Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Ms Geeta Foods

DRT6 Aug 2025OA/729/2024

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 the defendants to pay outstanding dues of Rs. 25,90,691.27 along with interest. The court decreed recovery against secured and unsecured assets and mandated the issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

The defendants directed to pay Rs. 25,90,691.27 with interest at 9% p.a.; recovery directed from mortgaged/hypothecated and personal assets; temporary injunction granted; Recovery Certificate to be is

Union Bank of India versus Ms Geeta Foods — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW
P+esent: Pravas Kumar Singh, Fresib 19 icbr
0
ase No. Original ApplicatioN No
Dated: 06.8.20l5
Unidn Bank of India, having Bradch a
HIG 89, Sector-E, Near Sahu Ag4ncies
Pu$nia Road, Aliganj, Lucknow
Adplicant Bank
Versus
M/s+ Geeta Foods, through its Hartne
Address: MMS-1/82, Near Ra
BaPrakhar Gupta, S/o Manoj Kumar 'rJq
Chauraha, Sitapur Road, Lu4know
221 12 1
2 Shitchar Gupta, S/o Manoj KUmar
Address L-3/1 08 Sector-D
i::*ii
Lucknow-226024
3 Prakhar Gupta, S/o Manoj Kumar bupt
Address L-3/108 Sector-D. Lligan
Ludknow-226024
de
Ld. Cdunsel for the applicant-bank Ir. Am ;harm Ite
Ld. Cdunset for the defendants : NoNe
JUDGMEN
Thi4 Original Application has beeN filed IH the 4pblicant Bank
under S4ction 19 of the Recovery od Deb & B4n#ruptcy Act
,ove }of Rs 90,691.27/
1993,agajnstthe defendants for the reI
(Rupees kwenty Five Lac, Ninety Tho Jsand, Six H$ddred Ninety
~P

I.Al No.729 of 2024

One and paisa Twenty Seven Only) tog4ther th penH4nt-lite and future inter bst, costs and other reliefs etc.

¶6

The Grief facts of case:- the defendant ).1 is drdprietorship and tHel defendant firm, of wHich, the defendant no.2 is prQprietqqF and tH ion dated no.3 is g+arantor. The defendants vide lo41 app -ant of dash Credit 15.01.2014 approached the applicant-baRk for Facility of Rs.24 lac, which was duly conbiderq( and sbdctioned by led 14.d2.2018 on the applic#nt-bank vide its sanction leher d# certain te+ms and conditions (Exhibit No.J !) to tHis original

¶7

In older to secure the aforesaid cbsh dl !dit fadili+y of Rs.24 lac, the dbfendant nos.1 & 2 had exdcutedl Ind si&rkd various security d+cuments in favour of the ap$1ican+4 lank oh b7.02.2018 like Partnbrship Letter, Demand ProMissod Note, Request for 111 Overdraft Facility/Cash Credit Limit, Ta4e D41i'ery L+ttpr to DPN, Common heed of Hypothecation of Movab4+;/Asse IsIDebts and rers. $4 defendant Letter of undertaking/Declaration from th4 borr+ no.3 beind guarantor towards the credid faciIH had 4xbcuted and signed Gqarantee Agreement in favoud of ti appli+4nt-bank on 17.02.201+ acknowledging therein his li4bility ime ahdl equal with the princidal borrowers (Exhibit No.A-3 +o Ext lit No. Ab & Exhibit ltion No.A-14 td Exhibit No.A-21 ) to this origin41 appl i 4. Furt der, in order to secure the rebaymql of bank dues, the defendantno.2 had created mortgage oflhis il lovabl# broperty i.e. House Nd.E-6, Sector-K, Aliqani, Hodsinl ;chem8 bf an area 43.32 sq Atr. District Lucknow as detabled iHI le peti}ign, in favour

¶8

3 LA! No.729 of 2024

¶9

of the baI (Exhibit No.A-10 & Exhibit No., 1) to t dis original application

¶10

It is bertinent to mention here th4t def#hdant +o 13 Prakhar Gupta, wh4 is guarantor in the loan accobnt, h## execqtqd Letter of Continuity kor the loan account in resp dct of dbe proFqrtY House No.4, Nagar Nigam No.610/22F area 132.4 sq. lbt[., (Exhibit No.A-12) t4 this original application.

