Allowed

Bank of India v. M/S N S Enetrprises

DRT3 Nov 2025OA/4/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte application under the RDB Act, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow, allowed the bank's claim for recovery of loan dues totaling over Rs. 51 lakhs. The court directed the defaulting defendant to pay the dues within two months or face asset realization and granted an injunction against property transfer.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued for Rs. 51,32,687.89 plus 8% interest; defendant directed to pay dues within two months or face attachment/sale of assets.

Bank of India versus M/S N S Enetrprises — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW

¶2

Dateof orderor }roceedin!	Order withsignatureof court		Officeaction takenwithdate
o.A.No.04/2023 03.11.2025	Judgment is signed pronounced onseparate sheets. Separatelyattachedin06she Order be uploaded on Tribunal’swebsite. (PravasKumar PresidingOf	and ets. the / gFrlgh) ficer

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT LUCKNOW

¶4

Present: Pravas Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

¶5

Case No. Original Application No.04 of 2023

¶6

Dated: 03.11.2025

¶7

Bank of India, having Branch at Sector-50, Branch, Main Dadri Road, Barola, Sector-49, Noida, Uttar Pradesh.

¶8

. . . . . . ..Applicant Bank

¶9

Versus

¶10

M/s. N.S. Enterprises, (Through its Proprietor) Mr. Pawan Kumar, Hari Nagar, Daulat Ram Colony District Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 .

¶11

. . . . . . .Defendant

¶12

Ld. Counsel for the applicant-bank: Mr. Gaurav Dua, Advocate. Ld. Counsel for the defendant: None

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

This Original Application has been filed by the applicant Bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993,againstthe defendant for the recovery of Rs.51,32,687.89/- (Rupees Fifty One Lac, Thirty Two Thousand, Six Hundred Eighty Seven and Paisa Eighty Nine Only) together with pendent-lite and future interest, costs and other reliefs etc

¶15

The brief facts of case being that the defendant is a proprietorship firm running under the name and style of M/s. NS Enterprises and Shri Pawan Kumar is the sole proprietor. The defendant approached the applicant-bank for grant of Cash Credit Limit of Rs.20 lac and Term Loan facility of Rs.14.80 lac, which were duly considered and sanctioned by the

STCI

O.A. No.04 of 2023

applicant-bank on 22.01.2018 on certain terms and conditions (Annexure No. A-3) to this original application.

¶20

In order to secure the aforesaid Credit facilities, the defendant had executed and signed Promissory Note, Form No.L-435, Request for EMI, Form No.L-5 15, Form No.L-5 16, MCLR Agreement, Insurance Letter, IPD-10 Hypothecation cum Loan Agreements and Form No.L-440 in favour of the applicant-bank on 22.01.2018,(Annexure No. A-4 to Annexure No. A- 12) to this original application.

¶21

Again, at the request of the defendant, the applicant-bank sanctioned COVID- 19 of Rs.2.00 lac, Star GECL Loan of Rs.7.00 lac, WCDL Loan of Rs.1.30 lac and FITL Loan of Rs.1.02 lac, which were also sanctioned by the applicant-bank, for which, the said defendant had further executed and signed various security documents in favour of the applicant-bank (Annexure No. A- 13 to Annexure No. A-43) to this original application.

¶22

To avail the aforesaid credit facilities, the applicant-bank had opened various loan accounts in the name of defendant/firm in order to maintain the I credit facilities.

¶23

After availing the aforesaid credit facilities, the defendant failed to maintain financial discipline and also failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, consequently, the loan accounts of the defendant no.1/firm were classified as NPA on 01.5.2021 by the applicantbank as per RBI guidelines (Annexure No. A-44), therefore, the applicantbark issued Demand Notice dated 13.10.2021 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act (Annexure No. A-46), but, the defendant stated no-response and failed to repay the same and the loan accounts of the defendant are still un-liquidated, hence, this Original Application has been instituted.

¶24

O.A. No.04 of 2023

¶25

¶26

As per books of the bank maintained in the usual and ordinary course of banking business, an outstanding of Rs.51,32,687.89/- (Rupees Fifty One Lac, Thirty Two Thousand, Six Hundred Eighty Seven and Paisa Eighty Nine Only) including interest upto 23.11.2022 were lying due for payment, which they did not pay despite repeated requests and demands. The applicant Bank has filed the copy of Statement of Account (Annexure No. A-45 to Annexure No. A-47) to this original application.

