Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA vs ELECTRONIC WORLD on 26 October 2026

**Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi

4<sup>th</sup> floor, Jeevan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi**

**Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sharma**

**T.A. No.184 of 2022**

Central Bank of India

Ghonda Village, Maujpur, Delhi-53

Applicant

**Versus**

1. M/s Electronic World Through its proprietor Sh.Rakesh Kumar Shop No.1, Plot No.A-10, Mahagun Apartment Shalimar Garden Extn.II, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, UP

Also at: M/s Electronic World Through its proprietor Sh.Rakesh Kumar House No.A-437, Block-A, Shalimar Garden Extn.I, Village Pasonda Tehsil & Dist. Ghaziabad, UP

2. Sh. Rakesh Kumar s/o Sh.Jawahar Lal House No.A-437, Block-A, Shalimar Garden Extn.I, Village Pasonda Tehsil & Dist. Ghaziabad, UP

3. Sh.Vinod Kumar s/o Sh.Jawahar Lal House No.A-437, Block-A, Shalimar Garden Extn.I, Village Pasonda Tehsil & Dist. Ghaziabad, UP

4. Sh.Jawahar Lal s/o Sh.Sansar Chand House No.A-437, Block-A, Shalimar Garden Extn.I, Village Pasonda Tehsil & Dist. Ghaziabad, UP

Defendants

Present: Sh.Amrendra Kumar Giri, Counsel for applicant bank Date of Reserve: 29.09.2026

Date of Pronouncement: 26.10.2026

*Sd-*

Page 1 of 5

T.A. No. 184 of 2022**FINAL ORDER**

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank before DRT-III, Delhi on 24.04.2018 and then transferred to DRT-I Delhi under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,86,36,022/- (Rupees One Crore Eighty Six Lacs Thirty Six Thousand Twenty Two only) as on 23.03.2018 along with pendentelite and future interest @18% per annum with monthly rests till the date of realization along with costs.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the defendant no.1 through its proprietor Sh.Rakesh Kumar i.e. defendant no.2 vide loan application dated 16.05.2012, the applicant bank sanctioned Cash Credit Facility for a sum of Rs.1,25,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty Five Lacs only) on 13.08.2012 @14.50% interest per annum with monthly rests subject to change as per RBI guidelines against hypothecation of stocks, book debts, current and fixed assets of defendant no.1 and mortgage of property i.e House No.A-437 (area measuring 167.22 sq.metres), Block-A, Shalimar Garden Extn.I, Village Pasonda, Tehsil & Dist. Ghaziabad, U.P., owned by defendant no.4. The defendant no.3 and 4 stood as guarantors for the credit facility sanctioned in favour of the defendant no.1 by the applicant bank.

2. In order to avail the loan facility, the defendant no.1 through defendant no.2 submitted loan application dated 16.05.2012 and executed Demand Promissory Note, Letter of Interest, Letter of Waiver, Agreement of Hypothecation to Secure Demand Cash Credit against Goods, Consent Clause, Letter of Continuity with the applicant bank on 19.06.2012 in SD

Page 2 of 5

favour of applicant bank. The defendant no.3 and 4 executed Form of Guarantee for Advance and Credits sanctioned in favour of defendant no.1 and 2 by the applicant bank.

3. In order to secure the cash credit facility, the defendant no.4 created equitable mortgage of his property i.e. House No.A-437 (area measuring 167.22 sq.metres), Block-A, Shalimar Garden Extn.I, Village Pasonda, Tehsil & Dist. Ghaziabad, U.P. by depositing original Sale Deed registered as Document No.1365, Book No.1, Vol. No.7908 at Page no.67 to 106 with S.R.III, Ghaziabad, UP dated 03.02.2012 and executed Declaration & Undertaking with the applicant bank on 19.08.2012

4. It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the credit facility, the defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions of sanction and neither deposited sale proceeds and debts realized, not routed their transactions thru the account and failed to regularize the account with the applicant bank. Ultimately, the account became irregular despite repeated request by the applicant bank. The defendant no.1 vide letter dated 04.04.2015 requested to allow operations in the account and promise to regularize the account by routing all transactions thru the account but failed to serve interest on regular basis. The applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 28.06.2016 as per RBI guidelines but the defendants neglected, hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

5. Notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 dated 01.07.2016 was issued but no response Sd-

Page 3 of 5

from the defendants. The applicant bank issued possession notice u/s 13(4) on 20.12.2016 for taking possession of properties duly published in newspapers on 23.12.2016.

6. Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite of proper service, the defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 20.05.2026, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as they have not appeared before the Tribunal and even written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have not been filed by the defendants.

7. In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by submitting the original / photocopies of documents such as Power of Attorney, Loan Application Form, Guarantor's Consent Letters, Sanction Letter, D.P.Note, Letter of Interest, Letter of Waiver, Agreement of Hypothecation to secure Demand Cash Credit against Goods, Consent Clause, Letter of Continuity, Form of Guarantee, Consent Clause, Declaration & Undertaking, Sale Deed, EM Register, Letter of Request by defendant no.1, Demand Notice u/s 13(2), Possession Notice, Statement of Loan Account and Interest along with duly Certified as per Banker's Books Evidence Act and Valuation Report marked as Page No.1 to 160.

8. The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments made in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the applicant bank is based on the documents and the same have been duly approved.

9. The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebuted and there is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant *Sd-*

Page 4 of 5

bank and the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts.

10. In the light of the above discussions, the Original Application deserves to be allowed.

ORDER

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank within a period of 30 days, jointly or severally, a sum of Rs.1,86,36,022/- (Rupees One Crore Eighty Six Lacs Thirty Six Thousand Twenty Two only) as on 23.03.2018 together with pendentelite and future interest @18% per annum from 23.03.2018 till the date of realization and costs; failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stocks, book debts, current assets etc. and House No.A-437, Block-A, Shalimar Garden Extn.I, Village Pasonda, Tehsil & Dist. Ghaziabad, U.P. in case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

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

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 28.12.2026.

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

*Sd/- 2026* **(GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA)** **PRESIDING OFFICER** **DRT-I, DELHI**

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 26.10.2026

Page 5 of 5

Loading citations and judicial treatment…

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead