Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Riyaz Ansari

DRT28 Nov 2024OA/1471/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows a recovery application filed by Union Bank of India against Riyaz Ansari for dues of Rs. 33,90,602.00. The respondent failed to appear or file a written statement. The court ordered payment of the principal amount, granted interest at 11.25% p.a., and issued a recovery certificate under Section 19(2).

What did the court decide?

The respondent is directed to pay Rs. 33,90,602.00 along with interest at 11.25% per annum; a recovery certificate is issued.

Union Bank of India versus Riyaz Ansari — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL : JABALPUR

¶2

(for the States of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh)

¶3

(Presiding Officer - Hon'bte Shri Ram Niwas Patel)

¶4

Original Application No. - 1471/22

¶5

Union Bank of lndia, Vijay Nagar, Jabatpur (M.P.)

¶6

Appticant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Riyaz Ansari, S/o Shri Maqbool Ahmed, 445, Mominpura, Tataiya, Ashfaqulta Ward, Jabalpur (M.P.); Atso at: Shop No.-99, Garment Market, Jabatpur (M.P.)

¶9

Defendant

¶10

Counsel for the Appticant : Shri Vivek Shukla, Advocate Defendant : Ex-parteEx-parte

¶11

: Ex-parteEx-parte

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

lDated:78-November,2024)

¶14

The Appticant-Bank has fited the present Originat Apptication u/s f9 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act on 07 112/22 against the Defendant for recovery of Rs. 33,90,602.00 (Rupees Thirty Three Lac, Ninety Thousand, Six Hundred and Two onty) atong with interest and other retiefs as stated.

¶15

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of Defendant, the Appticant Bank sanctioned Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 20 Lac and Term Loan of Rs. 15 Lac aggregating Rs.35 Lac on 04103/20 and in consideration of the same the Defendant executed requisite loan documents. The Defendant avaited the credit facitities but failed to liquidate the outstanding dues despite issuance of Legal Notice on 22111 /22 by the Appticant Bank. The Applicant-Bank has relied upon the documents at Ex. A-1 to A-14 which were proved by Shri Premnidhi Mishra, Branch Manager.

¶16

Despite service of notice, the Defendant neither appeared nor filed written statement. He was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 05/12123. There is therefore, no reason to disbetieve the contentions of the Bank. Considering the facts of the case, I opine that the Defendant is liabte to pay the cLaim amount together with interest and costs. The Appticant-

¶17

¶18

oA 1471122

¶19

Bank in its apptication has ctaimed interest @11.25%^p.a. with monthty^rests. However, I feet it fair and reasonabte to^grant interest @11 .75y"^p,a. simple pendentelite and future titl reatization of the dues. The personal properties and assets of the Defendant are liabte to be sold for recovery of amount due.

¶20

The Original Apptication is altowed and it is ordered as under-

¶21

i) The Defendant do pay Rs. 33,90,602.00 (Rupees Thirty Three Lac, Ninety Thousand, Six Hundred and Two onty) together with pendentetite and future interest @11.25% per annum simpte from the date of fiting of the OA, i.e.,07 /12122, with costs ti[[ its realization.

¶22

ii) The Appticant Bank is entitled to setl the personal properties and assets of the Defendant for realization of its dues. The Defendant is hereby restrained by means of injunction from depleting, transferring, encumbering, atienating or in any way dealing with his properties/assets without first paying the ctaim of the Appticant Bank.

¶23

iii) A Recovery Certificate be issued uls 19(22) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act. The appticant bank may file a memo of cost within 7 days for preparing Recovery Certificate.

¶24

Judgment pronounced in the open court on this 28th Day of November,2024.

¶25

I .'

¶26

N Patet)
Presidinq Officer

Union Bank of India v. Riyaz Ansari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Riyaz Ansari

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

Union Bank of India versus M/S Shailendra Foods

Bank of India versus Charan

Union Bank of India versus M/S Bharti Trading Co.

State Bank of India versus Krishna Kumar Maheshwari (Jhawar)

Bank of India versus Maa Shakti Stone Crusher

atul khandelwal versus Cholamandalam Investment Finance Co. Ltd.