The DRT allowed UCO Bank's application to issue a recovery certificate against three respondents for outstanding dues of Rs. 44,28,089.67, accepting the bank's evidence and rejecting the defendants' general denials.
Recovery certificate issued for Rs. 44,28,089.67 with future interest; costs awarded to Bank.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
I
o.A. 3ozoz3voRT€uwahali
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, GUWAHATI
(North Eastern Region)
(Tribunal ofAssam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh & Tripura)
Befors Shri Shiv Sharan Dubev. Pre3idino Officer
O.A. No. 302/2023
ln the matter of - UCO BANK, Aizawl Branch Dawrpui, Aizawl, Mizoram,
P.O.- Aizawl, District- Aizawl, Pin-796001.
.......Applicant
Vs.
Mualpui, Bethel, Aizawl-796001, Mizoram. lndia.
2. HUALTHAWMVUNGA
(Prop of M/S C.B.FOOOpROCESSTNG tNDUSTRY), Son of Lalcheuva
Ryo House No.161 A, Near 3d BN MAp Main Gate Mualpui l.T.l. Mualpui, Bethet, Aizawt_79600.t. Mizoram, lndia.
Also at-
House No.232 (A), Near 3d BN MAp Main cate Mualpui, Eethet, Aizawl-79600.1, l\4izoram, tndia.
Also ai-
Ior:g lo ]?qVenshtun,Near covt. H.S. Chhingchhip. Serchhip. Chhingchhip. Mjzoram_ 79616.1.' Also at"ol:. Duo_utvtston1L?:?ly'..,:"1, North, Aizawl-1.offrcer.pHED.AizawrwarerDisrribution,
Defendants
Presonce of the Counsol :
For the Applicant : Mr. Sandip Bhattachariee. Mr. Jogabrata Bhattacira4ee, Advocates For the Oefendants No..l & 2 : Mr. Dipak Borah, Ms. Kankana Barman, Advocates.
For the Defendant No. 3 : Mr. Jayabrata Sinha, Advocate
Sh4gALr._ AJ, )4 A L )-tPr€sidrnq Ofltcer DRT, G!wahati
O.A 3oz2o2roRT.Guwahali
2
Oatfd .2410212025
JUDGMENT
This is an application under seclion19 of the Recoveryof DebtsDue to Banks and Financial lnstitutionsAct, 1993 filed by the UCO BANK, Aizawl Branch, Oawrpui, Aizawl, Mizoram,P.O.- Aizawl,Oistrict- Aizawl,Pin-796001, with a prayer to issue RecoveryCertificatefor the sum of Ra. /t4'28,089.67 (Rupee3 Fo y-Four Lac Twenty-EightTho$andEighty-Nine and Paisasixty-Soven)only as on 17.06.2023against the defendantswith future interest at the existing MCLR at that time for the said accountswith monthlyreststill realization alongwith cost and other relief.
A few factsgiving rise to thepresent applicationare asunder.
The defendant no. 2 asproprietorof defendantno 1 applied for Term Loan and Cash CreditLimit for the business of Food Processingsuch as potato chips, banana chips, snacks,bread, cakes, etc.
The applicant bank,Aizawl Branch, after consideringDefendants application and all other aspectssanctioned on 05.12 2020the term loan of Rs 65,00,000and the Cash CreditLimit of15,OO,OOO/- to the defendant no lfor the said food processing business under the nameand styleof "M/S C B Food Processing lndustry'and thedefendantno. 2 as proprietorof defendantno l duly accepted the terms and conditionsmentionedin the sanction letter dated05 '12 2020and thereafterthedefendantno'lavailedofthesaidloanfromtheapplicantbankand executod thefollowing documentsin favour of Bank:
(b) Sanction Advice dated 05.12.2020.
tgliixtof the consent clauseto be includedin the loan documents to be '-'executed by the borrower dated 05.12 2020 (Annexure-l)' lhl Declaration in respectof family member' i;i' ;;;ffi;;i;, ;E"JJ "rro""'iniGr'entdated 08'r 2 20 20 -dn4d,,a-,b"L4 Presiding ' )L'oL.rt- offc€r_ \JA DRT, GuWEhsIi
3 o-A. 302023/DRT€uwih.ti
Aizawl Municipal Corporation also issued trade license for the business of C B Food Processing lndustry and the defendant no. 2 entered into rent agreement with Lalhminglhanga Sailo and also prepared project report.
