Allowed

Bank of India v. M/s Ceecon Enterprises

DRT11 Nov 2025OA/296/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal disposed of an original application filed by Bank of India for recovery of dues totaling over Rs. 26 lakh against M/s. Ceecon Enterprises and individual borrowers. The defendants failed to appear. The Tribunal held that the bank proved execution of loan and security documents and maintained accounts per banking norms.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for the dues amount with 10% simple interest; sale of hypothecated assets; injunction against transfer of properties.

Bank of India versus M/s Ceecon Enterprises — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW

¶3

Date of order or lroceedinJ	Order withsignatureofcourt		Officeaction taken with date
O.A.No.296/2024 11.11.2025	Judgment is signed pronounced on separate sheets. Separatelyattachedin07she Order be uploaded on Tribunal’swebsite.	and ets. the
	(PravasKumar PresidingOf	STng'h) ficer

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT LUCKNOW

¶5

Present: Pravas Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

¶6

Case No. Original Application No.296 of 2024

¶7

Dated: 11.11.2025

¶8

Bank of India, having Branch at Nirala Nagar/ Lucknow.

¶9

........Applicant Bank

¶10

Versus

¶11

M/s. Ceecon Enterprises, through its partner Sakina Akhtar and legal heirs of Akhtar Jamal, situatedat 476/23, Purani Bansmandi, Near Almighty School, Lucknow.

¶12

Mrs. Sakina Akhtar, W/o Late Akhtar Jamal, R/o 476/23, Purani Bansmandi, Near Almighty School, Lucknow.

¶13

Mr. Ahmad Abdullah, S/o Late Akhtar Jamal, R/o 476/23, Purani Bansmandi, Near Almighty School, Lucknow.

¶14

Mr. Mohd. Tayab, S/o Late Akhtar Jamal, R/o 476/23, Purani Bansmandi, Near Almighty School, Lucknow.

¶15

Mrs. Safoor Fatima, D/o Late Akhtar Jamal, R/o 476/23, Purani Bansmandi, Near Almighty School, Lucknow.

¶16

Mr. Hafeezur Rehman, R/o Dar e Jamal, Near Almighty School, Sitapur Road, Lucknow.

¶17

...........Defendants

¶18

Ld. Counsel for the applicant-bank: Mr. Anoop Kumar Mishra, Advocate. Ld. Counsel for the defendants: None

O.A. No.296 of 2024

JUDGMENT

This Original Application has been filed by the applicant Bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993,againstthe defendants for the recovery of Rs.26,20,560/-(Rupees Twenty Six Lac, Twenty Thousand, Five Hundred Sixty Only) (Rs.16,28,415.43/- in Cash Credit Loan Account), (Rs.6,17,458.57/in Term Loan Account), (Rs.3,13,952/- in GECL Loan Account) & (Rs.67,264/- in Personal Loan Account) together with pendent-lite and future interest, costs and other reliefs etc.

¶24

The brief facts: The defendant nos.1 to 6 are borrowers. The defendant no.1 through partners applied for Cash Credit Facility of Rs.9.50 lac/ under CGTMSE scheme, which was further renewed from time to time and last renewed to Rs.60 lac along with Term Loan of Rs.10.00 lac, Personal Loan of Rs.2.00 lac and GECL Loan of Rs.5.90 lac were sanctioned by the applicant-bank vide sanction letters dated 20.12.2008, 10.10.2009, 20.5.2011/ 05.12.2012/ 02.02.2019, 30.6.2020 & 01.12.2021 on certain terms and conditions(Exhibit No.2& Exhibit No.A-3) to this original application.

¶25

In order to secure the aforesaid credit facilities, the defendant nos.1 to 6 had executed and signed various security documents in favour of the applicant_bank on 20.12.2008/ 10.10.2009, 20.5.2011, 05.12.2012, 02.02.2019/ 30.6.2020 & 01.12.2021 like D.P. Note, Debit Authority Letter, OD_194f Multipurpose Documents, ACknowledge of Debts, L.435, CBD,

¶26

¶27

O.A. No.296 of 2024

¶28

MCLR, L-440, L-515, OD, RBLR and CC-531(Exhibit No.4 to Exhibit No.58)to this original application.

¶29

To avail the aforesaid credit facilities, the applicant-bank had opened various loan accounts in the name of defendant no.1/firm in order to maintain the credit facilities.

