Allowed

Uco Bank v. Sri Pankaj Kumar Bhutoria

DRT29 Oct 2025OA/424/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's original application for recovery of dues under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act 2002. The court held that the defendants, who failed to produce contra-evidence against the bank's documents, are jointly and severally liable for the outstanding sum.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to pay Rs. 49,79,569.05 with future interest; bank entitled to realize dues via hypothecation/mortgage or sale of assets.

Uco Bank versus Sri Pankaj Kumar Bhutoria — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDEMBAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB.^(HonS.), M.A.

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

Original Application Noi 424 OF 2024

¶6

UCO Bank Mid Corporate Branch, D No: 8-2-418, Krishnama House, Road No: 4 & 7, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500034. Represented by its asst. General Manager cum Authorized Officer.

¶7

...Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sri Pankaj Kumar Bhutoria, Sole Proprietor of M/s New Sonic car D6cors #D.No. 3-2-398lN, Bahadurguda. L.B. Nagar Main road, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad - 500074.

¶10

Sri Pankaj Kumar Bhutoria S/o Sri Binod Kumar Jain, Aged: Major, Occ; Business. # D. No. 3-2-398/N, Bahadurguda, L. B. Nagar Main Road, L. B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad-500074. Also at

¶11

Flat No. G1 & G2, Navya Lake View, Near More Super Market, Road No. 9. Arunodaya Nagar Colony, Nagole, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. Hyderabad-500068.

¶12

Sri Paras Mal Jain S/o Sri Binod Kumar Jain, Aged: Major, Occ: Business, Flat No. G1 & G2, Navya Lake View, Near More Super Market, Road No. 9, Arunodaya Nagar Colony, Nagole, Medchal-Malkajglri District, Hyderabad-500068. ...Defendants /7*-.v^ L/{'v"'

¶13

oA, No. 4?112024

¶14

Cou nsel for the Applicant

¶15

Smt K Nandini alias Smt A.^Nandani Reddy

¶16

Counsel for Defendants

¶17

: Mr. J. Narendra Kumar

¶18

:: ORDER::

¶19

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA for the^{recoveryof a sum of} Rs.49,79,569.05 ps from the defendants^jointly and^{severallyi.e., Cash} credlt of Rs.46,05,810.69^ps with future interest @^{10.85vop.a. and} Additional Working Capital Term^{Loan (AWCTL)} of^{Rs.3,73,758.36/-with} further interest @ 9.25o/o^per annum with monthly^rests from^01.08.2024 tlll the date of realisation with^penal interest rate of^{2o/o P.A and sale of OA} schedule movable and immovable assets/properties.

¶20

The averments of the applicant bank as^per the OA, in brief, are^that the Defendant No. 1 who is the sole^proprietor of M/s^{New Sonics Car} D6cors availed of a Cash Credit facility of Rs.10 lakhs on^{27.04.2018and} closed subsequently on 08.12.2020. The 1st defendant against approached the applicant bank for sanction of cash credit of^{Rs.20 lakhs which was} sanctioned vide sanction letter dated 26.02.2020 which came to^be renewed to Rs 44,00,000/- against security OA schedule^{A movable assets} and mortgage of OA schedule 'C' immovable^property. The OA schedule-C immovable property is also security for the home loan of Rs.39,20,000/availed by defendants 2 and 3 on 24.08.2077. The applicant bank also sanctioned an Additional Working Capital Term Loan of Rs 3,91,000/- as per RBI guidelines vide sanction letter dated 27.L2.202f against exclusive charge by way of hypothecation on the entire stocks, receivables, bills etc., as described in OA schedule-B and^{personalguarantees} of defendants 2 and 3. The defendants executed all necessary loan documents, Letter of Extension of Mortgage/MoDT, agreements and guarantees. Due to nonpayment, applicant bank issued a statutory demand notice dated 01-07Jtr'n . . t^ ,'-n"o''^'

¶21

OA. No. 42412024

¶22

2024 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, demanding repayment of all outstanding dues. Except some sporadic part-payments, the defendants failed to keep the accounts regular. The Cash Credit facility remained out of order due to non-maintenance and irregular servicing of interest, leading to the bank's enforcement action. The bank's sanctioned limits were enhanced/ reviewed over tlme at the Defendants' request, supported by multiple sets of loan and security documents, with each enhancement or renewal being executed through demand promissory notes, letters of continuity, waiver, hypothecation deeds, and extension of mortgage as applicable. As the defendants failed to clear the dues, the present OA is filed.

