IDFC BANK LIMITED vs HARSHAD THAKKAR on 5 November 2026

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 18.10.2018 through Mr. Narendra T'iwari, Manager of the applicant banlq under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.40,13,35,1781- together with cost, charges and pendentellite and future interest @15'5o/o from date of filing of this O.A. till the realization in full.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the borrower is a company registered and incorporated in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 to whom the applicant had sanctioned Working Capital Facility' At the time of availing the Credit Facility, defendant no. 1 to q\r, TANO. l44l of2022

executed various documents in favor of the applicant bank. The defendant no.1 not only accepted all the terms and conditions of the Sanction dated 05.06.2018, but also executed various documents such as Master Facility Agreement dated 11.06.2018. The defendant nos.1 to 3 also executed personal guarantees each dated 11.06.2018. It is submitted that the defendant no. 4 Ashapura Intimates Fashion Ltd. is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Shop No. 3-4, Ground Floor, Pacific Plaza, Plot No. 507, TPS IV Off B.S. Road, Mahim Division, Dadar (W) Mumbai 400028to whom the applicant bank had sanctioned the Loan by way of Working Capital Facility for a sum of Rs.40 Crores on the terms and conditions as contained in the Master Facility Agreement, Sanction Letter and other Collateral documents as executed from time to time. It is further submitted that defendant no.4 through its Board Resolution dated 29.05.2018 accorded consent to the Board of Directors for creation pledge/hypothecation/security/in of charge/mortgage/ to existing addition charge /mortgage lpldgel hypothecation/ security. At the time of availing the Working Capital Facility, it was further agreed by the defendants that a first pari passu charge would be created over the following properties i.e. (a) Godown/Gala bearing number 201 to 215 in Bhiwandi, Thane, (b) Godown bearing no. 101 to 115 in Bhiwandi, Thane (c) Godown in Bhiwandi, Thane' It is submitted to show its bonafide, a letter dated 07.06.2018 was also submitted by the defendant no. 4 to the applicant bank, whereby a request was made to State Bank of India to cede pari passu charge on all the assets of the borrower -.(;'-

TANO. 1441of2022 3 company in favor of the applicant bank. The defendant no. 4 further agreed that the security would be perfected in favor of the applicant within 120 days. It is submifted that a further assurance was given by the defendants that in case security is not perfected within the stipulated duration of 120 days then additional collateral in the form of exclusive charge over the immoveable property having a valuation of Rs. 16 Crores would be provided to the applicant bank. As per Clause 12 (bXv) of the Master Facility Agreement dated 11.06.2018, if there is an event of default then on demand by the bank the borrower to furnish unencumbered collateral to the satisfaction of the bank as a security for the facility. It is submifted that not only the defendants failed to create security in favour of the applicant ban( but have also miserably failed in payment of the dues of the aPPlicant bank.

3. It is further submitted that the defendants enjoyed and utilized the Loan facilities, but failed to maintain the financial discipline and failed to repay the due amounts. The applicant bank requested the defendants to regularize the loan account by visits and letters, but there was no response from the defendants. The applicant bank served a demand notice dated 14.10.2018 to the defendants but failed to recover the same Thus, the present O.A.ff.A. is preferred by the applicant bank to recover its dues.

4. On notice by this Tribunal, defendants put appearance through counsel but failed to file written statement and the right to file written statement of defendants were closed-ude order dated 09.10.2019' CA

TANO. 1441of 2022

Thereafter, the defendants failed to put appearance in the matter, despite issuance of default notice. Accordingly, the defendants were proceeded against exparte on 28.04.2025. The Ld' Counsel of defendant no.S/SBI has submitted before this Tribunal that defendant no.4 is before the Ld. NCLT.

5. The applicant bank has filed evidence by way of affidavit of Mr. Narendra Kumarnwari, Authorized Officer of the applicant bank as Annexure A-1 to Annexure A-20, which have gone unchallenged and un-rebutted. Hence, the case of the applicant stands fully established against the defendants with respect to nonpayment of outstanding amount.

6. After perusing the records, this Tribunal is of the view that the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. The evidence and documents filed by the applicant bank not rebutted by the defendants bynot placing any evidence and there is no question of disbelieving the evidence and documents flled by the applicant bank based upon the written/printed documents. In the light of the above discussions, the present T'A' deserves to be allowed against defendant nos.1 to 3' The defendant no.4 is before Ld. NCLT. Therefore, no order can be passed against the defendant no.4.

ORDER

1) I hereby allow this T.A. of the applicant bank and direct the defendant nos.1 to 3 to pay jointly and severally to the applicant bank within 30 days from today, a sum of Rs.40,13,35,L781- along with cost, expenses and atr<

TANO. l44l of 2022

interest @9.00o/o from the date of filing of this O'A' which has become T.A till the date of realization'

2) In case of failure to deposit the above amount within the stipulated period, the same shatl be recovered from the sale of personal movable and immovable assets of the defendant nos.1 to 3.

3) Recovery Certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi'

4) The registry of this Tribunal is hereby directed to issue free copy of the order and send the same to both the parties.

5) Parties are directed to appear before the Ld' Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi on 05.0L'2027' Pending IAs, if any, stand disPosed of. File be consigned to records. ('o\e Date : 05.11.2026 (SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi This judgement has been signed, dated and pronounced in oPen court. ! erl (susHIL (UUnn hesrocD PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi Date : 05.11.2026