¶30

After availing the aforesaid credit facilities, the defendants 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 on26.10.2023 & 07.12.2023 by the bank as per RBI guidelines (Exhibit No.A-59),therefore, the applicantbank issued Legal Notice dated 15.01.2024(Exhibit No.60), but, the defendants stated no-response and they failed to repay the same and the loan accounts of defendant no.1/firm are still un-liquidated, hence, this Original Application has been instituted.

¶31

As per books of the bank maintained in the usual and ordinary course of banking business, an outstanding ofRs.26,20,560/-(Rupees Twenty six Lac, Twenty Thousand, Five Hundred Sixty Only) (Rs.16,28,415.43/- in Cash Credit Loan Account), (Rs.6,17,458.57/- in Term Loan Account), (Rs.3,13,952/- in GECL Loan Account), (Rs.67,264/- in Personal Loan Account) including interest upto 16.02.2024 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 (Exhibit No.61 to Exhibit No.63) to this original application).

Jb \C

O.A. No.296 of 2024

The cause of action for filing the present application arose firstly on 20.12.2008 when the abovementioned Credit facility was sanctioned by the applicant-bank and necessary documents were executed by the defendants. The cause of action further arose on 15.01.2024when the applicant-bank had issued Legal notice recalling the defendants to repay the dues of the applicant-bank, but, the defendants failed to pay the same.

¶36

The summons was served upon the defendants through registered post, but, the defendants did not appear before this Tribunal to contest the case, hence, the matter was proceed ex-parte against the defendants by order dated 26.3.2025.

¶37

From perusal of the record, it is evident that the defendants were provided fair opportunities to contest the claim of the bank. As the defendants 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.

¶38

In support of the case Shri Sachin Joshi, Assistant General Manager of the applicant Bank has supported its case on affidavit.

¶39

On a careful scrutiny of the evidence on affidavit and Exhibit marked as (Exhibit No.A-1 to Exhibit No.A-63to this original application),it stands proved that the defendants 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 defendants had utilized the

¶40

O.A. No.296 of 2024

¶41

¶42

above loan facilities as granted to them. 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 defendants 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 defendants, therefore, the defendants are liable to pay the dues.

¶43

Accordingly, the defendants are 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 the hypothecated assets and personal properties of the defendants.

¶44

The applicant-bank has claimed interest @13.55% per annum in all the above loan 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 @10.00% in the above Loan Accounts per annum with monthly rest on reducing balance from the date of filing of the O.A. till the date of realization with costs.

¶45

1 find that the bank has proved the execution of loan documents in its favour. In the result, the Original Application succeeds against the defendants with costs. The defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the dues of the applicant-bank and the hypothecated assets as well as the personal properties are liable to be sold.

O.A. No.296 of 2024

It is, therefore, ordered :

¶50

(i) That the Original Application No.296 of 2024 of the applicant

¶51

bank for issuance of Recovery Certificate to the tune of Rs.26,20,560/-(Rupees Twenty Six Lac, Twenty Thousand, Five Hundred Sixty Only) (Rs.16,28,415.43/- in Cash Credit Loan Account), (Rs. 6, 17,458.57/- in Term Loan Account), (Rs.3,13,952/- in GECL Loan Account) & (Rs.67,264/- in Personal Loan Account) together with the interest @10.00% per annum in the loan accounts from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 13.3.2024 till the loan is fully liquidated and costs succeeds and is hereby allowed ex-parte against the defendants.

¶52

(ii) The defendants are 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 defendants.

¶53

(iii) - The applicant-bank is entitled to recover aforesaid amount by sale of hypothecated asserts (in accordance with law). The amount, if any, already recovered by sale of any hypothecated assets or otherwise shall be adjusted towards the debt and only the balance amount shall be recoverable. If the dues of the applicant-bank still remain unsatisfied, the same shall be

¶54

¶55

O.A. No.296 of 2024

¶56

recovered by attachment and sale of the personal movable and immovable assets of the defendants.

¶57

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

¶58

(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 13.01.2026 before R.O., DRT, Lucknow.

¶59

Judgment is pronounced in the open court.

¶60

Dated: 11.11.2025

¶61

IN (Pravas Kumar SirTgh) Presiding Officer

¶62

(Veeresh)

Bank of India v. M/s Ceecon Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. M/s Ceecon 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

Jai Bharat Traders versus Canara Bank

Intiyaz ahmad versus Aadhar Housing Finance Limited

Ruchi Verma versus Hdb Financial Services Ltd.

Aabid versus Smfg India Home Finance Company Ltd.

Canara Bank versus Shri Industries

Patel Advance Jv versus Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Corporation Ltd.