Allowed

Uco Bank v. Ms Shri Jagadamba Udyog and Ors.

DRT20 May 2025OA/52/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an ex-parte original application filed by UCO Bank for recovery of dues amounting to Rs. 1,28,62,942.61 from a non-responding partnership firm and its partners, directing the issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 1,28,62,942.61 with pendentelites and future interest at 10.25% per annum; debarment from alienating properties; time of 30 days for repayment; issuance of recovery certificate under S

Uco Bank versus Ms Shri Jagadamba Udyog and Ors. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III KOLKATA PRESENT: -SRI KAMAL DE.

¶3

PRESIDING OFFICER.

¶4

O.A. No. 52 OF 2022,

¶5

DATE OF DELMRY OF ORDER | 2OlOSt 2O2S

¶6

UCO Bank is a body corporate constituted under the provisions of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, tg71, havinq rts Head Office at 10, B.T.t4. Sarani, Kolkata-7OOOO1 and Zonal Office at 3 & 4, DD Block, Salt Lake City, Sector,I, Kolkata-700064 & carrying on business inter-alia, through one of its branch offace at 202, ApC Road, Shyambazar, Kolkata-7OOOO4, known as UCO Bank, Shyambazar Branch, (pAN NO.- AAACU3561B), within the Jurisdiction of this Ld. Tribunal.

¶7

Applcant Bank.

¶8

-Versus-

¶9

1. M/s. ^ShIi^{Jagadamba Udyog, partnershipfrrm representedthroughdefendant} no.- 2 & 3 (partner) sitlrated at 51/3/2A, Strand Road, Kotkata:700007 and havrng Godown at 54/5A, Strand Road, Kotkata-,00006. learrr ruO., AAJ Ft',t8 3 2 8C )

¶10

1. Anup Kumar Poddar, son of Sri Arun Kumar poddar, residing at 12, Bangur Avenue, Btock-C,^p,S.- Laketown, Kolkata_700055, carrying o-n brjstu.r, u, a part-ner of the partnership firm naming l"l/s. Shri lagadambj Udyoq, sltuateO at 51/3/2A, Sttand Road, Kotkata-7OOOO7. (pAN NO.- AiZCCAOnnj'^{-' -}

¶11

1. Anand Kumar Poddar, son of Late Krshna Kumar poddar, residrng at 12, Bangur Avenue, BIock-C,^p.S,- Laketown, Kotkata-700055, naving inotier-aooress i.e. Ftat No.- B-3, 4,h Ftoor, Sree Radhe Apartment, irioe7ze,i"..o;" noud, Nurx"l. Bagan, Kolkata-70o055, carying on business as a pa.tnerof tne partilrsn,p firm TTI!9 !4:^{Shri Jagadamba udyog, situated at Si/3/2A,} StrandaoiO-, xorrata_ 700007. (PAN NO.- AKHPP4632J)

¶12

1. Alok Kumar Poddar, son of Sri Arun Kumar poddar, residing at -oi 12, -tn" Bangot Avenue, sanctioned Btock-c, and disbursed p.s.- Laketown, Kotkata-700055, in favour of partnership f]rm g ui.anioi narninq Mls. rounShrl Jagadamba Udyog. (pAN NO., AFVppO388l )

¶13

1. Smt. Rajo Poddar, wife of Late Krishna Kumar poddar, residing at 12, Bangur Avenue, Btock-C, p.S.- Laketown, Kotkata-70oos5, griiuni6.^- oi^-tn" roun sanctioned and disbursed in favour oF partnershrp fir- nia,ng ly7.. Sl,.i Jagadamba Udyog. (pAN NO.- AGGpp6635Aj

¶14

Defendants.

¶15

Counsel for the Appticant Bank:

¶16

Rathrn Dey, Advocate, Set ex-parte on 07105/2025

¶17

]UDGEMENT

¶18

The Applicant Bank filed the present O.A, being No. O.A./52/2O22 on 27101/2022 for recovery of a total sum of Rs, f ,28,62,942.61/- (Rupees one crore twenty eight lakh sixty two thousand nine hundred forty two and^paisa sixty one only) from the Defendants towards Cash Credit together with interest, cost and other usual reliefs,

¶19

The Defendants are served with summons. The defendants did not appear, as there was no representation from the defendants, the case was flxed for ex-parte hearing on 0710512025, and heard ex-parte accordingly.