¶23

Defendants 1 and 2 filed written statement and defendant No.3 adopted the same. At the outset, defendants denied the OA averments and the resultant OA claim. It was claimed that the officials of the applicant bank obtained their signatures on blank printed forms and the entries of the account filled by the bank are fictitious in nature and are not sufficient to charge the borrower with liability as stated in section 34 of Indian Evidence Act, 7872. As the applicant bank has failed to file any relevant evidence with the OA, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

¶24

The Applicant Bank examined Indrajit Pramanik, Assistant General Manager and also the Authorised Officer of UCO Bank -Service as AW-1 and marked 26 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.26.

¶25

In order to substantiate their defence, D1 to 3 examined 2nd defendant Pankaj Kumar Bhutoria as DW-1 and marked no documents. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant bank, Defendants' right of arguments was forfeited for non-representation vide docket order dated 11.08.2025. Perused the written arguments filed by learned counsel for the applicant bank along with the material brought on rccotdfung

¶26

OA. No.42412024

¶27

According to^{learned counselfor the applicant,after availing the cash} creditfacilityandadditionalworkingcapitaltermloanfacilitybyexecuting loan documents,^{hypothecatingthe OA schedule A and B movableassets} and creating/extend^{ing the mortgageover OA schedule-CproPerty,the} defendants neglected^{in repayment and hence account becameNPA' The} claim of the applicant^{is amPly proved by the evidenceof AW-1 coupled} with recitals of^{Exs.A.1to A.26 marked through him' The defendants could} not establish anything^{contraryto the evidence of the applicantbank'} Hence the OA deserved^{to be allowed'}

¶28

The^point that arises^{for considerationis:-}

¶29

Whether the^{ApplicantBank is entitled for the OA claim} against the^{Defendantsand OAscheduleproperties?}

¶30

The defendants^{except making bald statement in the written} statement that the^{evidence produced by the applicant bank is not valid,} the entries are fictitious,^{the claim is false, signatures were obtainedon} blank documents^{etc., they neither chose to file contra-evidencein} substantiation of their^{pleas, nor did they choose to confront the witness of} the applicant bank by^{way of cross examinationas to veracityof the} Exs.A.1 to A.26. It is settled^{law that mere statementwithoutsufficient} evidence is of no avail. On^{the other hand, the applicant produced} documents and marked them^{throughevidence affidavit of AW-1as proof} of its claim. Accordingly,^{applicant bank is entitled to the OA claim based on} the evidence^placed on^{recordvlde Ex.A.1to A.26. Hence, I holdthat the} Defendants 1 to 3 are^{jointlyand severally llableto pay to the Applicant} Bank the claim made^{in the OA with futureinterestand costs.}

¶31

In the result, the^present Original^{Applicatlon No.424/2024is allowed} as under: fr$uo9

fr$uo9

OA. No. 42412024

i) the Defendants 1 to 3 are joinuy and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs. 49,79,569,05 ps i.e., a sum of Rs.46,05.810.69 ps towards cash credit account and a sum of Rs.3,73,758.36 ps towards Additional Working Capital Term Loan (AWCTL) account, together with future interest @9.25% per annum simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶36

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation of OA schedule A and B movable assets and mortgage of OA schedule-C property and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same to realise its debt under respective accounts;

¶37

iii) The applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of the defendants to realize its dues;

¶38

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶39

The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶40

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶41

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶42

(Typed to my dictation by the Steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29rh day ofOctober,2025) .

¶43

¶44

HWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Uco Bank v. Sri Pankaj Kumar Bhutoria

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. Sri Pankaj Kumar Bhutoria

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

M/s. Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus v N Narendra Kumar

Mrs Nidamanuri Swaroop Rani versus Axis Bank

Magbul Jan versus Canara Bank

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Rayalaseema Bio Bags.

Karur Vysya Bank Limited versus Veluru Viswanatha Naidu

Karur Vysya Bank Limited versus M/S. Vohul Techno Solutions