Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Ms Sunil Forwarding Agency

DRT4 Nov 2025OA/332/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed an ex-parte application by Union Bank of India for recovery of dues totaling Rs. 36.57 lakhs with interest. The court upheld the bank's claim based on loan documents and an affidavit of the Branch Manager, as the defendants failed to appear. A recovery certificate was directed to be issued.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate to be issued for Rs. 36,56,675.32 plus interest at 8% per annum with monthly rest; defendants directed to pay dues or face sale of secured and personal assets.

Union Bank of India versus Ms Sunil Forwarding Agency — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW

¶2

r Office action
taken with
proceeding
date
0.A. No.332/2022
04.11.2025 The Judgment is signed and
pronounced on separate sheets. Separately
attached in 08 sheets.
Order be uploaded on the Tribunal’s
website.
(Dictated)
IU
*<br>(Pravas Kumar Singh)
Presiding Officer
(Mugish)

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT LUCKNOW

¶4

Present: Pravas Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

¶5

Case No. Original Application No.332 of 2022

¶6

Dated: 04.11.2025

¶7

Union Bank of India, a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act V of 1970 having its Head Office at 239, Vidhan Bhawan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021, Regional Office at Union Bank Bhawan, Near Mantri Awas, Vibhuti ........Applicant-bank I<hand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, U.P. and one of its Branch known as Bijnaur Branch, Near Priya n ka Boys Hostel Bijna ur, District Lucknow, U.P. – 226002. Versus 1. M/s Sunil Forwarding Agency, A Proprietorship Concern situated at Village Rasoolpur Jjuria, Near SGPGI, Post Bijnaur/ Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow – 226002. 2. Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav, (Proprietor of M/s Sunil Forwarding Agency) S/o Shri Swaroop Yadav, R/a Village Rasoolpur Jhuria, Near SGPGI, Post Bijnaru, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow 226002 2-d Address: R/o at Plot No.66, Khasra No.658(Mini), Situated at Village Gauri, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow, U.P. – 226002. 3. Shri Laxmi Narayan, S/o Late Shri Bhagwan Deen, R/o Village Gauri, Post Amausi, Sarojini ...... Defendants Nagar, Lucknow – 226008.

¶8

Ld. Counsel for Applicant-bank: Shri Anurag Srivastava, Advocate Ld. Counsel for the Defendants: None.

JUDGEMENT

r
\\ V-–

O.A. No.332 of 2022

This Original Application has been filed bY the Applicant-bank under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendants for the recovery of Rs.36,56,675.32/- (Rupees ThirtY Six Lacs, Fifty SiX Thousand J SiX Hundred Seventy Five and Paisa Thirty Two Only) together with pendent_lite and future interest, costs and other reliefs etc. 2 The brief facts of case are that the defendants No.1 is a proprietorship firm of which defendant no.2 is the sole proprietor and the defendant No.3 is the mortgagor/guarantor. The defendant no.2 on behalf of defendant no.1 approached the Applicant-bank for financial assistance. The Applicantbank considered the request of the defendants and sanctioned Cash Credit Limit of Rs.18.00 vide its sanction letter dated 09.01.2018 on certain terms and conditions (Exhibit No. A-2 & Exhibit No. A-3) to this Original Application.

¶14

To secure aforesaid credit facility, defendant No.2 on behalf of the defendant No. T had executed and signed various security documents in favour of the Applicant-bank. The defendant No.3 signed and executed Guarantee Agreement dated 09.01.2018 (Exhibit No.4 to Exhibit No.A-10) to this Original Application.

¶15

In order to further secure the repayment of the bank dues, the defendant No.3 created equitable mortgage in respect of property i.e.Residential Plot and Construction thereon having Plot No.66, Khasra No.658(Min) Situated at Village Gauri, Ward Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow, U.P.- 226002, admeasuring 186-245 square meters in favour of the bank by deposit of title deed (Exhibit No. A-11 to Exhibit No. A- 15) to this Original Application.

O.A. No.332 of 2022

Subsequently, at the request of the defendant No.2 on behalf of the defendant No.1 had again approached the applicant bank for grant of Term Loan (Vehicle) Facility of Rs.7.50 lacs under Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojna vide its Sanction Letter dated 28.02.2018 on certain terms and conditions (Exhibit No. A- 16 to Exhibit No. A- 18) to this Original Application.

