Partly allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S Flywheel Logistics Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

DRT18 Dec 2025TA/1086/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an original application for recovery, the Tribunal disposed of the matter as infructuous after the applicant bank recovered the full claim via asset sale. The bank kept an excess amount in an FDR. The Tribunal allowed the bank to keep the funds and dispose of them based on future directives or requests.

What did the court decide?

The petition disposed of as infructuous; excess amount retained in FDR by the bank to be discharged per future directions or request.

Union Bank of India versus M/S Flywheel Logistics Solutions… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Deb,ts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi

¶2

TAlto86l2022 UBI VS. M/S FLYWHEEL LOGISTICS SOLUTIONS PW.LTD.

¶3

L8.L2.2025

¶4

Item no.88

¶5

Present: Shri Aditya Kumar Jha, counsel for applicant bank. Shri Ravi, counselfor defendant no.3. Shri Shubham Kulshreshta, counsel for defendant no.4.

¶6

Matter is taken through VC/Hybrid mode.

¶7

1Ano.235712025 has been filed on behalf of the applicant bank for deposiUng of the excess sale amount of Rs.4,3L,72,79t.36 in the form of FDR to the registry of the Hon'ble DRT-II.

¶8

The Ld. Counsel for the applicant bank has submitted that this Hon'ble Tribunal may allow them to deposit the excess sale proceeds amount of Rs.4,31,72,79 1.36 out of Rs. I 0, 16, 10,000/- recovered from the e-auctioned of the Bhagpat properties mortgaged in the account of M/s Flywheel Logistic Solution h^. Ltd. and was kept before the applicant bank in the form of FDR, issued in favour of the respondent no. 4 i.e., M/s Global Glass Technologies h/t. Ltd. and to release it on demand, whenever made by the respondent no.4. It is submitted that the Bhagpat properties were mortgaged to the bank as collateral seurity for obtaining of the term loan facility of Rs.5 Crores. It is submitted that the above said property was in the name of respondent no.4 and therefore he was made corporate guarantor. Consequent to the sanction of the above said term loan facility on 30.01.2018 by_tlrg:pplicant bank, the

¶9

S"\

¶10

borrower failed to adhere the terms and conditions of the loan and as per provision of RBI guideline the account was declared NPA on 30.09.2019 by the applicant bank. Thereafter the applicant bank sent several reminders to the borrower and guarantors, despite that the said account was not regularized and thereforg the applicant bank has approached to this Tribunal through an OA No. 683 of 2020 now TA No. 1086 of 2022 for the recovery of Rs.4,56,81,889.64. Meanwhile during the pending of the above original application, the applicant bank to recover its due amount had handed over the physical possession of the above said properties for public e-auction, which was e-auctioned vide dated 16.11.2023 and a sale certificate dated 13.02.2024 was issued on receipt of sale consideration of Rs.10,16,10,000/- and same was intimated to this Hon'ble Tribunal vide order dated 27.05.2024. It is submitted that after the receipt of entire sale proceeds, the applicant bank had appropriated the amount upto the dates dues including legal and other expenses of borrower account M/s Flywheel Logistic Solution h/t. Ltd. (company resolved under IBC) and kept the remaining/excess sale amount of Rs.4,31,72,791.36 with them in the form of FDR bearing no. 025611 of dated L6.03.2024 with unique customer ID 901454601 in the name of M/s Global Glass Technologies h/t. Ltd. It is submitted that the applicant bank wrote two letters to the respondent no.4 regarding collection of excess sale proceeds of Bhagpat property and sent it at the all addresses available with the applicant ban( but no response received till date. It is submitted that despite having knowledge and being informed, the respondent has failed and neglected to W-tar take any steps to s)

¶11

collect the said FDR amount from the applicant bank and as per provision of the law the applicant bank cannot kept or withhold the excess amount with it for longer period. Therefore, the applicant bank seeks the indulgence of this Hon'ble Tribunal to allow the applicant bank to deposit the said FDR directly with the Regifi of this Hon'ble Tribunal and allow it to disbursed on demand to the respondent no.4 i.e., M/s Global Glass Technologies h/t. Ltd., whenever made by them. Accordingly, it is prayed that allow the applicant bank to deposit the excess sale amount of Rs.4,31,72,791.36 kept in the form of FDR with the registry of this Hon'ble DRT and allow the registry of this Hon'ble Tribunal to release it on demand whenever made by the respondent no.4 i.e., M/s Global Glass Technologies h/t. Ltd.

¶12

The Ld counsel for defendant no.3 has opposed the prayer of the applicant and submitted that the amount has been recovered from the property of the guarantor and the applicant has filed an SA against the auction by which the property has been sold and the amount has been recovered. If the SA is allowed, the applicant bank has to return the consideration received from the sale of the property and in such condition the OA cannot be disposed of. It is fufther submitted that if the defendant no.3 receives the excess amount, he will loose his right to contest the SA and therefore, the defendant no.3 cannot be directed to receive the excess amount. It is further submitted that the excess amount received by the bank has been kept in the FDR in the name of the defendant no.3 and therefore, the amount cannot be kept ,n 9:-r*, and it should 1A

¶13

I I i I I I I I

¶14

I I I I I I i I i

¶15

remain kept in the bank itself in the name of defendant no.3.

¶16

The Ld. counsel for defendant no.4 has submitted that the applicant has recovered the entire dues and therefore, the OA has become infructuous and may be dismissed. It is also submitted that the SA may be decided in accordance with law.

¶17

Heard the Ld. counsels of all the parties and perused the record.

¶18

From perusal of the record it is clear that the contention of the applicant bank is that the entire dues of the original application has been recovered from the sale of the propefi and an excess amount of Rs.4,3L,72,791.36 has been kept in form of FDR by the bank. As the amount claimed in the OA has been recovered, therefore, the OA has become infructuous and is liable to be dismissed as infructuous.

¶19

The contention of the defendant no.3 is that the SA is pending against the sale conducted by the applicant bank. In such circumstances, the fate of the sale shall be decided in that SA and if the SA is allowed, the bank has to comply the orders made in the SA. But on this ground the OA cannot be continued. If the sale is set aside in the SA, the applicant bank is being given a right to revive the OA, if the sale consideration is directed to be returned to the defendant no.3 in the SA by the Ld. DRT. As the amount has already been deposited in FDR in the ban( there is no necessity of keeping the same in the DRT. The applicant bank may continue the FDR in the name of defendant no.3 and dislry of the same as

¶20

S-\

¶21

per direction of the Tribunal in the SA or as per request of the defendant no.3.

¶22

In view of the above the lA no.235712025 is partly allowed and the OA is disposed of as infructuous. The amount may remained deposited with the bank and may be disposed of as mentioned above.

¶23

File be consigned to records.

¶24

(susHrl KUITAR ^/' RASTOGT) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

¶25

Union Bank of India v. M/S Flywheel Logistics Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S Flywheel Logistics Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

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