The defendant no.3 (Jerome Lalremtluanga) stood as guarantor of the said loan and defendant no.3 also executed "Letter of Guarantee" (A-21) on 05.12.2020 and therein the defendant no.3 agreed to repay the said loan with interest accrued thereon and making himselfjointly and severally liable for the repayment of the said loan with interest accrued thereon and in the said Letter of Guarantee lt is mentioned that Guarantor's ability under these presents is a continuing one for all sums whatsoever which may at any time be or become payable by the customer of the bank on any account whatsoever with interest and all cost and charges and expenses and the defendant no. 3 (Jerome Lalremtluanga) also executed text of the consent clause to be included in the loan documents to be executed by the guarantor/s. Annexure-1 1 on 05.12.2020.
Laldingllana (since deceased) already died who was another guarantor of the loan, Legal heirs are not traceable.
All the amounts paid to the defendants from lime lo time and all repayments made in the said loan accounts and all interests accrued in the said accounts from time to time were entercd in the ordinary and usual course of business of the Applicant Eank's Books of Account pertaining lo the said loan account of the defendants maintained by the applicant Bank's, Aizawi Branch with interest, under the banker's Books Evidence Act and asper the accounts the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant Bank the following amounts as mentioned below.
As per statement of account of the borrower maintained by the applicant bank the book outstanding is Rs. 39,60,441.00 as on 17.06.2023 and the accounlhas been classified as NPA on 05.06.2022 and the unchargedinterestfrom the date of NPA to till 17 .06.2023 is Rs.3,51,795.67 and interest reversal on 05.06.2022is Rs. 1,15,853.00/-.
Sl^U fr"rs^a"1"+ 2+oLX- A Presiding Officel DRT. Guwahali
O A 3022023/DRT-Guwahai
1
| Loan | Balance |
|---|---|
| FortermloanofRs. 65,00,000LinA/Cno. | Rs. 44,28,089.67^withinterestcalculated |
| 086'10610010075 | upto17.06.2023includinguncha.ged |
interestofRs.3,51,795.67/-from thedate |
|
| of NPA upto 17.06.2023. |
Thus, the total outstanding is Rs. 44,28,089.67/- with interest calculated up to '17.06.2023 along with future interests till full realization of the entire balance outstanding in said loan account, along with all costs and incidental expenses, pendent-lite interests and future interest which the said defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the applicant bank. The defendants are liable to pay the said amount
The cash credit account no. 086105'10001455 was already adjusted.
All the amounts paid to the defendants from time to time and all repayments made in the said loan accounts and all interests accrusd in the said account from time to time were entered in the ordinary and usual course of business of the Applicant Bank's Books of Accountpertaining to the said loan account of the defendants maintained by the applicant Bank, Aizawl Branch with interest under the banker's Books Evidence Acl and asper the account the defendants areliable to pay to the applicant Bank the total sum of Rs. 44,28,089.671 which includes uncharged interest of Rs. 3,51,795.67 calculated upto17.06.2023and the accounl has become N.P.A. on 05.06.2022.
The defendants are defaulters and in spite of repeatedrequests and demands made by the applicant Bank, the defendants have failed torepay the loan, as per account maintained by the applicantBank, AizawlBranch,thedefendantsare liable to repay to the applicant Bank,Aizawl Branch,the lotal sum of Rs. 44,28,089,671 with interest calculated up to'17.06.2023 alongwith pendentilite and futurc inlerests till full realization of the entire balanceoutstandingin saidloanaccount.
The applicant Bank on many occasionsdemandedand over telephone requested the defendants topay the balance outstanding in the said loanaccount and has also sent demandnoticesto the defendanlson 02.06 2022' demanding outstanding balance in the saidloanaccount and also sent legal notice through
JL^cl.s^Z"La -L.4.oz A- /l Pr€siding Oftcer DRT. Guwahati
5
o.a. 3o2023/oRl6uw.h.ti
lawyers on 29.08.2022 but the defendants failed and neglected to pay the balance oulstanding of the said loan accounts.
