Allowed

Uco Bank v. M S R K Enterprises

DRT28 Jul 2025OA/106/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of Rs. 36 lakh from the borrower and guarantor. The court held the defendants jointly liable, awarded 10% future interest, and issued a recovery certificate directing recovery from assets or personal properties.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs. 36,14,063.54 with 10% simple future interest; recovery permitted from assets or personal properties.

Uco Bank versus M S R K Enterprises — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

“ORIGINALAPPLICATION” No. 106 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR

¶3

PRESENT- SHRI VIMAL GUPTA

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

O.A. NO. 106 OF 2022

¶6

DATE OF DELIVERY OF ORDER 28.07.2025

¶7

UCO BANK, a Banking Company constituted under the Banking companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970 having its Head Office at 7th Floor, 10, BTM Sarani, Kolkata-700001, having one of its branch at Mid Corporate Branch, Orbit Mall, Ajmer Road Civil Lines Jaipur (Rajasthan) through Senior Manager and its attorney holder.

¶8

…..Applicant Bank…..

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

1. M/s R.K. Enterprises Through Proprietor Ramesh Kumar Jeewnani, 8/313 Malviya Nagar Jaipur (Office Address)

¶11

Also At:-

¶12

H1-616, Sitapura Industrial Area, Jaipur

¶13

2. Ramesh Kumar Jeewnani Proprietor M/s R.K. Enterprises R/o DWR A-301, Dwarka Residency, Next to Shani Mandir, SFS Chouraha, Agarwal Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur.

¶14

3. Manoj Jiwnani s/o Ramesh Kumar Jiwnani R/o DWR A- 301. Dwarka Residency, Next to Shani Mandir, SFS Chouraha, Agarwal Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur. (Guarantor)

¶15

……Defendants…..

¶16

Counsel for the Applicant Bank Sh. Vijendra Kumar Sharma Counsel for the Defendants Sh. K. K. Pandit

OA No. 106 of 2022

JUDGMENT

This Original Application was filed by the applicant bank on 03.01.2022 for recovery of outstanding amount of Rs. 36,14,063.54 from the Defendants.

¶21

As per the pleadings, Defendant No. 1 is firm and Defendant no. 2 in the capacity of Proprietor and Defendant no. 3 in the capacity of guarantor had approached the applicant bank for availing Cash Credit facility. After due consideration, cash credit facility was sanctioned by the Applicant Bank in favour of Defendants in the year 2012 vide sanction letter dated 09.03.2012 which was subsequently renewed/reduced/modified/enhanced from time to time and lastly renewed for a total sum of Rs. 40 Lac. Defendants failed to maintain financial discipline and therefore, their loan account was classified as NPA. Applicant Bank has therefore, filed this original application for recovery of its dues against the Defendants.

¶22

Summons were issued to the Defendants on 09.02.2022 and Sh. K. K. Pandit filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the Defendants, but reply has not been filed by the defendant.

¶23

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶24

¶25

OA No. 106 of 2022

¶26

As stated supra, the Applicant Bank filed the evidence affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents, viz Exhibit A/1 to A/39 marked on behalf of the applicant bank, clinches the claim of the applicant bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are jointly & severally liable to pay to the applicant bank the claim made in O.A. with future interest and costs.

¶27

In the result, this O.A. No. 106 of 2022 is allowed declaring that: -

¶28

a) In this matter, reply has not been filed by the defendants. Counsel for the defendants submits that the first original loan application has not been provided. Counsel for the bank submitted that there were renewals and enhancement in the loan and finally the loan was enhanced to Rs. 40.00 Lac on the request of the defendant and all those letters are already on record. He also submits that the defendants do not want to file written statement and delayed the matter.

¶29

The property bearing Flat no. 107, First Floor, Balaji Tower-III, Jawahar Circle, Jaipur was sold by the bank and after satisfying the dues in the housing loan, balance amount was adjusted.

OA No. 106 of 2022

107, as mentioned above, however, the same has already reflected in the original application. The defendants are not contesting this OA which is pending since 2022. The excess amount from sale is reflected in statement of account.

¶34

In view of affidavit placed on record by the applicant bank, it is amply clear that there is not denial of taking loan, default and enhancement of the limit. Therefore, this Original Application stands decreed with 10% (simple) interest.

¶35

b) The Defendants are jointly & severally liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum of Rs. 36,14,063.54/(Rupees Thirty Six Lac Fourteen Thousand Sixty Three and Fifty Four Paisa only) with pendente lite future interest @ 10% (Simple) till the date of realization.

¶36

c) The applicant bank is entitled to recover the above amount from the sale of hypothecated assets as well as from the personal movable and immovable properties/assets of Defendants. The applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same towards recovery of its debt.

¶37

d) The applicant bank is entitled to the costs of the O.A.

¶38

The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to the Recovery Officer, DRT, Jaipur.

¶39

¶40

OA No. 106 of 2022

¶41

Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT, Jaipur on 31.10.2025 .

¶42

Prepare Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶43

A copy of the Judgment and Recovery Certificate be given or sent by registered post to each of the parties free. A copy of the Recovery Certificate be sent to the Recovery Officer of this Tribunal for necessary action as per the law.

¶44

(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶45

Order pronounced in the open court today i.e. 28.07.2025 .

¶46

(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶47

¶48

OA No. 106 of 2022

¶49

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR

¶50

PRESENT- SHRI VIMAL GUPTA

¶51

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶52

O.A. NO. 106 OF 2022

¶53

DATE OF DELIVERY OF ORDER 28.07.2025

¶54

RECOVERY CERTIFICATE

¶55

(UNDER SUB Section 22 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (Act 51 of 1993)

…..Applicant Bank…..

