Allowed

Bank of India v. M/S Anita Maurya

DRT17 Sept 2025OA/46/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal adjudicated an original application filed by Bank of India for recovery of dues totaling Rs. 26,31,198.50 from proprietor firm M/s. Anita Maurya. Having found the claim proved, the Tribunal ordered payment of dues, sale of assets if payment is not made, restraint from transferring property, and issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 26,31,198.50 + 10% interest; direction to sell assets if dues not paid; injunction restraining transfer of property; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

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

¶1

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW

¶3

a Office action
proceeding taken with
date
O.A. No.46/2024
17.09.2025 The Judgment is signed and
pronounced on separate sheets. Separately
attached in 06 sheets.
Order be uploaded on the Tribunal’s
website.
(Dictated)
(Pravas Kumar
Presiding Offi
(MK)

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT LUCKNOW

¶5

Present: Pravas Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

¶6

Case No. Original Application No.46 of 2024

¶7

Dated: 17.09.2025

¶8

Bank of India, having Branch at Bahramghat, District Barabanki (UP).

¶9

........Applicant-bank

¶10

Versus

¶11

M/s Anita Maurya, Village – Kumharwa, Post Lodhaura, Ramnagar, District – Barabanki (UP) 225202 through its sole proprietor Smt. Anita Mau rya . 2. Smt. Anita Maurya W/o Sri Sarvesh Kumar Maurya, R/a Sarai Kasthan District – Barabanki (UP) 225412. ......Defendants

¶12

Ld. Counsel for Applicant-bank: Shri Vinay Shanker, Advocate Ld. Counsel for the Defendant Nos.I & 2: Mr. Mohd. Yaqub, Advocate

¶13

JUDGEMENT

¶14

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.26,31,198.50/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs, Thirty One Thousand, One Hundred Ninety Eight and Paisa Fifty 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. The defendant no.2 on

¶15

behalf of defendant no.1 approached the Applicant-bank for grant of Cash r

¶16

O.A. No.46 of 2024

¶17

¶18

Credit Facility of Rs.9.50 lacs and Term Loan of Rs.14.25 lacs were sanctioned to the defendants under 'CGTMSE Scheme’ vide its sanction letter dated 31.03.2022 on certain terms and conditions (Exhibit No. A-2 to Exhibit No. A-4) to this Original Application.

¶19

To secure aforesaid credit facility, defendant No.2 on behalf of the defendant No.1 had executed and signed various security documents in favour of the Applicant-bank on 31.03.2022 (Exhibit No.A-5 to Exhibit No.A18) to this Original Application.

¶20

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

¶21

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 25.06.2023 by the bank as per RBI guidelines, thereafter the Applicant-bank issued final recall notice dated 27.10.2023 to the defendants (Exhibit No. A-19), but, the defendants stated no-response 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.

¶22

As per books of the bank maintained in the usual and ordinary course of banking business, an outstanding of Rs.26,31,198.50/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs, Thirty One Thousand, One Hundred Ninety Eight and Paisa Fifty Only) including interest upto 13.12.2023, were lying due for payment, for which the defendants are jointly and severally liable to repay the same, which they

¶23

r \

¶24

O.A. No.46 of 2024

¶25

did not pay despite repeated requests and demand. The Applicant-bank filed the Statement of loan Accounts. (Exhibit No.A-20 & Exhibit No.A-20) to this Original Application.

¶26

The cause of action for filing the present application arose firstly on 31.03.2022 when the aforesaid credit facility were sanctioned by the I!!!1II Applicant-bank and the same were availed by the defendants and necessary documents were executed by the defendants. The cause of action further arose on when recall Notice dated 27.10.2023 was sent to the defendants, recalling the entire outstanding dues and they failed to pay the same.

¶27

The summons were served upon the defendants through registered IIES post, the defendants through counsel have appeared before this Tribunal, III 1 but no written statement has been filed within statutory period hence, the opportunity to file the written statement is closed. The case is proceeded against the defendants.

¶28

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 legally entitled to the amount as claimed in Original Application on the basis of documents and pleading submitted by it.

¶29

In support of the case Shri Sachin Pooranchand Joshi, Assistant General Manager of the Applicant-bank has filed an affidavit.

¶30

On a careful scrutiny of the evidence on affidavit and Exhibits marked as Exhibit No.A-1 to Exhibit No.A-21, it is proved that defendants

I )

O.A. No.46 of 2024

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

¶35

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

¶36

defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the due:

¶37

Accordingly, the defendants are directed to pay the balance dues to IIly 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 n 1

¶38

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

¶39

The Applicant-bank has claimed [email protected]% in Cash Credit Term Loan Accounts per annum with monthly rest w.e.f. 14.12.2023 till the li I date of realization and costs. On the basis of foregoing discussion, interest of justice will be served if pendente- lite and future interest is granted @10% in both the loan accounts per annum with monthly rest reducing balance from the date of filing of the O.A. till the date of realization with costs.

¶40

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

¶41

¶42

5 O.A. No.46 of 2024

¶43

succeeded 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 2 are joint and several and hypothecated asset as well as the personal properties are to be sold.

¶44

It is, therefore , ordered

¶45

(i) That the Original Application No.46 of 2024 of the Applicant bank for issuance of Recovery Certificate to the tune of Rs.26,31,198.50/(Rupees Twenty Six Lacs, Thirty One Thousand, One Hundred Ninety Eight and Paisa Fifty Only) along with the interest @10% per annum with monthly rest from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 21.12.2023 till the loan is fully liquidated and costs succeeded against the defendants.

¶46

(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.

¶47

(iii) The Applicant–bank is entitled to recover aforesaid amount by sale of 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.

¶48

O.A. No.46 of 2024

¶49

¶50

(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.

¶51

(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 29.12.2025 before R.O., DRT, Lucknow.

¶52

(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 .

¶53

Judgment is pronounced in the open court.

¶54

Dated: 17.09.2025

¶55

\N, (Pravas KumaY Singh) Presiding Officer

¶56

(MK)

Bank of India v. M/S Anita Maurya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. M/S Anita Maurya

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

Icici Bank Limited versus Mr Nitin Khare

Icici Bank Limited versus K P K Enterprises

Axis Bank versus Mr Rajendra Kumar Batham

M S Vinayak Engineering Works versus Punjab National Bank

Musharraf Ansari versus Edelweiss Asset REconstruction company limited

Shailendra Ranjan versus Punjab National Bank