Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Shri Ashtefaq Husain Farooqui

DRT12 Nov 2025OA/491/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The tribunal adjudicated an original application by Union Bank of India for recovery of dues arising from vehicle, U-GECL, and cash credit facilities. The court found the loan documents valid and the account classified as NPA. The respondent defaulted despite demands. The tribunal allowed the application and directed recovery.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 27,75,222.40 plus 8% annual interest and costs; respondents directed to pay dues within two months or face asset recovery.

Union Bank of India versus Shri Ashtefaq Husain Farooqui — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW

¶3

Date oforderor proceeding	I Order withsignatureof court	Officeaction takenwith date
O.A. No.491/2024 12.11.2025	The Judgment is signed and pronounced on separate sheets. Separately attachedin07 sheets. Order be uploaded on the Tribunal’s website. (Dictated) \I N (PravasKumarSingh) PresidingOfficer
	(Mugish) +

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT LUCKNOW

¶5

Present: Pravas Kumar Singh9 Presiding Officer

¶6

Case No. Original Application No'491 of 2024

¶7

Dated: 12.11.2025

¶8

Union Bank of India/ having Branch at Kalyanpur/ Lucknow Uttar Pradesh.

¶9

........Applicant-bank

¶10

Versus

¶11

Shri Ashtefaq Husain Farooqui, Proprietor of M/s Lucknow Traders, S/o Shri Mushtaq Husain Farooqui, R/o Flat No.502/ Sarneera Apartment, Near Go Go Ice Cream, Hewett Road, Distt, Lucknow – 226001

¶12

Second Address: House No.6, Shop No.12, Ground Floor, Alok Nagar, Kanchan Bihari Marg, Kalyanpur, District Lucknow – 226022 Third Address: Ground Floor, Plot ......Defendant No.529D/077-CC, Plot No.-03, Kalyanpur, Ring Road, Lucknow – 226022.

¶13

Ld. Counsel for Applicant-bank: Shri Nitesh Kumar Tripathi, Advocate Ld. Counsel for the Defendants: None.

¶14

JUDGEMENT

¶15

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.27,75,222.40/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lacs, Seventy Five Thousand, Two Hundred Twenty Two and Paisa Forty Only) together with pendent-lite and future interest, costs and other reliefs

etc

n\ \A

O.A. No.491 of 2024

The brief facts of case are that the defendant No.1 had approached the Applic..ant-bank and had applied for the sanction of the Vehicle Loan' The Applic...ant-ban'k considered the request of the defendant and sanctioned Vehicle Loan of Rs.5.90 lacs vide its sanction letter dated 20'09'2018 on certain terms and conditions (Exhibit No. A-3 & Exhibit No' A-4) to thIS Original Application.

¶21

To secure aforesaid credit facility, defendant had executed and signed various security documents in favour of the Applicant-bank on 20'09'2018 (Exhibit No.A-5) to this Original Application.

¶22

That the defendant had availed the said Vehicle Loan for the purchase of Maruti swift Car. The said Car was registered by the Licensing Authority Transport Department Uttar Pradesh No. UP32KC0207 dated 03.10.2018, a copy of which is being annexed as (Exhibit No. A-6) to this Original Application.

¶23

That at the request of defendant No.1 had approached the applicant bank for grant of Union Guarantee Emergency Credit Limit (U-GECL) of Rs.1.60 lacs on 30. 06.2020 for his proprietorship firm in the name & style of M/s Lucknow Trades, a copy of which is being annexed as (Exhibit No.A-7) to this Original Application.

¶24

That the defendant had acknowledged the dues in Vehicle Loan on

¶25

31.08.2021 (Exhibit No. A-8) to this Original Application.

¶26

Subsequently, at the request of Defendant No.1 on behalf of M/s Lucknow Trades, had again approached the applicant bank for grant of Cash Credit Limit of Rs.22.00 lacs under CGTMSE Scheme vide its Sanction Letter

¶27

r
<br>U R\

¶28

O.A. No.491 of 2024

¶29

dated 17.06.2022, a copy of which is being annexed as (Exhibit No. A-9) to this original Application.