¶20

That in order to availing the aforesaid Term Loan (Vehicle) of Rs.7.50 lacs, the defendant No.2 on behalf of the defendant No.1 had singed and executed the following documents in favour of the applicant bank on 28.02.2018 (Exhibit No.A-19 to Exhibit No. A-25) to this Original Application.

¶21

That after sanctioned of Term Loan(Vehicle) facility of Rs.7.50 laos, the defendant No.2 has purchased the Goods Carrier i.e. Tata Ace Bahubail having Registration No.UP 32 KN 0974, Chassis No.MAT'445237JVA05716 and Engine No.2751DI07ARYS13155, which is duly registered with Transport Department Uttar Pradesh, registered in the name of defendant No.2 i.e. Mr. Sunil Kumar Yadav (Exhibit No. A-26) to this Original Application.

¶22

That again at the request of the defendant No.2 on behalf of the defendant No. 1 had approached the applicant bank for grant of additional Term Loan (Vehicle) facility of Rs.5.00 lacs under Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojna vide its sanction letter dated 17.10.20189 for purchase of Goods Carrier/Delivery Van of Mahendra & Mahendra (Exhibit No. A-27 & Exhibit No. A-28) to this Original Application.

¶23

That in order to availing the aforesaid Term Loan (Vehicle) of Rs.5.00 lacs, the defendant No.2 on behalf of the defendant No.1 had singed and executed the following documents in favour of the applicant bank on

O.A. No.332 of 2022

17.10.2018 (Exhibit No. A-29 to EMlibit No.A-34) to this Original Application.

¶28

That after sanctioned of Term Loan/Union Process facility of Rs.5.00 lacs, the defendant No.2 has purchased the Goods Carrier of Mahendra Mahendra, having Registration No.UP 32 LN 1 102, Chassis No.MAIZP2TBKJ2H60582 and Engine No.TBJ4H60206, which is duly registered with Transport Department Uttar Pradesh, registered in the name of defendant No.2 i.e. Mr. Sunil Kumar Yadav (Exhibit No.A-35) to this Original Application.

¶29

To avail the aforesaid credit facility, the Applicant-bank had opened three loan accounts in the name of defendant No. 1 in order to maintain the credit facilities.

¶30

After availing the aforesaid credit facility, the defendants failed to maintain financial discipline and also failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, consequently, the loan account of the defendant no.1/firm was classified as NPA on 01.03.202119 30.04.2020 and 29.12.2020 by the bank as per RBI guidelines. The defendant had also signed the Simple Debit Balance Confirmation Letter dated 19.11.2020 regarding all the loan accounts (Exhibit No. A-36), thereafter the Applicant-bank issued recall Notice dated 05.04.2021 to the defendants. That the applicant bank has also issued legal notice dated 19.06.202 1 in both the term loan accounse sanctioned on 28.02.2018 & 17.10.2018, through its advocate on 19.06.2021 calling to the defendants (Exhibit No. A-37/38). The applicant bank had issued demand notice dated 10.06.2021 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, to the defendants. Finally, the applicant bank issued possession notice dated 25.11.2021 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAEsi

¶31

O.A. No.332 of 2022

¶32

¶33

Act, 2002 to the defendants (Exhibit No. A-40) but, the defendants stated noresponse and they failed to repay the same and the loan accounts of the defendants are still un-liquidated, hence, this Original Application has been instituted.

¶34

As per books of the bank maintained in the usual and ordinary course of banking business, an outstanding of Rs.36,56,675.32/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lacs, Fifty Six Thousand, Six Hundred Seventy Five and Paisa Thirty Two Only) including interest upto 28.02.2022, were lying due for payment, for which the defendants are jointly and severally liable to repay the same, which they did not pay despite repeated requests and demand. The Applicant-bank filed the Statement of loan Accounts. (Exhibit No.A-41 to Exhibit No.A-45) to this Original Application.

¶35

The cause of action for filing the present application arose firstly on 09.01.2018 when the aforesaid credit facility were sanctioned by the Applicant-bank and the same were availed by the defendants and necessary documents were executed by the defendants on 28.02.2018 and 17.10.2018. The cause of action further arose on when demand Notice dated 10.06.2021 was sent to the defendants. The cause of action also arose on 25.11.2021 when the applicant bank issued the possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to the defendants, recalling the entire outstanding dues and they failed to pay the same.

