Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Ms Gupta Food and Beverages

DRT6 Aug 2025OA/728/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993, directing defendants to pay outstanding dues. The bank was granted permission to exercise rights over mortgaged properties and issued an injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with their assets.

What did the court decide?

Orders payment of dues, issuance of recovery certificate, adjustment of security proceeds, right to sell pledged assets, and injunction against disposal of properties.

Union Bank of India versus Ms Gupta Food and… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL LUC
Present: Pravas Kumar Singh, Presid ng O
ase No. Original Applicatiol No.7£ of 20
Dated: 06.8.2025
Unitjn Bank of India, having BraNch ad
HIG 89, Sector-E, Near Sahu Agdncies
Purgnia Road, Aliganj, Lucknow
&dplicant Bank
Versus
M/s. Gupta Food & Beverages, t
its Prop, Shikhar Gupta, Ad
House No.610/22F Keshav lagar
Modibullapur, Lucknow-226016
Shikhar Gupta, S/o Manoj Kumar bupta
Addless: L-3/108 Sector-D
+liganj
Lucknow-226024
Prakhar Gupta, S/o Manoj Kumar bupta
R/oMMS-1/82, Sector A, Sitapur Road
Yojrba, Ward Bhartendu Harishchbndra
Lucknow-226021
de+endants
r . Al
Cdunsel for the applicant-bank: -harmb, I Advocate
Cc$unsel for the defendants : Non
JUDGMENT
1 This Original Application has been filed ++ the abHlicant Bank
under sI
Eion 19 of the Recovery of De4ts & $bnkrupjc! Act, 1993
CoI Rs
against t+e defendants for the recoVery 17, 1 14. 19/
Ind, bae Hundred
(Rupees fwenty Nine Lac, Thirty Seveh Tho
Fourteen #nd Paisa Nineteen Only) togbther ith pe+dknt-lite and
future intelest, costs and other reliefs etc
Ar

¶2

¶3

L. No.728 of 2024

¶4

The brief facts of case:- the defeAdantl e is +r+prietorship B and tAel defendant firm, of which, the defendant no.2 is pr+priet, no.3 is gu?rantor/mortgagor. The defen4ants C e loan japplication approacheh the applicant-bank for grant of Ci ;h Crehid Facility of Rs.25 lac and Term Loan of Rs.10 lac, (sub: !quentl+ berm Loan paid off), which was duly considered and ;anctiqn bd by the applicant-dank vide its sanction letter d4ted dk 10.20]51 on certain terms and Fonditions (Exhibit No.A-2) to t§is ori fI laI apdli+ation. 3. In oFder to secure the aforesaid dash !dit fa+iIi+y of Rs.25 lac, the defendantnos.1 & 2 had exebuted Ind sidnEd various ank oA b6.10.2015 security d+cuments in favour of the ap$1ican ll like Letterjof Proprietorship, Demand Pr+missc Notel bequest for Overdraft Facility/Cash Credit Limit, Ta4e Dqji ’ery L+MPr to DPN, b 'a Common Deed of Hypothecation df M bles/AJsets/Debts, Supplemehtal Common deed of lypoth++tion of Movables/4ssets/Debts, Letter of undedaking, B eclara+idn from the I borrowers. The defendant no.3 being g$arant towadd# the credit facility had executed and signed GuaranFee A j !emea jn favour of the applic+nt-bank on 06.10.2015 ackno+ledgii a ther4inl his liability same and equal with the principal bo+rowe# (Exhi§itl No.A-3 to al Exhibit NoIA-10 & Exhibit No.A-14 to ExHibit N L-20) tb this original applicatiol

¶5

FuNder, in order to secure the re$aymq It of bank dues, the defendant no.3 had created mortgage of his iI lovabl4 §roperty i.e. House Nb.4, Nagar Niqam No.610/22F arl 132.hd sq. mtr. constructbd on Plot No.35. situated over 1.356 min.

r
-/

L. No.728 of 2024

Keshav N£gar, Mohibullapur, District duckn e as d btbi led in the 'd Exhibil a .A-12) to petition, in favour of the bank (Exhibit NoIA-1 1

¶10

this original application.

