IDFC FIRST BANK LIMITED vs ASHOK NITIN AND COMPANY AND ORS on 5 November 2026

**Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi

4^th Floor, Jeevan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi**

**Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sharma**

**T.A. No. 1852 of 2022**

IDFC First Bank Limited

(Erstwhile Capital First Limited)

Upper Ground Floor No. 62/20

Opposite New Prem Dhaba & Big Bazaar

New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh

New Delhi – 110005

Applicant

**Versus**

1. M/s Ashok Nitin and Company

C-655, New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur

Delhi-110033

Also at:

H.No. A-108, Near Sharda Gun House

Sharda Puri, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi-110015

2. Sh. Ashok Kumar Takkar

C-655, New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur

Delhi-110033

Also at:

H.No. A-108, Near Sharda Gun House

Sharda Puri, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi-110015

3. Sh. Nitin Takkar

C-655, New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur

Delhi-110033

Also at:

H.No. A-108, Near Sharda Gun House

Sharda Puri, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi-110015

Defendants

Present: Shri Jatin Sethi, Ld. Counsel for applicant bank Date of Reserve: 16.10.2026

Date of Pronouncement: 05.11.2026

*Sd-*

T.A. No.1852 of 2022**FINAL ORDER**

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 21.09.2021 before DRT-III Delhi & then transferred to DRT-I Delhi under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.25,23,824/- (Rupees Twenty-Five lacs Twenty-Three thousand Eight hundred Twenty-Four only) as on 25.08.2021 with pendentelite and future interest thereon as per agreed loan agreement of loan facilities till the realization in full and costs.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on the request of defendants vide loan application, the applicant bank sanctioned and disbursed Business Instalment Loan facility of Rs.22,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two lacs only) @15.50% interest to be repaid in 36 EMIs of Rs.76,804/- on 30.08.2018, Second Business Instalment Loan facility of Rs.23,27,703/- (Rupees Twenty Three lacs Twenty Seven thousand Seven hundred Three only) @17.5% interest to be repaid in 53 EMIs of Rs.73,241/- on 24.09.2019 and Supplementary loan facility under GECL Scheme of Rs.6,29,772/- (Rupees Six lacs Twenty Nine thousand Seven hundred Seventy Two only) on 03.07.2020 together with interest @9.25% per annum to be repaid in 48 EMIs of Rs.4,855/- against personal guarantees of defendants.

3. In order to avail the aforesaid credit facilities, the defendants executed various Sanction Letters accepted the terms and conditions, Business Loan Agreements, Request for Disbursement and Demand Promissory Notes in favor of the applicant bank on 30.08.2018, 24.09.2019 & 03.07.2020.

SD

4. It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the credit facilities, the defendants have failed to adhere to the financial discipline and committed defaults in repayment of interest and instalments in its loan accounts. The applicant bank issued loan recall notice on 25.08.2021 to pay entire outstanding dues and invoked the guarantee of defendants but the defendants failed to regularize the account, hence, the applicant bank was constrained to approach this Tribunal for recovery of its dues.

5. Notice of this O.A. was issued to the defendants and despite of proper service, the defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings. Vide order dated 02.09.2024, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared before the Tribunal and even evidence and affidavit of assets have not been filed by the defendants.

6. In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of Affidavit of Sh. Farid Ahmed, authorized representative of the applicant bank, who has submitted the documents such as NCLT Order, Incorporation Certificate by Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Board Resolution, Documents of Loan accounts, Loan Recall Notice & Postal Receipts, Statement of Accounts along with Certificate u/s 2A of Bankers' Book Evidence Act marked as Ex. AW-1/A to Ex. AW-1/G.

7. 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 proved.

Sd/-

8. The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and there is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant bank and the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts.

9. As per the provision of Section 19(20) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 which is analogous to Section 34 of CPC, on filing of the suit/claim, the contract between the parties comes to an end and the Court/Tribunal has a discretion to award the same depending upon the circumstances of each case. Same principle has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra & Others. Taking stock of all the circumstances and keeping in view that there is a drastic fall in rates of interest globally and domestically, I am of the opinion that interest of justice will be served if the interest at the rate of 12% p.a. is awarded.

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