¶20

Ihe Applicant Bank examined 13 documents through Smt. Shevantika, Chief Manager marked as Exhibit Annexure-A to Exhibit Annexure-1.

¶21

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶22

The point thal arises for consrderation is :

¶23

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled to the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA schedule properties as prayed for?

As stated supra, the Defendant remained absent and did not turn up to controvert the version of the O.A. of Applacant Bank. The Evidence Affidavat coupled with the recitals rn the documents viz., Exhibits Annexure-A to Exhibit Annexure-L marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank. established the claim of the Applicant Bank agaanst the Defendants and OA schedule properties. Hence, t hold that the Defendants are ioinuy and severa y liable to pay to the Applicant Bank the claims made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶28

In the result, the present Original Application is allowed ex-parte with costs, as under:-

¶29

ORDER

¶30

(1) O.A. No. 52 of 2022 filed by the Applicant Bank is altowed and debt is determined with cost against the defendants. It is hereby ordered that applicant bank is enuued to recover from the defendants the total amount to the tune of Rs. 1,28,62,942.61/- (Rupees one crore twenty eight lakh sixty two thousand nane hundred forty two and paisa sixty one onty) with pendentelite and future interest @ 10.25qo per annum interest with simple on the amount due from the date of filing of the Originat Appticatjon i.e. 27/01/2022 til fu and finat realization of the claam amount.

¶31

(2) Amount, if any, paid by the defendants in the toan accounts or amount, if any, recovered by the Applicant Bank after filing of the O.A. the same be taken into account whlte arriving at the exact amount of dues/debt payable by the defendants. Accordingly, pendentetite and future interest shall be calculated on the reduced amount.

¶32

(3) Defendants are debarred from disposing, alienating or dealing with any of the properties belonging to them till the aforesaid decretal debt as recovered from the defendants.

¶33

(4) Defendants are given a time of thirty days from the date of the Judgement/Final Order for repaying of the above mentioned dues, so intimated to them. In case the defendants fail to pay the dues within the above mentioned tame, the applicant bank is entiued to recover its dues by sale of secured assets, if any. Applicant bank is also entided to proceed agarnst personal properties of the defendants (Both movable and immovable) and also proceed against the defendants personally to recover the dues in accordance with law.

¶34

(5) Let the certificate of Recovery be drawn up by Ld. Registrar forthwrth in terms of Judgement for issuance of the same against defendants in favour of the applicant bank under Section 19 (22) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 and put up the same for issuance of the Certificate.

¶35

(6) Ld. Recovery Officer shall rearize the amount as per the Recovery certrficate from the defendants in accordance with Iaw.

¶36

(7) Ld. Registrar of thas Tribunar is directed to deriver recovery certificate in term of the finar order/judgement for recovery of the sum against the defendant in favour of the Applicant Eank under section 19 (22) of the Recovery of Debts due to the Bank and Frnanciar Institutions Act, 1993 now known as Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993.

¶37

(8)The parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer on 24/06/2025 for further action in accordance with law in the event the entire amount is not pajd by the said date.

¶38

Accordingry, the originar Apprication being o.A. No. 52 0f 2022 is alowed and stands disposed oF.

¶39

Copy of the Judgqment/Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal,s website. Erle rs consigned to the Record Room.

¶40

(Drctated to steno, transcribed by her, corrected, srqned and pronounced by me in the open Court on tht5 the 2O,r day of May, 2025)

¶41

( KAMAL DE ) PRESIDING OFFICER.

¶42

Debts Recovery Tribunal-3, Kolkata Order Sheet (Continuation )

¶43

CaseNo.OAN	o.52of2022 UCOBank
	Orderwithsignature -
OrderNo.32 ot.20/05/2025	Order pronounced(videseparate sheets). In theresult, O.A. No. 52of2022 isaowedwithcosts.Issue RecoveryCertificate accordingly.
	(Kamal De) PresidingOfficer DRT-3, Kotkata
		_t

Uco Bank v. Ms Shri Jagadamba Udyog and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. Ms Shri Jagadamba Udyog and Ors.

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

Smt Madhabi Das and Anr. versus Punjab National Bank

Ms Continental Consortium Chemical Company and Anr. versus Indian Bank

Ms Puspak Gupta versus Smfg India Credit and Anr.

Pravin Metals Pvt. Ltd. versus Small Industries Development Bank of India

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Group One and Anr.

Smt Nila Roy and Anr. versus Punjab National Bank