The applicant bank on 10.01.2023, lodged an FIR before Otficer in Charge, Police Station Crime & Economic Offences stating that a term loan of Rs. 65,00,000/- was sanctioned to M/s C B Food Processing and an amount of Rs. 38.50 Lakhs was released to M/s C B Food Processing towards purchase of machinery for setting up of the unit but no machinery was procured and no unit was set up by the borrower and instead the fund was diverted and no asset was created out of the financial assistance extended by the Bank and thereby fraudulently misappropriated the Bank's fund and committed the act of cheating and criminal breach of trust against the agreed terms and conditions and requested to initiate criminal proceedings.
The applicant bank thus became constrained to file thepresent Original Application for the recovery of R3, 44,28,089.67 (Rupees Forty-Four Lac TwentyEight Thousand Eighty-Nine and Paisa Sixty€.von) only as on 17.06.2023 along with interast and cost of the application.
After filing of the OA the Tribunal issued nolices upon the defendants through registered post and the applicant bank filed service report on 13.10.2023 and brought on record the postal receipts along with track consignment report. The learned counsel for the defendant No. 3 has appeared on 06.11.2023 and flled his written statement on affidavit on 28.11.2023 to which the learned counsel for the applicant bank has filed its rejoinder on 08.0'1.2024. The learned counsel for the defendants No. 1 & 2 has appeared on 06j12023 and filed their written statemenl on affidavit on 22.U.2024 to which the leamed counsel for the applicant bank has liled its rejoinder on 3'1.05.2024. Thereafter the matter wasposted for hearing.
Supporting lhe claim of the applicant bank Sri Lunkhogin Neihsial, Chief Manager of the Applicant Bank has filed evidence on affidavit coupledwith the security documenb marked as Exhibit A-1 to A-'17 supporting the claimof theapplicantbank details of which are: -
S[,^i9l^ar^. aJr+ )4. oL.)S- ll Presiding Oficer DRT, Guwehati
6
O A 302023/DR1€uEhati
| Sl.No. | Name of the documents | ExhibitNo |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Loan Application dated 29.09.2020 | A-1 |
| 2 | Sanction Advicedated 05.12.2020 |
A-2 |
| 3 | DemandpromissorynoteA-1dated05.12.2020forRs. 65,00.000/-(RuDeesSixty Five Lakhs) |
|
| 4 | LetterofwaiverA-47dated 05.12.2020 | A-4 |
| 5 | Agreementrelatingtotermloan(A-109)dated05j2.2020 | A-5 |
| 6 | DeedofHypothecation of movable plant and machinery tosecure atermloanA-9Adeted05122O2O |
A-6 |
| 7 | Text ofConsent clausetobeincluded intheloan documentsto beexecutedbythebonowerANNEXURE-ldated 05.12.2020. |
A-7 |
| 8 |
Declarationinrespectoffamily members/ legal heirs | A-8 |
| I | Application for releaseorloan instalment | a-o |
| 10 | TradeLic€nce | |
| 1'l | RentAgreement | |
| 12 | Project Report | A-10 |
| 13 | Profileof Guarantor JeromeLalremtluanga dated29.09.2020and LetterofGuaranteeA-21bytheGuarantorJeromeLalremtluanga dated05.'12.2020. |
A-11 |
| 14 | Text oftheconsent clausetobe includedintheloandocuments tobeexecutedby theguarantorJeromeLalremtluanga, Annexure-ll. |
A-12 |
| 15 | StatementofAccount | A-13 |
| t6 | StatementofUncharged interest & Certificales | A-14 |
| 17 | Demand Notice dated 02.06.2022 | A-15 |
| '18 | Leoal notice throuoh lawyer dated 29.08.2022 | |
| 19 | Firstlnformationreport(FlR)dated 10A12023 | A-17 |