¶30

To secure aforesaid credit facility the defendant No.1 on behalf of M/s Lucknow Trades had executed and signed various security documents in favour of the application bank on 17.06.2022, a copy of which is being annexed as (Exhibit No.A-10 to Exhibit No.A-16) to this Original Application.

¶31

That the defendant being proprietor of M/s Lucknow Traders had acknowledged the dues in U-GECL on 30.06.2022 vide it’s Composite Debit Balance Confirmation dated 30.06.2022, a copy of which is encloses as (Exhibit No.A-17) to this Original Application.

¶32

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.

¶33

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 29.05.2023 by the bark as per RBI guidelines (Exhibit No. A-18), thereafter the Applicant-bark issued Registered Legal Notice dated 18.02.2024 to the defendants (EHlibit 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.

¶34

As per books of the bank maintained in the usual and ordinary course of banking business, an outstanding of Rs.27,75,222.40/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lacs, Seventy Five Thousand, Two Hundred Twenty Two and Paisa

¶35

<br>

¶36

¶37

4 O.A. No.491 of 2024

¶38

Forty Only) including interest upto 31.03.2024, 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-20 to Exhibit No.A-22) to this Original Application.

¶39

The cause of action for filing the present application arose firstly on 20.09.2018 when the aforesaid credit facility were s.anctioned by the Applicant-bank and the same were availed by the defendants and necessary documents were executed by the defendants on 30.06.2020 and 17.06.2022. The cause of action further arose on when Registered Legal Notice dated 18.02.2024 was sent to the defendants, recalling the entire outstanding dues and they failed to pay the same.

¶40

The summons were served upon the defendant through registered post, the defendant through counsel appeared before this Tribunal on 09.08.2024, written statement has been filed by the defendant after a lapse of 45 days, hence, could not be taken on record. The case proceeded against the defendant after closing the opportunity of filing WS.

¶41

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.

(

O.A. No.491 of 2024

In support of the case Shri Nitin Kumar Chaudhary, Branch Manager of the Applicant-bank has filed an affidavit.

¶46

On a careful scrutiny of the evidence on affidavit and Exhibits marked as Exhibit No.A-1 to Exhibit No.A-22, 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.

¶47

AccordingIY, the defendant is 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 hypothecated assets and personal assets/ properties of the defendants.

¶48

The Applicant-bank has claimed [email protected]% in Cash Credit Account, [email protected]% in Vehicle Loan and [email protected]% in U_GECL per annum with monthly rest w.e.f. 31.03.2024 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

¶49

¶50

-*--

¶51

O.A. No.491 of 2024

¶52

monthly rest reducing balance from the date of filing of the O.A. till the date of realization with costs.

¶53

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 proceeded against the defendant 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 No.1 hypothecated asset as well as the personal properties are to be sold.

¶54

It is, therefore , ordered

¶55

(i) That the Original Application No.491 of 2024 of the Applicant bank for issuance of Recovery Certificate to the tune of Rs.27,75,222.40/(Rupees Twenty Seven Lacs, Seventy Five Thousand, Two Hundred Twenty Two and Paisa Forty Only) along with the interest @8% per annum with monthly rest from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 19.04.2024 till the loan is fully liquidated and costs succeeds as proceeded against the defendant.

¶56

(ii) The defendant is 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.

¶57

(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 r\

¶58

¶59

O.A. No.491 of 2024

¶60

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.

¶61

(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

¶62

Applicant-bank.

¶63

(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 22.01.2026 before R.O., DRT, Lucknow.

¶64

(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 .

¶65

Judgment is pronounced in the open court

¶66

Dated: 12.11.2025

¶67

\g (Pravas Kumar sihgl,) Presiding Officer

¶68

(MK)

Union Bank of India v. Shri Ashtefaq Husain Farooqui

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Shri Ashtefaq Husain Farooqui

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

Mrs Ramshri Shukla versus Union Bank of India

Canara Bank versus Sumit Kumar Sharma

Mr Vartika Sharma versus Hdfc Bank

Vaishno Prasad Mishra versus Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd.

Hdfc Bank versus M/S. Hari Enterprises

Mohammad Salman versus Hero Housing Finance Ltd.