¶11

The defendants had also execu bd aHh sign+a Letter of Acknowledbment of Debts dated 24.12.d@o & b2.10.2021 confirming the balance in the loan account (E44ibit No1413) to this original application.

¶12

To avail the aforesaid credit facili+y, th#applic4n[bank had opened a lban account in the name of de+enda dq no.1/fi+d in order to maintain tHe credit facility.

¶13

After availing the aforesaid credit f4cility,kbe defqn+ants failed to maintaih financial discipline and alsd faile#1 to co+dIY with the terms andconditions of the loan agreembnt, #hsequ4n+y, the loan accounts bf the defendant no.1/firm das cI#sified # NPA on 28.7.2023 by the applicant-bank as per NBI guiHklines dE+hibit No.A23), ther4fore, the applicant-bank is4ued j4egal $4tice dated 05.4.2024 (Exhibit No.A-22), but, the def+ndad# stated do-response and failed to repay the same and the loqn ac4Hunt of +h+ defendant no.1/firm ib still un-liquidated, hence, tHis OrMinal A$pjication has been institUted.

¶14

As Jer books of the bank maintain4d in INk usual Jnd ordinary course of banking business, an outstahdingi of Rs.25,90,691.27/-

¶15

J aaala

¶16

b.A No.729 of 2024

¶17

(Rupees Twenty Five Lac, Ninety Thou+and. ;ix Hudd Fed Ninety One and P4isa Twenty Seven Only) including in@rest uphol31.5.2024 were lying due for payment, which they di+ not bhy des$itb repeated requests abd demands. The applicant Bbnk filed le copy of Statement bf Account (Exhibit No. A-24 & Exd&it No.A-+5) to this

¶18

original apdlication

¶19

10 The Ion arose luse of action for filing the pres4 applil credit firstly on 14.02.2018 when the abovem4ntionl lcility was sanctioned by the applicant-bank and n+cess; docl !nts were executed by the defendants. The cause bf acIdn furtHel arose on 05.4.2024 When the applicant-bank had iqsued )#gal nod recalling the defendAnts to repay the dues of th+ apa, lnt-ban but, the defendants failed to pay the same

¶20

11 The iummons was served upon the Idefend4n+ through registered post, but, defendants did not 4ppea+before khbs Tribunal to contest leir case, hence, the matter droce#pd ex-$abe against the defendants on 27.3.2025

¶21

12 lat th. Eefendants From perusal of the record, it is e+idenl lim of 4hb bank. As were provided fair opportunities to contes+ the the defendbnts opted not to contest thb so dnlk point of consideratibn before this Tribunal in as to hhe1 the b. is legally entitled to the amount as claimed in Origidal Apblication ob the basis of docume4ts and pleading submitted by

¶22

13 lanager of In subport of the case Shri Susheel kumaR, I Brancl the applica At Bank has supported its case on a1 lvit

