Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Ms B R Enterprises through Its Proprietor Sh Sarwan Kumar Jindal

DRT19 Sept 2025TA/1255/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the original application filed by the bank for recovery of outstanding loan dues from the defaulting borrowers and their guarantor. The Tribunal directed recovery from sale of hypothecated vehicles and other assets upon stipulated deadlines.

What did the court decide?

Direction to pay outstanding sums with interest within 30 days; recovery from sale of hypothecated vehicles and personal assets if not paid.

Union Bank of India versus Ms B R Enterprises through Its… — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

Before SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI, Presiding Officer Debts Recovely Tribunal-Il, Delhi

¶2

TA No/l2ss 12022 uNroN BANK OF rNDrA (E-CORPORATTON BANK) VS MS. M/S B.R. ENTERPRTSES & ORS

¶3

Reserued on : 18.08.2025 Pronounced on : 19.09.2025

¶4

Union Bank of India E-Corporation Bank -Applicant bank Vs. 1. Ms. M/s B.R. Enterprises 2. Sh. Vikram Singh - Defendants

¶5

-Applicant bank

¶6

Present: Mr. Samarendra Kumar, Counsel for applicant bank. Defendants are exparte, since, 02.01.2014

¶7

FINAL ORDER

¶8

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 11.05.2018 through Mr. TiwariAjay Kumar Deepak, Chief Manager of the applicant bank, under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993 against the defendant no.l for recovery of a sum of Rs.1t,32,712.36 out of which defendant no.2 is only liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,03,015.36 together with cost, charges and pendentellite and future interest @13.00o/o for CCVU0U130005 and t3.45o/o for CCVV01/130010 from date of filing of this O.A. till the realization in full.

¶9

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant no.1, the applicant bank sanctioned Vehicle loan facility of Rs.05.40 Lacs & Rs.05.20 to purchase a New Tata Indiqo Be:ring Registration No. $.

¶10

TNt255/2022

¶11

¶12

DL1YDzl041 & D15CG2922, vide sanction letter dated 06.03.2013. The defendant no.1 executed all necessary loaning documents on 08.03.2013. Again, at the request of defendant no.1 along with defendant no.2 in the capacity of guarantor, the applicant bank sanctioned a Vehicle Loan Facility of Rs.06.50 lacs to purchase a Tata Sumo bearing Registration No. DLLYD4746, vide sanction letter dated 29.06.2013. The defendant no.1 executed all necessary loaning documents on 02.07.2017. The aforesaid credit facilities were also secured by hypothecation of aforesaid Vehicles.

¶13

It is further submitted that the defendants enjoyed and utilized the Loan facility, but failed to maintain the financial discipline and failed to repay the due amounts. The applicant bank requested the defendants to regularize the loan account by visits and letters, but there was no response from the defendants. Therefore, the applicant bank served a demand notice dated 30.01.2018 to the defendants but failed to recover the same. It is submitted that the applicant is filing the true and certified extracts of the loan accounts of defendants which shows the debit balance of Rs.6,29,6971- and Rs.5,03,015.36 = Rs.1t,32,7t2.26 inclusive of interest debits upto 08.03.2018. Thus, the^present O.Aff.A. is^preferredby the applicant bank to recover its dues.

¶14

On notice by this Tribunal, the defendant nos.1 & 2 failed to put appearcnce at all, despite^publication. Accordingly, the defendant nos.l & 2 were^proceeded against exparte on 02.01.2024.

¶15

TN125512022 3

¶16

The applicant bank has filed evidence by way of affidavit of Mr. Tiwari Ajay Kumar Deepak, Chief Manager of the applicant bank as Paper No-22 to Paper No-169 which have gone unchallenged and unrebutted. Hence, the case ofthe applicant bank stands fully established against the defendants with respect to nonpayment of outstanding amount.

¶17

After^perusing the records, this Tribunal is of the view that the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. The evidence and documents filed by the applicant bank not rebutted by the defendants by not^placing any evidence and there is no question of disbelieving the evidence and documents filed by the applicant bank based upon the written/printed documents.

¶18

In the light of the above discussions, the^present T.A. deserves to be allowed.

¶19

ORDER

¶20

I hereby allow this T.A. of the Applicant Bank and direct the defendant no.1 to^pay to the applicant bank within 30 days from today, a sum of k.6,29,6971- along with cost, expenses and interest @11.45olo for CCVL/oU130005 from the date of filing of this OA^which has become T.A till the date of realization. In^case of failure to deposit the above amount within the stipulated period, the same shall be recovered from sale of hypothecated vehicles i.€., Tata Indigo^Bearing Registration No. DL1YM041 & DL5CG2922. In case of shortfall the same shall be recovered from the sale of personal movable and immovable assets of the defendant no.1. $'

¶21

TN125512022

¶22

¶23

I hereby allow this T.A. of the Applicant Bank and direct the defendant no.1 & 2 to pay to the applicant bank within 30 days from today, a sum of Rs.5,03,015.36 along with cost, expenses and interest @11.45olo for CCVL/01/130010 from the date of filing of this OA which has become T.A till the date of realization. In case of failure to deposit the above amount within the stipulated period, the same shall be recovered from sale of hypothecated vehicle Tata Sumo bearing Registration No. DL1YD 4746. In case of shortfall the same shall be recovered from the sale of personal movable and immovable assets of the defendant no.1 & 2.

¶24

Recovery Certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi.

¶25

The registry of this Tribunal is hereby directed to issue free copy of the order and send the same to both the^pafties.

¶26

Parties are direct to appear before the Ld. Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi on 19.LL.2025. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

¶27

File be consigned to records.

¶28

S"\

¶29

Date : 19.09.2025 (SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI)

¶30

PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

¶31

This^judgement has been signed, dated and pronounced in open court.

¶32

Date : 19.09.2025

¶33

( <,\ tr(SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

Union Bank of India v. Ms B R Enterprises through Its Proprietor Sh Sarwan Kumar Jindal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Ms B R Enterprises through Its Proprietor Sh Sarwan Kumar Jindal

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