¶36

The summons were served upon the defendants through registered post as well as by publication, but the defendants did not appear before the Tribunal to contest their case, hence the matter proceeded ex- parte against the defendants

¶37

¶38

O.A. No.332 of 2022

¶39

From the perusal of the record/ it is evident that the defendants were provided with 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 is as to whether bank is legalIY entitled to the amount as claimed in Original Application on the basis of documents and pleading submitted by it.

¶40

In support of the case Shri Ajeet Pratap Singh, Branch Manager of the Applicant-bank has filed an affidavit.

¶41

On a careful scrutiny of the evidence on affidavit and Exhibits marked as Exhibit No.A-1 to Exhibit No.A-45, it is proved that 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 show that defendant had utilized the above loan facilities as granted to them. The Applicant-bank had maintained the Books of account in the ordinary course of banking business showing disbursal of the loan amount. The Bank had also charged interest from time to time and the entries are relevant u/s 4 of the Banker Books of Evidence Act. It is also proved that the Applicant-bank’s claim is within limitation against defendants, therefore, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the dues.

¶42

Accordingly, the defendants are directed to pay the balance dues to the Applicant-bank within a period of 2 months from the date of judgement failing which the Applicant-bank will be entitled to sell the mortgaged

¶43

O.A. No.332 of 2022

¶44

property/ hypothecated assets and personal assets/ properties of the defendants.

¶45

The Applicant-bank has claimed [email protected]% in Cash Credit Loan, [email protected]% in Term Loan (Vehicle) account and [email protected]% in Term Loan (Vehicle) Account per annum with monthly rest w.e.f. 01.03.2022 till the date of realization and costs. On the basis of foregoing discussion, interest of justice will be served if pendent- lite and future interest is granted @8% per annum with monthly rest reducing balance from the date of filing of the O.A. till the date of realization with costs.

¶46

1 find that the bank has proved the execution of loan documents and creation of mortgage in its favour. In the result, the Original Application succeeds as ex-parte against the defendants with costs. The bank has proved the loan execution of loan documents in favour of the bank and availment of credit facility. The liability of the defendant Nos.1 to 3 are joint and several and mortgaged property, hypothecated asset as well as the personal properties are to be sold.

¶47

It is, therefore , ordered

¶48

(i) That the Original Application No.332 of 2022 of the Applicant bank for issuance of Recovery Certificate to the tune of Rs.36,56,675.32/(Rupees Thirty Six Lacs, Fifty Six Thousand, Six Hundred Seventy Five and Paisa Thirty Two Only) along with the interest @8% per annum with monthly rest from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 22.03.2022 till the loan is fully liquidated and costs succeeds ex--

¶49

parte against the defendants.

O.A. No.332 of 2022

(ii) The defendants are directed to pay the dues within a period of two months from the date of judgement, failing which the Applicant-bank will be entitled to recover the same from the secured assets, personal movables and immovable assets of the defendants.

¶54

(iii) The Applicant–bank is entitled to recover aforesaid amount by sale of mortgage property & hypothecated assets (if not sold earlier under the provision of the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act 2002). The amount, if any already recovered by sale of any hypothecated assets or otherwise shall be recoverable, if the dues of the Applicant-bank still remain unsatisfied, the same shall be recovered by attachment and sale of the personal movable assets of the defendant jointly and severally,

¶55

(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.

¶56

(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 20.01.2026 before R.O., DRT, Lucknow.

¶57

(vi) The Applicant-bank is directed to file a memo of cost for preparing Recovery Certificate u/s 19(22) of the Recovery of Debts Bankruptcy Act, 1993 .

¶58

Judgment is pronounced in the open court

¶59

Dated: 04.11.2025

¶60

r\ \ILb

¶61

(Pravas Kuma. ,lgh) Presiding Officer

¶62

(M K)

Union Bank of India v. Ms Sunil Forwarding Agency

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Ms Sunil Forwarding Agency

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

Bank of Baroda versus Sri Krishna Nand Singh

Neha Arora versus Punjab National Bank

Kapil Gupta versus Iifl Home Finance Limited

Indian Bank versus Ms Ss Enterprises

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Ms Pureon Bazar Retail Private Limited

Modinagar Paper Mills Ltd. versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited