Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Saurabh Sharma

DRT12 Feb 2025TA/166/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Union Bank of India for recovery of dues of approximately Rs. 20.13 lakhs. The bank had sanctioned a cash credit facility guaranteed by the defendants, who failed to repay. The court found the bank's case unrebutted due to the defendants' absence, validated the evidence of loan documents and security, and directed recovery including interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents to pay Rs. 20,13,049.51 with pendenteliste and future interest @13.65% p.a. within 30 days; aim shortfall via sale of hypothecated stocks, mortgaged property, and other assets of respondents; issue recovery certificate.

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Saurabh Sharma — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No.166 of 2023

¶2

Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi 4th floor, Jeevan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi

¶3

Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sharma

¶4

T.A. No. 166 of 2023

¶5

Union Bank of India Shop No.1, DDA Market Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095 Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Sh.Saurabh Sharma (Proprietor) M/s Aarav International Khasra No.189, 3rd Floor, Kakrola Village Landmark Sharda ITI College Near Sector 14 Dwarka Metro Station Dwarka, Delhi-110078

¶8

Also at: G-131, Shri Niwaspuri South Delhi-110065

¶9

Also at: H.No.104, Krishna Nagar, Gali No.2, Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP-201204

¶10

Ms Saroj Sharma w/o Jitender Kumar Sharma Plot No.72, Khasra No.115, Village Sikri Khurd, Pargana Jalalabad Gali No.2, Shri Nagar Colony Krishna Nagar, Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad-201204 Defendants

¶11

Present: Shri Mayank Mahajan, Counsel for the applicant bank Date of Institution: 01.06.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 12.02.2025

¶12

T.A. No.166 of 2023

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 01.06.2019 before DRT-III, Delhi & then transferred to DRT-I, Delhi through Shri Ravinder Garg, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.20,13,049.51 (Rupees Twenty Lacs Thirteen Thousand Forty Nine & paisa Fifty One only) as on 30.04.2019 together with pendentelite and future interest @13.65% per annum with monthly rest from 01.05.2019 till its realization and costs.

¶15

The brief facts of the case are that on the recuest of defendant no.1 being proprietor of M/s Aarav International doing manufacturing business of readymade garments, the applicant bank sanctioned Cash Credit (Hypothecation) limit of Rs.20.00 lacs (Rupees Twenty Lacs only) on 11.02.2016 against hypothecation of stocks, book debts etc. @11.65% interest per annum. The defendant no.2 stood as guarantor for the credit facility availed by the defendant no.1 from the applicant bank.

¶16

That in order to avail the said loan facility, the defendant no.1 as proprietor submitted loan application and executed Hypothecation Agreement of Goods & Debts, Demand Promissory Note, Letters of Continuity, Interest Agreement on 17.02.2016. Further the defendant no.2 executed Letter of Guarantee with the applicant bank to secure the overdraft limit.

¶17

That in order to secure the Cash Credit facility, the defendant no.2 created equitable mortgage of her property

¶18

T.A. No.166 of 2023

¶19

being Plot No.72, Khasra No.115, Village Sikri Khurd, Pargana Jalalabad, Gali No.2, Shri Nagar Colony, Krishna Nagar, Modi Nagar, Modi Nagar, Dist. Ghaziabad, UP admeasuring 200 sq.yds with the applicant bank on 15.02.2016 by depositing original title deeds. The applicant bank acknowledged the same vide Memorandum of Deposit and certificate of EM dated 15.02.2016.

¶20

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facility, the defendants failed to maintain financial discipline as per terms of sanction, :ailed to submit stock statements and financial statements and committed defaults in repayment of interest and installments. As the defendants failed to regularize the account despite notice & personal visits, the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 30.09.2018 as per RBI guidelines and issued demand legal notice dated 20.02.2019 but neglected by the defendants. Hence, the applicant bank has approad:ed this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶21

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite of proper service the defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 31.10.2023, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared before the Tribunal and even no written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have been filed by the defendants.

¶22

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Ravinder Garg as authorized representative of the applicant who has proved the documents as Power of Attorney Exh.PW1/1(0SR), Loan Application Exh.PW1/2, Sanction Letter Exh.PW1/3,

¶23

T.A. No.166 of 2023

¶24

Hypothecation Agreement of Goods & Book Debts Ex.PW-1/4, Demand Promissory Note Ex.PW-1/5, Letter of Continuity Ex.PW1/6, Interest Agreement Exh.PW1/7, Letter of Guarantee Exh.AW1/8, Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds Exh.AW1/10, Certificate of EM Exh.AW1/11, NPA Certificate Exh.AW1/12, Statement of Account Exh.AW1/13, Certificate under Banker's Books Evidence Act Exh.AW1/14, Legal Notice with Postal Receipts Exh.AW1/15(colly).

¶25

The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments made in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the applicant bank is based on the documents and the same have been duly proved.

¶26

The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and there is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant bank and the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts.

¶27

In the light of the above discussions, the Original Application deserves to be allowed.

¶28

ORDER

¶29

I, allow this Original application and direct the defendants, jointly or severally, to pay to the applicant bank within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.20,13,049.51 (Rupees Twenty Lacs Thirteen Thousand Forty Nine & paisa Fifty One only) together with pendentelite and future interest @13.65°/0 per annum with monthly rests from 01.05.2019 till the date of realization, failing which the aforesaid amount shall be

¶30

T.A. No.166 of 2023

¶31

recovered from the sale of hypothecated stocks and book debts etc. of defendant no.1 and sale of mortgaged property being Plot No.72, Khasra No.115, Village Sikri Khurd, Pargana Jalalabad, Gall No.2, Shri Nagar Colony, Krishna Nagar, Modi Nagar, Modi Nagar, Dist. Ghaziabad, UP of defendant no.2. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶32

(II) The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi.

¶33

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 15.04.2025.

¶34

(IV) Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate are to be sent to all concerned free of cost.

¶35

(GOVIND BALLABH ARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶36

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 12.02.2025

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Saurabh Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Saurabh Sharma

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

State Bank of India versus M/S Jai Bajrang Minerals Proprietor / Leagal Heir Smt. Yogini Wd/o Gaurishankar Motghare

Renu Prasad versus Axis Bank

Ms Abacus Infocon Pvt. Ltd. and others versus Punjab National Bank

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus Sharanabasappa Alias Sharanabasappa Police Patil

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Deepak Sharma

Axis Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Vallabh Gandhi