¶11

The defendants had also execdted Id sigl i Balance Confirmatibn Letter dated 20.7.2018 & b2.10l: )21 al lowledging balance iX the loan account (Exhibit I No.4 3) to tdis original application 6. To 4vail the aforesaid credit facili Fy, thI appl ici 'bank had opened a lban account in the name of de+endadd no. 1/fil in order to

¶12

maintain tHe credit facility.

¶13

After availing the aforesaid credit fqcility, le def€ nbants failed to col to maintaih financial discipline and alsd faile+ dIy with the terms andconditions of the loan agreembnt, c# lsequl the loan accounts bf the defendant no.1/firm das cII ;sified NPA on 27.12.202+ by the applicant-bank as Her Rl guideb is (Exhibit No.A-22), therefore, the applicant-bank issue+ Legal btice dated state i 05.4.2024 (Exhibit No. A-21 ), but, the def4ndanb o-response Int of defendant and failed to repay the same and the lo4n ac4# no.1/firm i+ still un-liquidated, hence, tHis Orj4inal A +pjication^has been institbted usual 8. As pbr books of the bank maintain4d in t,I Id ordinary 2 )f Rs. 17, 1 14. 1 9/ course ofF banking business, an outstanding (Rupees +wenty Nine Lac, Thirty Seveh Th qi ;and, 6de Hundred Fourteen 4nd Paisa Nineteen Only) inclu bing ird1Irest U btb 31.5.2024 were lyingdue for payment, which they did nol1lay de 4pibe repeated requests 4nd demands. The applicant Bank IS file le le copy of

¶14

/- \r

¶15

Statement jof Account (Exhibit No. A-23 p Ex$jpit No.824) to this original application

¶16

9 The luse of action for filing the pres4§t appli ltion arose firstly on ©6.10.2015when the abovemqntion## credi lcility was sanctioned by the applicant-bank and }cesgi docl lents were executed by the defendants. The cause of a4{on furthqr arose on 05.4.2024When the applicant-bank had i4sued:lbgal ndti+e recalling the defendants to repay the dues of }e ap${icant-b: but, the defendant4 failed to pay the same 10 The summons was served upol the iI befend, ts through registered post, but, defendants did not jappei beford this Tribunal to contest their case, hence, the matter broce##ed ex-b4rte against the defendb.ts on 27.3.2025

¶17

11 Frol perusal of the record, it is 4videl Ihat thb Idefendants lim of tI bank. As were proviDed fair opportunities to conte# the the defenbants opted not to contest the so bdly point of considerat+on before this Tribunal in as tH whethbr the da&k is legally C the basis entitled to bhe amount as claimed in Original Ad#licati01 of documents and pleading submitted by J=„:I=port t Bank has of the case Shri SusheetKum;supported its casq on a#ibavitBran. lanager of :„==,

¶18

13 On careful scrutiny of the evidedce Ol lffidavlt hnd Exhibit marked a No (Exhibit No.A-1 to Exhibi !4 to this original lvailed the applicatioN),it stands proved that the dbfend#bts ha4 credit facil from the applicant bank by bxecl lg loal Ind security document: detailed as above in favou4 of tAe applicaht Bank. A