¶27

The cause of action for filing the present application arose firstly on 22.01.2018 when the abovementioned credit facility was sanctioned by the applicant-bank and necessary documents were executed by the defendant. The cause of action further arose on 13.10.2021when the applicant-bank had issued demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act recalling the defendant to repay the dues of the applicant-bank, but, the defendant failed to pay the same.

¶28

The summons was served upon the defendant through paper publication as well as registered post, but, the defendant did not appear before this Tribunal to contest the case, hence, the matter proceeded against the defendant by order dated 11.10.2023 .

¶29

From perusal of the record, it is evident that the defendant was provided fair opportunities to contest the claim of the bank. As the defendant opted not to contest the case, so only point of consideration before this Tribunal in as to whether the bank is legally entitled to the amount as claimed in Original Application on the basis of documents and pleading submitted by it?

¶30

In support of the case Shri Ram Naresh Niranjan, Chief Manager of the applicant Bank has supported its case on affidavit.

¶31

¶32

4 O.A. No.04 of 2023

¶33

On a careful scrutiny of the evidence on affidavit and Armexure marked as (Annexure No. A-1 to Annexure No. A-47 to this original application), it stands proved that the defendant had availed the credit facilities from the applicant bank by executing loan and security documents detailed as above in favour of the applicant Bank. A perusal of the application, evidence and documents relied upon clearly establishes that defendant had utilized the above loan facilities as granted to him. The applicant bank has maintained the Books of accounts in the ordinary course of banking business showing disbursal of the loan aMount. It further shows that bank had regularly credited the amount paid by the defendant in the books of account. The Bank had also charged interest from time to time and the entries is relevant u/s 4 of the Bankers Book Evidence Act. It is also proved that the applicant bank’s claim is within limitation against the defendant, therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the dues.

¶34

Accordingly, the defendant is directed to pay the balance dues to the applicant bank within a period of two months from the date of judgment failing which the applicant bank will be entitled to sell hypothecated assets as well as personal properties of the defendant.

¶35

The applicant-bank has claimed different rate of interests in the above Accounts together with pendent lite and future interest till the actual date of its realization and costs. On the basis of the foregoing discussion, interest of justice will be served if pendent-lite and future interest is granted @8.00% per annum in the above loan accounts with monthly rest on reducing balance from the date of filing of the O.A. till the date of realization with costs.

¶36

O.A. No.04 of 2023

¶37

¶38

1 find that the bank has proved the execution of loan documents. In the result, the Original Application succeeds ex-parte against the defendant with costs. The defendant is liable to pay the dues of the applicant-bank and the hypothecated assets as well as the personal properties are liable to be sold.

¶39

16.It is, therefore, ordered

¶40

(i) That the Original Application No.04 of 2023 of the applicant bank for issuance of Recovery Certificate to the tune of Rs.51,32,687.89/- (Rupees Fifty One Lac, Thirty Two Thousand, Six Hundred Eighty Seven and Paisa Eighty Nine Only) together with the interest @8.00% per annum in the loan accounts from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 05.12.2022 till the loan is fully liquidated and costs succeeds and is hereby allowed ex-parte against the defendant.

¶41

(ii) The defendant is directed to pay the dues within a period of two months from the date of judgment, failing which the applicant bank will be entitled to recover the same from the secured assets, personal movables and immovable assets of the defendant.

¶42

(iii) The applicant-bank is entitled to recover aforesaid amount by sale of hypothecated assets (if not sold earlier under the provisions of the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act 2002). The amount, if any, already recovered by sale of hypothecated assets or otherwise shall be adjusted towards the debt and only the balance amount shall be recoverable. If the dues of the applicantbank still remain unsatisfied, the same shall be recovered by

¶43

O.A. No.04 of 2023

¶44

¶45

attachment and sale of the personal movable and immovable assets of the defendant.

¶46

(iv) The defendant is hereby restrained by means of injunction from depleting, transferring, encumbering, alienating or in any way dealing with properties/estates without first paying the claim of the applicant bank.

¶47

(v) Let Recovery Certificate be issued immediately u/s 19(22) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 by fixing 22.12.2025 before R.O., DRT, Lucknow.

¶48

Judgment is pronounced in the open court.

¶49

Dated: 03.11.2025

¶50

I &b (Pravas Kumar ,_„gn) Presiding Officer

¶51

(Veeresh)

Bank of India v. M/S N S Enetrprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. M/S N S Enetrprises

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

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Divine Construction

Punjab National Bank versus Ms Geeta Trading Company

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Mr Javed Naseer

M S Balaji Enterprises versus Aryavart Bank

State Bank of India versus Ms Vishal Rice Udyog

Vinod Chand Bharti versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.