The defendants No. 1 & 2 have appeared and contested the claimof the applicant bank by filing written statement on af{idavitstating interalia therein that the original application is not maintainablein law as wellas in facts. The applicant bank does not have any cause of actionagainst the answering defendants.lt is denied by lhese answering defendants thatthe tolal outstandingdebt is Rs. 44,28,089.67/- with interest calculated upto17.6.2023togetherwith future intereslstill full realization of the entire balance outstandingin the said account. lt is statedthat althoughthe applicant bankhad sanctioneda sum of Rs 65,00,000/-as Term Loan in favour of answering defendantson 05.'!2.2020, but an amountof Rs 38,50,000/-only was disbursed. The remainingamountwas never paid to the answering defendants by the applicant bank,whichwas essential for settingup the foodprocessing plant.The non- payment of the remaining amountleft the answeringdefendants helpless and as such' they were unableto setupthe plant and earn any income from it to repay theloan amount. ltis further stated that the disbursed amountwas sent to M/s Beatus Enterprise, forrhe supply of therequiredmachineriesHowever' due to the outbreak of Covid-19pandemicwhich lasted for some periodof time'ShriAnthony Lakuatkima
sti, Jro44^AJ4 24 oz.K ll PreBiding Ofrce, DRT, Guwahati
O A 302r2023/DRT-Guwahalr
who is the proprietor of M/s Beatus Enterprise, was unable to supply such required machineries and the amount of Rs. 38,50,0001 was returned to the answering defendants in apiece meal manner in theyear 2021. The answering defendants intimated the applicant bank about the same. After the initial setback, the answering defendant no.2 used the name of his other firm/lndustry i.e. Orison Furnishlndustries (OPC) to purchase the required machineries, as the defendant No. 1 tirm did not have any registration. The answering defendant No.2 made variouspaymentsto purchase the required machineries and in total spent Rs. 35,33,660/-. However, few of the machineries that were ordered by the answering defendants were not delivered due to non-payment of full amount and the amountpaid was also notretumed bythe dealers/suppliers. As such, no step could be takento fullyset up plant and to produce materials and there was no income from it. This in turnhad resultedto the Loan Acmunt be declared as Non-Performing Asset. Oespite thetoughsituation the answering defandants were in, theymaderepayment ofRs. 9,06,480.511to the applicant bank in respect of term loan whichis alsoreflected in the statementof account of the loan account. Since theremaining sanctioned amount was not released by the applicant bank, the dealers/ suppliershad not deliveredthe machineriesto the plant of answering defendants. Few of the machineries that were ordered by the answering defendants were not delivered due tonon-payment of full amount and the amountpaid was also not retumedby the dealers/ suppliers evenafter repeated requests. The answering defendantsapproached the applicant bank and made numerous requests to release theremaining sanctionedamount, but the applicant bank turned a deaf ear to therequests and did not disburse theremaining amount. Owing to the COVID-1gpandemicand non-releaseof the remainingsanctioned amount by the applicant bank,the answering unable to setup the foodprocessing unit asplanned and due tolack of income generation,the answering defendants not able to makepayments ofthe loan. Without fulfilment of promisesmadeby the bankin its entirety, the bank cannot seekreciprocalfulfilment of the promise,which in this case is the return of amount ofRs. 38,50,000/-.Moreover' it was Hualthawmvunga'S/o Lalcheuva who have utilizedthe amount and as such, until and unless, the rest of the
9;-^td"u^Aa+ Pt6stdin,#"*L'{d DRT Guwahali
O A 3022023/oRI-Guwahati
amount sanctioned and released, the liability as prayed for in the instant case, cannot be said to have commenced. ln view of the above, the applicant bank is not entitled to any of the relief asprayed for in the instant application being frivolous and vexatious and being instituted suppressing material facts and misrepresenting facts contrary to the records, the instant application is liable to be dismissed with cost.
