Allowed

Uco Bank v. Ms Prabhu Padmanabha Pharma Udyog Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

DRT10 Jun 2024OA/40/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, acting ex parte in the absence of respondents, allowed an original application filed by UCO Bank for recovery of a loan. The court decreed the principal amount with future interest, granted a 30-day grace period for repayment, and directed the issuance of a recovery certificate allowing encumbrance on both secured and personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 5,97,97,210.53 with pendent interest and future interest at 9% per annum; certificate of recovery to be issued pursuant to Section 19 of RDB Act.

Uco Bank versus Ms Prabhu Padmanabha Pharma Udyog Pvt. Ltd… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III XOLKATA PRESENT:^. SRI KAMAL DE

¶2

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

o.A. No.40 0f 2022

¶4

DATE OF DEfIV€RY OF ORDER : lO/06/2024

¶5

UCO Bank, a body corporate constitutcd under the Banking Companres (Acqursrtron and Transfer of Undertakrngs) Act, l9l0 havrng rts Head Offrce at 10, B T M Saranr, P.S. Hare Street, Kolkata 700001 and carryrng on banking busaness amongst other places at its 14 AB, Salt Lake Crty, Sector l, P.S. Bidhan Nagar (North), Kolkata 700064. commonly known as LICO Bank, Salt Lake Sector-l Branch, herernafter referred as the "Applicant Bank', withrn the JUrisdiction of this Learned Tribunal.

¶6

Applrcanl Bank

¶7

M/s Prabhu Padmanabha Pharma Udyog Private Limit€d, a corrp.rny rncorpor.rted undcr the3 Companres Act, 2013, havrng rts Regrstered Ol[rce at l1ou.(] No. 7, arprn Paul Road, Kolkata 700026

¶8

¶9

Mou Roy, Drrector of I\4/s Prabhu Padmanrbha Pharma Udyoq Pnvate Limrted (rl l2/48, )amn Lane, Eallygunge, Kolkata 700019

¶10

Partho Baso, Drrector of M/s Prabhu Padmanabha Pharma Udyog Pnvate Lrmrted at 2lA, Deodar Slreet, Ballygunge, Kolkata^. 700019

¶11

Defendart.,

¶12

Counsel for the Applicant Bank:

¶13

A K Srngh & Assocrates, Advocatcs

¶14

Set ex parte on t0/o5/2024

¶15

]UDGEMENT

¶16

The Applrcant Bank frled the presrnt OA b.'rng No. O.A. 40 of 2022 on 14/0712022 lot recovery of a total sLrm of Rs. 5,97,97,210.53/ (Rupees five crore ninety seven lakh^nrnety seven thousand two h!,ndrcd ten and^p.rrse {rfly three only) from the Defendant!^low.rr,j; term loan toqether wrth rnterest, cost and other usual^reliefs.

¶17

¶18

The Defendants are served with summons. The dcfcndants did not appear, as there^{was no} representatron from thc defendants, Lhe case wa5 fixed for ex'parte hearing on^lO/0512024, dnd heard ex-parte accordrngly.

¶19

)

¶20

¶21

The Applicant Bank examrned 9 documents^throLrgh I\4r. Debapriyo Sinha, Senror 14anaqer marked as Exhrbrt Annexure^- I to Exhrbrt Anrloxurc 9.

¶22

Heard the Ld. Counsel^for the^AppicdntBank

¶23

¶24

The^pornt that arises^{for considerationis:}

¶25

Whether the App^{rcarrl B.rnkrs entrlledto the clarm nrade rn Ihe OA dgarnst the DofPndants} and OA schcdtrle^{propertrcsas praycdfor)}

¶26

As stated supra, the^{Defendant remaincd absentand drd not turrr up to controvcrtth(l} versron of the O.A. of^{Applicant Bank. The Evrdence Affrdavlt coupled wrth the re'rtals rn the} documents vrl., Exhrbrt^{Annexure1 to Annexure9 marked on behalf of LheApplrcant} Bank, establrshed^{the clarmof the Appicant tsaokngarnst the Defendantsand OA schcdule} propertres. Hence, I hold that lhc Defendantg^are lorntly^{and severdlly liable to pdyto the} Applicant Bank the claims^{madern the OA wrth future interest and cosLs'}

¶27

In the rc!;Lrlt, lhe^{present OrlginalAppllcdtron r\ allowed et_parte wrtlrcosts, as under:}

¶28

ORDER

¶29

l (1) O-A. No. 40 of 2022^{filed by the Applrcanl Bdnkrs allowedand debt rs dct{rrrlrrncdwrtlr} cost aqarnst the^{defendants. Itrs heroby orderedthat applrcantbank rs (rr)lrtlcdto} recover lrom the defendant5^{the tolaldmountto the tune of Rs' 5,97,9/)lO\ii} (Rupees frve crore nrnety seven^{lakh nlnctyseven thousandtwo hundredten and palse} fiFty three only)^{wrth pendentelrte and future rnLerest (o) 9 4s'J/. perannrrmrnterest} wrth srmOle on the arnount^{due irom the datcof frllngo[ the OnginalApplrcatronr'e} l4/O1/2O22 trll^{full and frnal realizatron ol the} 'lilrm^amount'

