Allowed

Uco Bank v. M/S Prisha Enterprises and Another

DRT16 Sept 2025OA/920/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the bank's application for recovery of Rs. 42 Lacs against borrowers who failed to repay sanctioned agriculture and term loans. The court granted uniform simple interest at 08% p.a. from the filing date.

What did the court decide?

Determined sum of Rs. 42,01,807.18 payable by defendants with 8% p.a. interest; declared defendants liable to pay; authorized recovery from hypothecated and personal assets.

Uco Bank versus M/S Prisha Enterprises and Another — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.920/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 21.06.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 16.09.2025

¶6

UCO Bank, a body corporate Constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its head Office at 10-B.T.M., Sarani, Kolkata (A Government of India Undertaking) and having one of its branch situated at Ropar, District Ropar, through Ms. Kalpana Kumari, who is presently working as Senior Manager, Branch Head, Constituted Power of Attorney Holder of the Bank and Principal Officer.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s Prisha Enterprises, situated at Village Gurdaspur, Opposite Start City, Shop No.3, Near BDPO Office, Circular Road, Canal Colony, Ropar, District Ropar through its proprietor Mr.Raman Sharma.

¶10

Sh. Raman Sharma S/o of Sh. Raj Kumar Sharma, R/o Flat No.2, Canal Colony, Zail Singh Nagar, Ropar District Ropar.

¶11

………. Defendants

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

Argued by Sh. Nonish Kumar, Advocate for the applicant Defendants already ex-parte

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.42,01,807.18p (Rupees Forty Two Lacs One Thousand Eight Hundred Seven & Eighteen Paise Only). The Original Application has been filed through Ms. Kalpana Kumari, Senior Manager, of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Powers of Officials circular dated 20.07.2012, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶16

¶17

OA NO. 920/2025 UCO BANK Vs M/S PRISHA ENTERPRISES AND ANOTHER

¶18

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant no.1 through his proprietorship defendant no.2 had approached the applicant for grant of CC Limit of Rs.10.00 Lacs & Term Loan of Rs.34.00 Lacs under Agriculture Infrastructure Fund Scheme vide Loan Applications dated 04.01.2023, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶19

The applicant sanctioned CC Limit of Rs.10.00 Lacs vide Sanction letter dated 20.02.2023, which is Annexure A4 to this OA, & and sanctioned Term Loan of Rs. 34.00 Lacs vide Process Note and sanction letter, both dated 27.02.2023, which are Annexures A5 & A6 to this OA, the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶20

Defendant no.1 through its proprietor defendant no. 2 had hypothecated his movable properties i.e. all stocks and book debts etc. vide hypothecation deed dated 20.02.2023, which is Annexure A7 to this OA.

¶21

Documents executed: GST Registration Certificate dated 12.10.2023, which is Annexure A3 to this OA; Agreement dated 27.02.2023, which is Annexure A12 to this OA; Demand Promissory Note, Letter of waiver, Letter of Continuity all dated 20.02.2023, which are Annexures A8 to A10 to this OA; Lease deed dated 24.02.2023, which is Annexure A11 to this OA; Agreement of Term Loan dated 27.02.2023, which is Annexure A12 to this OA; Recall notice dated 04.04.2025, which is Annexure A13 to this OA and Account statements, which are Annexures A14 & A15 to this OA.

¶22

The loan accounts became irregular and were classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan accounts there was adebit of Rs.42,01,807.18p, which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notices but they did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶23

The defendants were served notices to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte on 01.09.2025.

¶24

¶25

OA NO. 920/2025 UCO BANK Vs M/S PRISHA ENTERPRISES AND ANOTHER

¶26

In support of the OA, affidavit of Ms.Kalpana Kumari, Senior Manager, UCO Bank, has been filed.

¶27

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶28

It was argued by learned counsel that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case. From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A15 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant for availing of the loan facilities which were granted to them and for that they had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. The defendants failed to pay back the loans as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, accounts of the defendants were classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.42,01,807.18p (Rupees Forty Two Lacs One Thousand Eight Hundred Seven & Eighteen Paise Only) along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the accounts.

¶29

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @10.50%p.a. with monthly rests in all the loan accounts from 01.04.2025 till the realization.

¶30

The Tribunal is of the considered opinion that sometimes in appropriate cases the prerogative of mercy is the brightest jewel in the crown of the Judge. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case including nature of the mortgaged property/hypothecated assets, undertaking of the defendants, quantum of loans and prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yester years, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @08.00%p.a. in both the loan accounts from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶31

¶32

OA NO. 920/2025 UCO BANK Vs M/S PRISHA ENTERPRISES AND ANOTHER

¶33

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.42,01,807.18p (Rupees Forty Two Lacs One Thousand Eight Hundred Seven & Eighteen Paise Only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00%p.a. in both the loan accounts from the date of filing of OA till the date of realization of the amount. Accordingly, the applicant shall be entitled to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of hypothecated assets of the defendants in execution proceedings if not sold earlier under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. If the dues of the applicant still remain unsatisfied, it shall be entitled to recover the same by attachment and sale of personal assets of the defendants. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶34

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶35

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 07.10.2025. 15. Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant and be sent to defendants through registered/speed post and this order be also uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal and record be consigned. Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 16.09.2025.

¶36

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer,

¶37

DRT-III, Chandigarh

Uco Bank v. M/S Prisha Enterprises and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. M/S Prisha Enterprises and Another

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

Yes Bank Ltd. versus Harpreet Singh

Yes Bank Ltd. versus Bupinder Singh Alias Bhinder Singh and Others

Indian Bank versus Makkar Motors and Another

Axis Bank versus M/S Mama Moters and Others

Bhim Lal Alias Bhim Sain and Another versus State Bank of India and Another

State Bank of India versus Sadhu Singh and Another