The learned counsel for the applicant bank has filed its rejoinder against the written slatement and evidence on affidavit tiled by the defendants No, 1 & 2 in which it has been stated thal the loan was sanctioned and documents were also execuled on 05.12.2020. The Applicant Bank has exhibited the relevant documents. It is stated that after disbursing an amount of Rs. 38,50,0001 forpurchasing machinery, the answering defendants failed topurchase the same and, as such, applicant Bank could not disburse further amount to the answering defendants for the said business. The applicant Bank having no alternative filed FIR on 10.01.2023 stating therein that the said financial assistance was extended forpurchasing machinery for setting up of Food Processing Unit but no machinery wasprocured and no unit was setup by the answering defendants/ borrower instead the fund was diverted and no assets was created out of the financial assistance extended by the applicant Bank and thereby fraudulently misappropriated Bank's fund and committed acts of cheating and criminal breach of trust as Bank's money ispublic money, ln view of the said circumstances, the applicant Bank did not disburse any further amount to the answering defendants. The demand notice dated 02.06.2022 and lawyer's notice dated 29.05.2022 werc duly sent to the answering defendants and the said notices were also acceptedby them. The answering defendants themselves could notpurchase themachinery by themselves asper their choice as money was alreadypaid by the applicantBankto the concemed supplier asper knowledge of the Bank and, as such, theanswering defendants cheated the applicant Bank and committed breach oftrust and, as such, applicant Bank did not disburse any further amount to theanswering defendants. There is sufficient cause of aclion for lhe instant original application.Theanswering defendant did not submit anyphotograph of the unit and machineryas it is not existed. The answering defendants withoutpermission of the applicantBank himself ordered
k3i DRT, Guwahati
oa 302023/oRf€uwahEti
the machinery withoutknowledgeof the Bank and committedbreach of trust The answering defendants arewillfutdefaulter and without payment of balance outstanding in tha account thesaid account cannot be regularized.As the answering defendants commiltedbreach of contract, therefore the question of further disbursement do not ariseat all. The defendantsarejointlyand severally liable for the entire claim amountof theinstant original application. lt is prayed that order may be passed and certificate may be issuedin favour ot theapplicant bankas per prayer made in the instant originalapplication.
The defendant No. 3 hasappeared andcontestedthe claim of the applicantbank by filing written statementon affidavitstating interalia thereinthat thereis no causeof action for the suit and lhereforethe suit is liable to be dismissed for want of causeof action. This answeringDefendantNo. 3 has been wrongly impleadedas Defendant No. 3 in thepresent case as he only stoodby his deceased colleague,Late Laldingliana whowas the actual guarantor and in factthe answering defendant was completely in thedark about the whole deal The name of theDefendant No 3 has been impleaded ashe was the guarantor in goodfaith The actual guarantor was Mr' Laldingliana, S/oMr. C.Lalsanglura and who expired and hence name of the Oefendant No. 3 shouldalso be struck off from the presentplaint This answering defendant is not atall aware of the tinancial details, documentations and paper-work related to the above-notedsuit. ln fact, the answeringdefendantis a very good friend of his deceasedcolleague, Mr. Laldingliana, S/o -Mr. C Lalsanglura,who had stood as aguarantor tothe said loan. The statements of account are not properly maintained by the applicant bankand the rate of interest charged by the applicant bank are exorbitant and arenot charged as perthe guidelinesof the Reserve Bank of lndia'
The leamed counselfor the applicant bank has filed its rejoinder against the written statement andevidence on afiidavit filedby the defendantNo 3 in whichit has been slated thatthe original applicationis withinlimitationas the documentswere executed bythe defendants on 05.12 2020and the case wasliled on 31'07 2023 and the defendanino.3 is jointly and severally liable for theclaim amountof theinstant original application.The defendant no. 3 being an educated personafter reading out
sl.u*,aa*7"1" 2).^ l'2 -/l Presiding Ofic.i " (J DRT. Guwahali
O A 302/2023/DRT-Gueahati
IO
the contents of entire letter ofguarantee signed the same and stood asa guarantorof the said loan and the defendant no. 3 also admitted hisliability bysaying he only stood by his deceased colleague. The defendant no. 3 beingguarantor of theloanis jointly and severally liable for the entire claim amount of the instant original application. The defendant no. 3 categorically admitted that he is theguarantor of the loan though his colleague Mr. Laldingliana(since deceased) expiredand, as such, being a guarantor defendant no. 3 isjointly and severallyliable for the claim amount of the instant original applicaiion. The defendantno. 3 being guarantor of theloan and executed letter ofguarante€ aftergoing through the sameand, as such, he is iointly and severally liable forthe claim amount oflheinstant original application.
Heard the learned counsel for the applicant bankwho prayedfor issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendants asper pleadingsmade in the Application, supported by evidence on affidavit of theirwitnesswho affirmedon oath the execution of the security and other documentsby thedefendantsand also executionof their own documents relied upon, which have been marked exhibiis.
No one has appeared for the defendantsNo. 1and 2 toput forththeir arguments.
Heard the learned counsel for the defendantsNo. 3 who prayed for dismissalof the original application.