¶30

(2) Anrourrl, rf any,^pard by^{the defendanls rn the loan accountsor amount'rf any'} recovered bv the^{ADpllcant Bank atter fiInqof the O A' the same be takenrnto account} while arnvrnq at the^{exacLamount ofdues/debt payableby thcdcfendanls'} Accordrngly,^{pendentelrte andfuturerntercstshall bc calculated on the redu'edamounL}

¶31

(r) Defendants are debarred from drsposrng, alrenatrng^{or dealnqwrth anyof lhe propertres} belongrng to them^{till the} aforesaid decretal debt^{is recoveredfrom the defendants}

¶32

(4) Defcndants are^{givena trme of thirty daysfronr the dateof the ludgemenl/FrnalOrder} for repayrnq of the above^{mentroned dues, so rntrmated to them' In casethe defendanls} farl to^pay the dues^{wrthrnthc above mcntronedtrmc, thc applcantbank rs cntrtlcdto} recovcr rts dues by^{sale of secured asscts,rf any' Appllcant bank rs} 'lso^entrtledk) proceed aqainst^{personalpropertaesof thc dcf(lndants(Both movable and rmfilovable)} and also^proceed aqalnst^{the defend.rnls personally to recover the dueg Ln a'(ord'rn'(l} wrth law.

¶33

(s) Let the Certtficate^{of Recovcrybe} drawrr up by^{Ld. Registrarforthwrthrn terrns of} ludgement^{for issuance of thc same} against defendants^{in favourof the applicant bank}

¶34

.:}

¶35

Lrnder Sectron 19 ()2) of the Recovery of Debt! and Bankruptcy Act, 1991 and pLrt up the same for rssuance of the Certrfia.rte

¶36

(6) Ld Recovery Offrcer shall real/c th(,amoont {rs per the Recov(lry Certrfrcdte konr tlrc defcndants rn accordance wrth law,

¶37

l1) Ld. Registrar of this Tnbunal rs drrectcd to dclrvcr recovcry certifrcate rn tcrm oI thc fllr.rl order/JUdgcmcnt for recovory ol thc sum aqnrnst thc defendant rn favour of thc Applicant Bank Ltndcr Sectron 19 122) ol the llecovery of Debts due to the Eank.rnd Frnancral Instrtutrons Act, 1993 now known ds Rccovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993

¶38

(8) fhc parties are directed to appear bcfore lhe Recovery Offrcet on 24/Oll2024 for fllrthcr actron rn accordance wrth law In thc event the entire amount rs not pard by Lhe sard date.

¶39

Accordrngly, the Onqrnal Applicatron berng O.A. No.^.10 ol 2022 is allowed and stdnds drsposed of.

¶40

Copy of Lhc .Judgemcnt/Frnal Order bc Lrpload rn the I nbunal's websrte. Irlt'rs consrgned to the Record Roonr.

¶41

(O, Lrl(rl 1,' \lrrn,, lrdr\r. lrii l)y hs,⁽ or rrr-r.r,, {liierl ,'r!, Pronirrn..(,liy nxr i llr( opcr Courtor lrn! l0 rldy ol lur(r, .)O2n )

¶42

( KAIYAL DE ) PRTSlDIN(; OFFICI R

¶43

so'n/

¶44

Debts Recovery Tribunal-3, Kolkata Order Sheet (Continuation)

¶45

case No. OA No. 40/2022 UCO Bank vs. M/s Prabhu Padmanabha Pharma Udvog
Private Lamited & Ors.
Date of Order Order with signature
Order No.6 Order pronounced (vrde separak' sheets).
Dl. rol0612!24
ln the result, O.A. No. 40 of 2022 rs allowed with costs. Issue
Recovery Certrficate accordrnqly.
( Kamal De )
Presrdrng Olfrcer
DRT.l, Kolkata

¶46

Debts Recovery Tribunal-3, Kolkata Order Sheet (Continuation)

¶47

case No. OA/40 /2022 Uco Bank vs. M/s Prabhu Padnranabha^PharmaUdyoq Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

¶48

Date of Order order with signature

¶49

Order No.5 Present:. Dt. 1Ol05/2024

¶50

For Applrc,rnl : IYr. A K Srngh, ld Counsel For Defendants r Nonc

¶51

Ihe Roqrstry has rssued notrcc to the Dcfendant rn lerms of ordor passed by thrs Tllbullal Deferdant has not turned up desprtc the fact that thc notices have been served upon the Dcfendant. Applrcant prayed for heanng of the case ex parte. The matter rs pendrng srnce 2022. Hrncc flght avarlabli: to sole Defendant for frlng of W S. .rnd coLrnler evidence rs to be .losed. It rs closed. Th{! OA proccods for ox partc. Hcard the Ld Counsel for the Applrcant. Reserved for order. Applcant may frle wr rttcn notes of .]rquntents to 10/06/ )O24 tot otC,rt. ( Kamal De ) Presrding Offrcer DRT 3, Kolkata

Uco Bank v. Ms Prabhu Padmanabha Pharma Udyog Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. Ms Prabhu Padmanabha Pharma Udyog Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

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

Punjab National Bank versus Sangita Chatterjee and Anr.

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Om Jewellwers

State Bank of India versus Ms Khan Construction and Supplier and Ors.

Uco Bank versus Rajan Singha

Punjab National Bank versus Ms Modern Kitchen Appliances and Anr.

Ms Lovely Promoters Pvt. Ltd. versus Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd. and Anr.