¶23

14 On lffida Ind Exhibit careful scrutiny of the evidenke Ol marked a: (Exhibit No.A-1 to Exhibit No. :5 to tHis original application}, it stands proved that the dbfend#bts had #vailed the credit facili+y from the applicant bank by 4xel lg loanahd security documents detailed as above in favour of tI It Bank. A applil perusal of the application, evidence and do++ments rblied upon clearly est4blishes hat defendants had utijized I abov+ ban facility as granted to them. The applicant bank h+s maHrBtained khb Books of account i the ordinary course of b#nkind businl showing disbursal of the loan amount. It further shdws tl bank d regularly credited th+ amount paid by the defenda ds in bookb bf account The Bank Had also charged interest from jime td jime add bhe entries is relevant L/s 4 of the Bankers Book EvidenceKct. It i: Iso proved that the pplicant bank’s claim is within liMitation abainst the defendantsi therefore, the defendants are biable ++ pay tHe ldues 15 Acc4rdingly, the defendants are diFected ko pay t de balance dues to th+ applicant bank within a peridd of fo monhhb from the will del entitled to date of judbment failing which the applic+nt b4 personal sell the mortgage property/hypothecated #sset4 bs well properties +f the defendants 16 The 4pplicant-bank has claimed int4rest @lc).50% her annum in Cash Cbdit Loan Account together wIth Pl^{bent lit]} lnd future interest till 4he actual date of its realizationand costs. oN the basis of the foregoi Ag discussion, interest of justil will serveR if pendent' lite and futl re interest is granted @9.0088 per lnum in Ithe above

¶24

¶25

. A. No.729 of 2024

¶26

loan filingof accountwithmonthlyrateon reduci theO.A.tillthe dateof realization	dg baI ithc	#bcefrol osts :he dateof
17. 1fi ngthatthebankhasprov	ebthI	execulid of loan
docu Original costs. The ment4 and creation of mortgage in A+plication succeeds ex-parte defendants arejointlyand sev	i+sfav 4gains 9rally	bbr. IntI result,the Hbhede1 ldantswith lbletob4ythedues
of the a assets as 18 dplicant-bank and the mortg fellas the personalproperties lerefore, ordered It is,	4ged #relia	+perty/6ybothecated Hbeto b4skId
(i) lat the OriginalApplicatiol pplicant bank for issuance of ne of Rs.25,90,691.27/-(4 inetyThousand,SixHundr wentySevenOnly)together nnum in the loan account fr +riginal Application i.e. 24.6. lbquidatedand costs succeeds badeagainst thedefendants	No IReco upl qdNil ith th dmthg p024 and	!9of2b24 ##ryCedi Itetothe TwentkI Five Lac (B) r1 and Paisa lterest @9.00%per dateo' iling ofthe II the 1l4an isfully hereb' lllowedex ofthe
he defendants aredirected beriodoftwomonthsfromth hichtheapplicantbankwill mefromthesecured asse movable assetsofthe defen heapplicant-bankisentitledt by sale of mortgageproperty/ (ii) (iii)	topi bdat4 beeb ds,pe[ dants hrecd bypot4	thed 1ofjudddent,failing +itledtq verthe J== es [#onal lid amount qerafor+ }sets (ifnot 4cated withina and
,oldearlier under theprovision	$ of tH	PIS.A.R.F A. E.S.I.Act

¶27

No.729 of 2024

¶28

002). The amount, if any, alrbady ;overqd by sale of ny mortgage property/hypoth4cated bssets or otherwise hall be adjusted towards the hebt #hd only the balance mount shall be recoverable. I+ the d IS of applicant

¶29

Bank still remain unsatisfied sa shall bg recovered Ee PI ;onal &vable and

¶30

&y attachment and sale of movable assets of the defendants led b' means of

¶31

(iV) he defendants are hereby restr4 'ansfl

¶32

injunction from depleting, 'ing lmbering lienating or In any why ##aling :h their

¶33

broperties/estates without firs] payiHb the clbim of the +pplicant bank

¶34

(V) ,et Recovery Certificate be issbed il lediat4ly u/s 19(22) bf the Recovery of Debts DUe to Hanks any Financial I n s t i t u t i o n^{Act ,} 1993 by fixind 06, 2025 b&ore R.O bRT, Lucknow

¶35

Judgment is pronounced in the open cou

¶36

Dated: 06.b.2025

¶37

(Prd+as KuhJroTT,gh)
FrI !sidind Officer

¶38

(Veeresh)

Union Bank of India v. Ms Geeta Foods

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Ms Geeta Foods

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.

Union Bank of India versus Ms Gupta Food and Beverages

M S Vishwanath Enterprises versus Punjab National Bank

Aditya Swaroop Pandey versus Aryavart Bank