Allowed

Uco Bank v. M/S Truveni Flour Mill

DRT22 Nov 2023OA/373/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

UCO Bank filed an application under Section 19 of the RDB Act to recover Rs.48.77 Lacs with interest against M/s Truveni Flour Mill and proprietor Sh. Vivek Kumar. Upon ex parte proceedings due to non-appearance, the tribunal found the bank proved its case. The application was allowed, and a recovery certificate was issued directing sale of mortgaged and hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.48,77,245.68p with interest @10.20% p.a. from 17.02.2022; issuance of Recovery Certificate; distribution of sale proceeds of mortgaged property and hypothecated goods.

Uco Bank versus M/S Truveni Flour Mill — Company and Corporate | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 373/2022 Date of Institution: 21.02.2022 Date of Decision: 22.11.2023

¶4

UCO Bank, having its Branch at Hamirpur Road, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh – 174303.

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

M/s Truveni Flour Mill, a proprietorship firm situated at Plot No.22 and 23, Industrial Area Basal District Una, Himachal Pradesh through its Proprietor Sh. Vivek Kumar S/o Sh. Balbir Singh.

¶8

Sh. Vivek Kumar S/o Sh. Balbir Singh, R/o Ward No.1, Village Malahat, Tehsil and District Una, Himachal Pradesh.

¶9

……….Defendants

¶10

Advocates

¶11

Sh. Sumit Batra, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants – ex parte

¶12

OA for the Recovery of Rs.48,77,245.68p with interest @10.20% per annum with monthly rests from 17.02.2022.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

UCO Bank, (Bank) has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of Rs.48,77,245.68p with interest against M/s Truveni Flour Mill and another (defendants).

¶15

Bank’s case is that defendant No.1 is a proprietorship concern of defendant No.2. On 27.02.2019, bank had granted a C.C Limit of Rs.10.00 Lacs and Term Loan of Rs.30.00 Lacs to defendant No.1 through defendant No.2 for business purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant No.1 through defendant No.2 had mortgaged immovable

¶16

¶17

commercial property i.e. land and building (fully detailed in para No.3(A) of the application) and hypothecated goods. Further, on the request of defendant No.1 and 2, bank had sanctioned additional facility by way of FITL to the extent of Rs.59,776/-. The loan was chargeable to interest @10.20% per annum with monthly rests. On 16.02.2022, a sum of Rs.48,77,245.68p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶18

On 14.03.2022, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 14.09.2022, they were proceeded ex parte .

¶19

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Puneet Sharma, Senior Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-17.

¶20

I have perused the evidence on the record. I am of the considered view that the Bank has proved its case that it had advanced the above said facilities and on 16.02.2022, a sum of Rs.48,77,245.68p was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.48,77,245.68p (Rupees Forty Eight Lacs Seventy Seven Thousand Two Hundred Forty Five and Paisa Sixty Eight Only) with interest @10.20% per annum with monthly rests from 17.02.2022, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of all the defendants would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of immovable commercial property i.e. land and building (fully detailed in para No.3(A) of the application) and hypothecated goods as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants.

¶21

¶22

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 22.12.2023, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgage property and hypothecated goods as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) of the Act . 10. A Copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to the Recovery Officer as well as the parties. Pronounced in the open court. (A S Narang) Dated: 22.11.2023 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh Pankaj

Uco Bank v. M/S Truveni Flour Mill

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. M/S Truveni Flour Mill

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bank of India versus Ranjan Jyoti Goswami

Uco Bank versus MD Abdul Razzak

Kusum Chandrakant Raut versus Icici Home Finance Company Ltd.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Om Transport

Idfc First Bank Limited versus Paras Poly N Print & Ors.

Canara Bank versus Anita Gupta and Ors.