¶19

¶20

1.4. No.728 of 2024

¶21

Ilied perusal of the application, evidence aNd do#bments upon clearly estabtishes hat defendants had utijized abovb joan facility ltained tl Books of as granted to them. The applicant bank hbs mi account i busin. the ordinary course of bbnkin! showing disbursal & the loan amount. It further shbws tl bank h4d regularly credited thb amount paid by the defenda4ts in booNs bf account The Bank had also charged interest from jime thtime a4dl the entries llso proved that the the is relevant u/s lpplicant 4 of the Bankers Book bank’s claim is Evi&enwilhin t::1.:lgainst defendan' therefore, the defendants are liabll b pay tI dues 14 Acc+rdingly, the defendants are dhrecteb to pay the balance dues to thb applicant bank within a peribd of ro mo At4s from the date of judgment failing which the appli4ant b#hk will b4 entitled to sell the m+rtgage property/hypothecated asse#IIas weI IS personal properties bf the defendants 15 The bpplicant-bank has claimed i1 ISt @ 10.50% 1:per annum in Cash Credit Loan Account together p#bdent lijejland future i n t e r e s t t i 1 1 t he actual date of its realizatio4 and bbsts. oh +he basis of luse fbrl interest of the foreg4ing discussion, I am of view that justice will be served if pendent-lite and futu interl is granted @9.Oo%p4r annum in the above loan a4coun1 fith m+n+hly rate on reducing dalance from the date of filingof th#O.A. till khe date of realization with costs 16 1 fina that the bank has provqd thI exe :idn of loan document+ and creation of mortgage in its fayHur. In tI result, the Original Abplication succeeds ex-parte again: :he de1 ldants with

¶22

¶23

COS :s.Thedefendantsarejointlyand sev	frally HiPbletop+y thedues
of theapplicant-bankandthemort	g4gedrbperty/6ybothecated
ass 3tsasWellasthe personalproperties 17.Itis,4herefore,ordered	#reliabjetobdskId
(i) hat the Original Applicatiol pplicant bank for issuance of ne of Rs.29,37,114.19/-(Rup	NoJM28 of 2b24 ofthe Reco##ryCel Itetothe !ntyNil Lac,Thirty 4esT\|
even Thousand, OneHun	dred lndPaisa burtee
ineteen Only)togetherwith nnum in the loan account fr +riginal Application i.e. 24.6. IIquidatedand costssucceeds badeagainst thedefendants	terest @19.00% per the dm thg ldateol iling ofthe #024 II the 1+n is fully lllowedex' and ibhereb:
he defendants aredirected (ii) $eriodoftwomonthsfromth 'hich the applicant bankwill amefromthesecuredasse1 movableassetsofthedefen	the dbdswithin a F) ; +dat#ofjudddent,failing be e#jitled tqdecoverthe lokablesand ona dants
1eapplicant-bankisentitledt @ (iii) &ysale of mortgage property/$ ,oldearlierundertheprovision o02). Theamount,ifany,al nymortgageproperty/hypoth hall be adjusted towardsthe mount shall be recoverable.I bankstill remainunsatisfied,t	+ rec@raforl lid amount ;ets(ifnot ypotl lted A. R E.S.I.Act +ofthI ICOver+dIby saleof bady +catedassetsoFotherwise lebalance IdonI' debt +the #hesoflh+applicant shall bdrecovered Eesa

¶24

¶25

1.4. No.728 of 2024

¶26

dy attachment and sale of tOe PI ional dvable and movable assets of the defendbnts.

¶27

(iV) he defendants are hereby I restr#ihed b: means of ihjunction from depleting, tlansfl Ing FrI+umbering ienating or In any w+y d4aling ,ith their

¶28

properties/estates without firstl payihd the +l4im of the pplicant bank

¶29

(V) It Recovery Certificate be issUed iI lediatejy u/s 19(22) oF the Recovery of Debts Du+ to ##nks abd Financial l4stitution Act, 1993 by fixingl 06.1 !025 beFore R.O RT, Lucknow

¶30

Judgmen1 pronounced in the open cou

¶31

Dated: 06.8.2025

¶32

gr
(PraY#s Ku
Prdsid inI'LL=P"’

¶33

(Veeresh)

Union Bank of India v. Ms Gupta Food and Beverages

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Ms Gupta Food and Beverages

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

Bank of India versus M/S Abhaydat Trading Company

Canara Bank versus M/S R.K Book Distributors Ant Ors.

Tulsi Ram versus India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd.

M S Vishwanath Enterprises versus Punjab National Bank

Union Bank of India versus Ms Geeta Foods

Aditya Swaroop Pandey versus Aryavart Bank