I have carefullyperused the documents onrecord including original application, evidence on affidavit andexhibited documentsas well as written statament and evidence on affidavitfiled by the defendants No. 1 & 2 and defendant No.3.
It is observed that the defendantshave not deniedthe availment of loan, execution of documentsand their signatureon the same.
It is observed that the answeringdefendantshave made generaldenial in their written statemenl. lt is well settledlaw that the Mittenstatement must specificallydeal with each of the allegationof fact madein theplaint.The failure to make specific denial amounts to an admission.ln the presentcase,the defendants have made a general
$ild<ua*z'L^,0 "-", 0RT, ^?&|AL'{ Guwahati
O A 3022023/DRT4uwahati
t1
denial that amounts to admissionon the part of the defendants of the facts pleaded in ihe original applicationby the applicant. Moreoverthe detendantshave not filedany documents in supportof theirpleadingsand failedto justify and provethe stalements made in their Mitten statementand evidence on afiidavit.
It is evidenl from thestatementof accountfiled by theapplicant bankthat the defendanb have defaultedin repaymentof the loan.lf there is defauh in repaymentof the loan lhe applicant bankhas everyright to proceed against the defendantsfor realization of the outstandingdues. Hence, I have no hesitationto hold that this original applicationis maintainable.
The applicsnt bankhas produced on record the copies of the statement of account in respect of the defendant,duly certified under Bankers' BooksEvidenceAct The applicant bank by theevidence-on-affidavit of Sri Lunkhogin Neihsial' ChisfManagerof the applicant bankhad deposed the correclness of the afiidavit and certified copy of the account. Beyondthatnothingmore has to be deposedby an offcerof the bank' lt is thus obviousthataparlfromtheentriesoftheBooksofaccounlthereareampleevidenceon the record to conoboratethe sail entries.
The documents executodby the defendants are duly proved by theapplicant bank and thewitness of the applicant. The applicanthas suftlcientcause of action for liling theinstant application due to disbursemenuavailmentof loan to/bythe defendants andon default in repaymentof the loan by the defendant' inspite of demands made,as perexhibited documentsfiled by the applicant bank'
Considsring thefacts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the documentsfiled by the applicant bank are supporting the claim of the applicant bankand establishing theliability of the defendants lt is proved that the defendants areliableto payto the applicant bankthe claimmade in theOriginal Application.The loanwas obtained and executed on 05'122020Theloan account became NPAon 05 06.2022 and the OA has been tiled on 31 07 '2023 Hence' the OA is liledwell within the periodof limitation and this Tribunal havinga jurisdictionto adjudicatethe Original Application.
Considering theversion of by Sri Lunkhogin Neihsial' the applicant's witness and
sa $yi,*apf Presdrng Offic€I DRT. Guwahali
O.A. 3022023/DRT-Guwahali
1,2
all the documents mafted as exhibits,includingduly certified copy of the statementof account along with interest calculationsheet maintained by the applicant Bank in it's regular course of business, I holdthat theapplicant is entitledto get the Recovery Certificate asprayed for.
ln the result, thepresent OriginalApplication No. 302 of 2023is allowed with cost as under :-
i) The defendants No. 1, 2 & 3are jointly and severally liablelo pay to the applicant bank a sum of Rs.44,28,089.67(Rupee3Forty-FourLacTwenty- Eight Thousand Eighty-Nineand Pai3a Sixty-Seven) only with pendentelite and future interest @8.45%per annumwilhmonthly rests from18.06.2023 till the date of fullpaymenurealization and also cost of the application'
This order is dictatedand correctedby the undersigned'
Judgment dated24thFebruary2025, signedand pronouncedin theTribunal
today under mYsignature.
Copy of theJudgmenuFinal Order be uploadedin the Tribunal's Websiteand file be consignedto Record Room.
s\i^du4,-2J!,1, I )| .6L" { U (Shiv Sharan Dubey) Presiding Officer DRT, Guwahati.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Original Application under Section 19 RDBFI Act is maintainable against the borrower and guarantor?
Whether the recovery certificate should be issued considering the default in repayment and execution of documents?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
UCO BANK, Aizawl Branch
C.B. FOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRY (Prop. Hualthawmvunga)
HUALTHAWMVUNGA
MR. JEROME LALREMTLUANGA
Shiv Sharan Dubey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