VERSUS

1. M/s R.K. Enterprises Through Proprietor Ramesh Kumar Jeewnani, 8/313 Malviya Nagar Jaipur (Office Address)

¶60

Also At:-

¶61

H1-616, Sitapura Industrial Area, Jaipur

¶62

2. Ramesh Kumar Jeewnani Proprietor M/s R.K. Enterprises R/o DWR A-301, Dwarka Residency, Next to Shani Mandir, SFS Chouraha, Agarwal Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur.

¶63

3. Manoj Jiwnani s/o Ramesh Kumar Jiwnani R/o DWR A- 301. Dwarka Residency, Next to Shani Mandir, SFS Chouraha, Agarwal Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur. (Guarantor)

……Defendants…..

OA No. 106 of 2022

Recovery Certificate for Rs. 36,14,063.54/-

¶68

In terms of final order dated 28.07.2025 passed by this Tribunal in the above mentioned case, it is ordered that the-

¶69

a) In this matter, reply has not been filed by the defendants. Counsel for the defendants submits that the first original loan application has not been provided. Counsel for the bank submitted that there were renewals and enhancement in the loan and finally the loan was enhanced to Rs. 40.00 Lac on the request of the defendant and all those letters are already on record. He also submits that the defendants do not want to file written statement and delayed the matter.

¶70

The property bearing Flat no. 107, First Floor, Balaji Tower-III, Jawahar Circle, Jaipur was sold by the bank and after satisfying the dues in the housing loan, balance amount was adjusted.

¶71

Counsel for the applicant bank submits that yesterday evening he received some short rejoinder without affidavit. It is submitted in that affidavit that the bank has hidden the fact of sale of Plot no. 107, as mentioned above, however, the same has already reflected in the original application. The defendants are not contesting this OA which is pending since 2022. The excess amount from sale is reflected in statement of account.

¶72

In view of affidavit placed on record by the applicant bank, it is amply clear that there is not denial of

¶73

¶74

OA No. 106 of 2022

¶75

taking loan, default and enhancement of the limit. Therefore, this Original Application stands decreed with 10% (simple) interest.

¶76

¶77

¶78

d) The applicant bank is entitled to the costs of the O.A. Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT, Jaipur on 31.10.2025 .

¶79

The Recovery Officer shall realize the amount as per this Certificate in the manner and mode prescribed under Section 25 and 28 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (as amended from time to time) from the above named Certificate Debtor.

¶80

This Certificate has been issued under my signatures and seal of the Tribunal on this 28.07.2025 .

¶81

(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶82

¶83

OA No. 106 of 2022

¶84

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR

¶85

PRESENT- SHRI VIMAL GUPTA

¶86

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶87

O.A. NO. 106 OF 2022

¶88

DATE OF DELIVERY OF ORDER 28.07.2025

¶89

SCHEDULE TO RECOVERY CERTIFICATE

MEMO OF COST

…..Applicant Bank…..

VERSUS

1. M/s R.K. Enterprises Through Proprietor Ramesh Kumar Jeewnani, 8/313 Malviya Nagar Jaipur (Office Address)

¶95

Also At:-

¶96

H1-616, Sitapura Industrial Area, Jaipur.

¶97

2. Ramesh Kumar Jeewnani Proprietor M/s R.K. Enterprises R/o DWR A-301, Dwarka Residency, Next to Shani Mandir, SFS Chouraha, Agarwal Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur.

¶98

3. Manoj Jiwnani s/o Ramesh Kumar Jiwnani R/o DWR A- 301. Dwarka Residency, Next to Shani Mandir, SFS Chouraha, Agarwal Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur. (Guarantor)

……Defendants…..

OA No. 106 of 2022

S.No.	Item of Costs	Amount (Rs.)
1	Fee on the Application	39,000.00
2	Process Fee (Inc. Publication)	850.00
3	Advocate Fee	1,250.00
4	Court Commissioner’s Fees	NIL
5	Commission/Receiver/Valuation	NIL
6	Miscellaneous Charges	NIL
	Total	41,100.00

¶103

(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

OA No. 106 of 2022

28.07.2025

Counsel:

Sh. Vijendra Kumar Sharma, Counsel for Applicant Bank Sh. K. K. Pandit, Counsel for the Defendants

¶109

Judgment dictated separately and pronounced in the open court. As per order the O.A. is allowed. Recovery Certificate be prepared accordingly and the Registry is directed to verify the Recovery Certificate as per Regulation 24(1) and (2) of Debts Recovery Tribunal Jaipur Regulation 2015 and after verification place the same before the Tribunal.

¶110

(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

OA No. 106 of 2022

28.07.2025

Counsel:

Sh. Vijendra Kumar Sharma, Counsel for Applicant Bank Sh. K. K. Pandit, Counsel for the Defendants

¶116

The Tribunal vide order dated 28.07.2025 , directed the Registrar to verify the Recovery Certificate as per Regulation 24(1) and (2) of Debts Recovery Tribunal Jaipur Regulation 2015.

¶117

The Registrar vide order dated 28.07.2025 verified the Recovery Certificate as per Regulation 24(1) and (2) of Debts Recovery Tribunal Jaipur Regulation 2015. Recovery Certificate be prepared accordingly. Copy of the Judgment and Recovery Certificate be given free to the concerned parties as well as be sent to the Recovery Officer for further proceedings. File be put up before the Registrar for compliance. After compliance file be consigned to record.

¶118

(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

Uco Bank v. M S R K Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. M S R K Enterprises

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

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sumit Kumar Palsaniya

Hdfc Bank versus Ms Shree Mahalaxmi Steels

Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank versus Mahendra Alias Mahendra Singh

Yes Bank versus Papu Ram Singh

Mr Vishnu Sharma versus Srg Housing Finance Limited

Sangeeta Grover versus Bank of Baroda