Dehradun on **10.07.2025**.

The recovery certificate which was issued in O.A. No.128 of 2020 Bank of Baroda Vs Smt. Divya Saxena & Ors on basis of award dated 07.12.2020 is quashed and a fresh recovery certificate which shall be issued on the basis of this award shall be effective accordingly.

Applicant Bank is directed to file a Memo of Cost forthwith, if not filed earlier, for preparing Recovery Certificate U/s 19(22) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (as amended from time to time).

*Copy of this Judgment and Recovery Certificate be given Dasti to Applicant Bank and be sent to the Defendants free of cost by Registered Post in terms of section 19(21) (i) of the RDB Act, 1993 (as amended from*

time to time) and Rules as well as to the Recovery Officer and after due compliance file be consigned to record room.

Copy of this Judgment and Recovery Certificate also be placed on all the matters i.e. O.A. No.152 of 2021, O.A. No.153 of 2021, O.A. No.154 of 2021, O.A. No.156 of 2021, O.A. No.404 of 2021 and R.A. No. 08 of 2021(O.A. No.128 OF 2020).

**If any party is not satisfied with this award, may approach Hon'ble Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal in appeal as per provisions of RDDB Act.**

(Umesh Kumar Sharma) Presiding Officer DRT, Dehradun