The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's original application for recovery of dues totaling Rs.44,92,196 excluding interest, directed defendants to pay within two months, and ordered the issuance of a Recovery Certificate.
Deposit of dues within two months; Recovery Certificate issuance; Sale of mortgaged assets if dues remain unsatisfied.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
e
.A.No.660 of 2022
DIBTS RECOVERY T] LUCKNO
.L
Date of order or Order with signature of court Iffice action
proceeding =en with date
O.A.No.660/202: The Judgment is slgnel and
18.08.2025
pronounced on sepa ’ate ;heets.
Separately attached in 07 ,heets
Order be upload' Id Ol
Tribunal’s website.
Dictat'
\r
(Pravab Kurrh. -Singh)
:icer
PresIding
(MK)
IN THH DEBTS RECOVERY TRIB rAL AT L
:NOW
Pr+sent: Pravas Kumar Singh, Presiqing O+ +er Case No. Original Application No.669 of 202
Dated: 18.08.202
a
ica nt-bank
Versus
1. s
VikasTiwari, S 37, 38f E Block Market, dId Tax
Stand Rajajipuram Lucknow – 226017.
2. r
13/7431 Rajajipuram Lucknow 226017.
3. r I
Tiwa4i c-13/7031 Rajajipu ram Lbcknol Fehdants
2260l17.
Ld. Counsel +or Applicant-bank: Shri Vijay Prakbsh Mehrotra, In ocate Ld. Counsel for the Defendants: None.
JUDGEMENT
lo.660 of 2022
2
assistance . e Applicant-bank considered t je request of thej;defendants a n d s a n c t i o I e d C a s h C r e d i t L i m i t o f R s e 3 5 e o01 acs d Term L4an (FITL) of Rs.2.75 lacs bn 30.12.2020 (c) Term Loan of IRs.2.97 lacs vibel its sanction i letter dated 30.12.2016 on certain terms and bonditi$ @: No. A-) to
this Original , Application
In order to further secure the rep: lent of thI dues, the i.e. Land d,fend,nt N 4.2 „e,t,d equitable mortgage in +espect pf prop€ )tiya, Ward building on +lot at Kha„, No.68 & 77Sa situa+ed at lg 185.87 sq1 me in fav8u+ of the bank Ibrahimpur +ucknow ml by d,po,it qf titl, d„d (Exhibit A-4 t, Exhibit 0 ,10) tb is Original Application
ad :ecuted and le Appbi+nt-bank onon
To secure aforesaid credit facilities, defend signed vari6us security documents in favobr of le Appbi+nt-bank onon 30.12.2016 The defendant No.3 signed and e+ecuted Guaran+eb Agreement on 30.12.2916 (Exhibit No.A-11 to Exhibi No.A-24) td lis Original
Application
5 That the defendants have executed LAd on 16407.201# abknowledged their liabili' in Cash Credit Account (Exhibit lo.A-25) fi :his Original Application had opened
three loanTo aqail the ;counts aforesaid in the name of credit facility, tbe Adefendand No :T::I’lllaintain the credit facilities
7 le defet ItS failed to After availing the aforesaid credit fagility, rnarntarn le terms and >ial discipline and also failed Fo con&ly witt conditions bf the loan agreement, consequl ltly, loan aacount of the
/'
L.No.660 of 2022
defendant nd. 1/firm was classified as NPA on ,0.04.2021 by bank as per otice dated RBI guidel+es, thereaRer the Applicant-ba4 issuqd the d 18.05.2022 + th, d,f,„d,„t, (E,hibitN,.A-26k27), b, leg.Lh„*„„. no-response RfId they fail,d t, „p,y th, „m4 ,nd t$ 1,an 44.aunt, .f th, defendant, d, ,till ,m-nq„id,t,d, h,„„, thi, bdgi„, .ppH&t+on has been instituted
8 As per books of the bank maintained in hhe S I d qrdlina ry course of banking business, an outstanding of Rs.44 ,92, 194 (Rup eH Forty Four Lacs, Ninety +wo Thousand, One Hundred Ninbty Six Only) in4luHing interest UPto 22.05.4022, were IYing due for paymentJ for which the ae+endants are jointly and s+verally liable to ,epay the same, +hi,h they did +o+pay despite :atement of repeated reduests and demand. The ApplicaNt-bank:filed th, loan Accoun' (Exhibit No.A-28 to Exhibit No.41) to this Origi4ad Application The c+use of action for filing the pres4nt appl :ion 4r4Fe firstly on 30.12.2016, $0.12.2020 & 19.09.2020 when t1 afo :red i ility were sanctioned by the Applicant-bank and the same re dv by the defendants jnd necessary documents were iecuted: by the d4fendants on 30.12.2016 +nd 16.03.2022. The cause of acti+n fu,tnp, aros4 ob when legal Notice dated 18.05.2022 was sent to the ddfenda reca IIi the entire
outstanding hues and they failed to pay the sahe
II „No.660 of 2022
12 In suDport of the case Shri Sanjiv Kumbr Bar1 raI, Ch Manager of the ApplicanT-bank has filed an affidavit. 13 On careful scrutiny of the evideNce on affidavi nd Exhibits marked as :hibit No.A-1 to Exhibit No.A-341 it is droved tda+ defendants had availed the c,edit facilities f,om the Apdlica.t-b,nk by !cuting loan and securi documents detailed as above in fbvou C e II{cant-bank. A perusal of le application, evidence and dbcume1 re lpon clearly show that defendant had utilized the abov& loan :ilities aH granted to them. The Applicant-bank had maintained le Bo;oks of bc&Qunt in the ban amount ordinary co4rse of banking business showingldisbur§al of thI The Bank had also charged interest from tide to time and Ihl entries are relevant u/s 4 of the Banker Books of Evidencb Act. It is al so ed that the ApplicantInk’s claim is withi„ limitati,. agab„st del n:F*t::.'. I,'„:
defendants bre jointly and severally liable to day the d
a J-
5
.A.No.660 of 2022
property, hVpothecated assets and personhl assets/ pro} erties of the defendants.
I
C \t
IA.No.660 of 2022
6
It is, tHerefore , ordered
r
iII:1 A.No.660 of 2022
7
Dated: 18.08.2025
(Pravab kun;& Singh) Pie iding Officer
(MK)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the bank is legally entitled to the claimed amount on the basis of documents and pleadings submitted.
Whether pendent-lite and future interest should be granted for the loan accounts.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Central Bank of India vs. Ravindra and othersReferred¶15
Central Bank of India vs. Ravindra and others reported in AIR 2001 SC page 3091 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Applicant-bank
Vikas Tiwari
Defendant No.2 (Sole Proprietor)
Defendant No.3
Pravab Kumar Singh
MK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
