Allowed

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) v. Creative Baron-Prop-Mr Akhtar Ali Khan

DRT9 Jul 2025OA/813/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by Union Bank of India for recovery of Rs. 11,96,893/- and future interest from the defendant. After the defendant appeared ex-parte, the court modified the claimed interest to 9% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 11,96,893/ - with future interest at 9% p.a. from 11.02.2019 and issue of Recovery Certificate.

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) versus Creative… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on .. 11.02.2019 Registered on .. 07.05.2022 Decided on .. 09.07.2025 Duration .. Y—M—D 06--04--28

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 813/2022.

¶3

Union Bank of India, Erstwhile Corporation Bank, A Bank constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 and having its head office at Mangalore, Karnataka State and Branch Office at – 8-8A, Krishna Tower, Ground Floor, Panvel 781335, Navi Mumbai.

¶4

… Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Mr. Akhtar Ali Khan, Age Adult, Occ. : Business, Proprietor of Creative Baron, having his place of business at Ganajay Unit No.1, Plot No. 184, Land Mark Chintamani, Sector 20, Belapur, Navi Mumbai 400 614.

¶7

… Defendant

¶8

:- Appearances

¶9

For Applicant For Defendant

¶10

Advocate R.B. Ganbote.

¶11

Ex parte.

¶12

Sanap ( OA No. 813/2022 ) 1 of 5

¶13

Total Claim Amount – Rs.11,96,893/-

¶14

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 09^th July, 2025)

¶15

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.11,96,893/- together with future interest @11% per annum from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendant.

¶16

Brief facts of the application are as under :-

¶17

The defendant is the proprietor of Creative Baron at Navi Mumbai. As per the loan application dated 10.09.2015 of the defendant, the applicant Bank sanctioned the Cash Credit facility of Rs.10,00,000/- to the defendant as Working Capital vide Sanction Letter dated 16.09.2015.

¶18

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the defendant has executed necessary loan and security documents in favour of the applicant Bank. The defendant has also executed deed of hypothecation, in favour of the applicant Bank. The defendant has also executed Acknowledgment of Debt/Liability on 29.09.2018 and thereby confirmed the balance outstanding in Cash Credit account.

¶19

Sanap ( OA No. 813/2022 ) 2 of 5

¶20

The applicant Bank contended that the defendant committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the accounts. Hence, the applicant Bank has classified the account of the defendant as Non Performing Asset in accordance with guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. Therefore, on 17.11.2018, the applicant Bank issued Recall Notice to the defendant. Despite service of Notice, the defendant failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank.

¶21

Hence, this application is filed.

¶22

The defendant failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte against the defendant as per Order dated 27.03.2025 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶23

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Shri Gaurav Kumar, Senior Manager and Principal Officer of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW1-1 to AW1-12 along with list (Exhibit 7), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶24

I have heard arguments of the learned Advocate for the applicant Bank.

¶25

Sanap ( OA No. 813/2022 ) 3 of 5

¶26

Since the defendant failed to appear and contest the application, I find no reason to disbelieve evidence of the applicant Bank. Therefore, the applicant Bank is entitled for reliefs as claimed.

¶27

The applicant Bank has claimed relief in respect of hypothecated assets. However, there is no detailed description with respect to the hypothecated assets, therefore, the relief in terms of hypothecated assets cannot be granted.

¶28

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @11% per annum. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% per annum (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶29

Hence, I pass the following order.

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

A} Original Application No. 813/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶32

B} The defendant shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.11,96,893/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Ninety Six Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Three only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 11.02.2019 till full

¶33

Sanap ( OA No. 813/2022 ) 4 of 5

¶34

payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶35

C} Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶36

D} The Registrar is directed to send the copy of Judgment and Recovery Certificate to the applicant and defendant.

¶37

Sd/( Dilip G. Murumkar ) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date : 09.07.2025 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶38

Sanap ( OA No. 813/2022 ) 5 of 5

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) v. Creative Baron-Prop-Mr Akhtar Ali Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) v. Creative Baron-Prop-Mr Akhtar Ali Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Milind

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus L v Farms

Federal Bank versus Sujata Patil

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S. National Automobiles

Phoenix Arc Private Limited versus Omkar Vehicles Pvt. Ltd.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Salim Rashid Tamboli, Prop. of Javed Kirana and General Store