Allowed

Uco Bank v. Sh. Dharmendra Deo Chodhary and Others

DRT27 Jun 2025TA/1729/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the bank's application to recover a defaulting housing loan. It held that while the specific borrower and guarantor must pay, the bank cannot recover this specific debt from a third-party property seller merely because she received the loan funds, as no direct debt exists under the Act against her.

What did the court decide?

Directed Defendants 1, 2, and 3 to jointly and severally repay the principal sum of Rs. 42,72,673/- along with interest and costs within 30 days.

Uco Bank versus Sh. Dharmendra Deo Chodhary and Others — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

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

¶2

TAlt729l2022

¶3

UCO BANK VS SH. DHARIIIENDRA^{DEO CHOUDHARY&} oRs.

¶4

Reserued on : 09.O6.2O25 Pronounced on = 27.O6.2025

¶5

UCO Bank

¶6

Applicant bank

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Sh. Dharmendra^{Deo Choudhary}

¶9

Smt. ShrutiChoudhary

¶10

Shri Bipin^{Kumar Giri}

¶11

Smt. Baby Sharma

¶12

-^Defendants

¶13

Present: Shri Rajesh Rattan,^{Counsel appears for} applicant bank. Shri A.K. Sharma,^{Counsel for defendant} no.4.

¶14

Defendant nos.1 to 3^{are exparte since} 13.07.20L6.

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

This original application^{has been filed by the} applicant ban( on^{30.12.2014throughShri} Nemichand, Asstt.^{General Manager of the applicant} bank, under Section^{19 of the RDB Act, 1993 against} the defendant nos.^{1 to 4 for recoveryof a sum of} Rs.42,72,673l- along with^{further interestthereupon} @10.20olo^{p.m from the date of filling of this application} till the date of realization^{in full.}

¶17

The brieffadts ofthe^{case are that at the request} of defendant nos.1 and^{2, the applicantbank} sanctioned a Housing^{Loan Facility of Rs.39,50,0001-for} purchase of the Entire ttpper Ground^{Floor without roof} rights of built up^{pfopP bearing Plot No.12-A,}

¶18

e.).

¶19

TANO11729/2022 2

¶20

measuring 100 sq.^yds, out of Khasra^{No.455, situated} in the revenue estate of village^{Nasirpur, Delhi Estate,} in the area abadi/colony known as^{MahavirEnclave,} New Delhi-110045, vide sanction^{letter dated} 12.06.2013 repayable in 240 monthly^{installmentof} Rs.38,6214l- each. The defendant^{nos.1and 2 executed} all necessary loaning^{documentson 12.06.2013.The} defendant no.3^{in considerationof grant of loan facility} to the defendant^nos.1 and^{2 stood as guarantor for} and on behalf of the defendant^{nos.1 and 2 in his} individual capacity and^{he signed and executed a} separate letter of^{guarantee on 12.06.2013. It is} submitted that the^{defendantno.1 had requested the} applicant bank^{videhis letter dated 12'06.2013to make} a pay order of^{Rs.39,50,000/-in favour of defendant} no.4/Smt. Baby Sharma,^{the original owner of the said} propefi, accordingly a^pay order^{no'97895dated} 12.06.2013 for^{Rs.39,50,000/-was issued in the name} of the Smt. Baby^{Sharma/ defendant no.4'The} defendants and Smt.^{Baby Sharma had got the sale} deed dated^{77.06.2013 preparedand they signed and} executed the same^{and also got the particulars of the} witness filled up in^{sale deeddated 17.06.2013and} defendants were in^{close contact with eachotherand} had engaged local^{persons in the office of Sub-} Registrar, Kapashera,^{New Delhi, for getting the sale} deed registered and they^{also put their signatureand} put their photographs on the said^{sale deed and the pay} order of Rs.39,50,000/-^{was thus handed over by the} applicant bank to^{Smt. Baby Sharma/defendantno.4} and defendants^{informedthe bank that the saledeed} has been registered.^{The defendantnos.1 and 2 after} few days came to the^{applicant bank and depositedthe} original sale deed dated^{17.06'2013 with the bank on}

¶21

<),

¶22

TANOlt729/2022 3

¶23

L2.07.20t3 with an intention to create^an equitable mortgage of the said^propefty in favour of^the bank and signed the confirmation letter^dated 15.07.20t3 confirming that they had created^equitable mortgage of the aforesaid immovable^{property by} deposit of original title deed on^12.07.2013.

¶24

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 requestedthe} defendants to regularize^{the loan accountby visits and} letters, but there was^{no response from the defendants,} hence the account was^{classifiedas NPA on 30.09.2014.} Therefore, the applicant bank^{serued a demand notice} dated 14.11.2014 to the^{defendants but failed to} recover the same Thus,^{the present O'MIAis preferred} by the applicant bank to^{recover its dues.}

¶25

On notice by this Tribunal, the^{defendant nos.1} and 2^put appearance^{throughcounsel but failed to file} written statement. Thereafter,^{the defendant nos.1 and} 2 failed to^put appearance^{in the matter. The defendant} no.3 failed to^put appearance at all.^{Accordingly,the} defendant nos.1 to 3 were^{proceededagainst exparte} on 13.07.2016. The defendant no.4^{put appearance} through counsel and filed written statement.

¶26

In their written statement^{the defendant no.4has} denied the facts mentioned in the OA. It is^submitted that defendant no.4 is the lawful and absolute owner and in^{physical possession} of the^property i.e., Plot^No. 12-A Upper Ground Floor with-onetil^parklng righb q)

¶27

TANO/1729/2022 4

¶28

without roof, measuring 100 sq.^yds, out of^Khasra No.455, situated in the revenue estate of^village Nasirpur, Delhi Estate, in the area abadi/colony^known as Mahavir Enclave, New Delhi-110045, vide virtue of registered sale deed dated 01.09.2005. It is further submitted that the original application is barred^by limitation. The allegation in the^present original application is that defendant no.4 has received^an amount of Rs.39.50 lacs on account of sale of^her flat from defendant no.1 and in fact this was the^part payment and the payment received is dated 12.06.2013 and the applicant bank became well aware of^{the same} on the date of^payment received by her. The applicant bank on receipt of notice issued on the securitization application filed by Smt. Baby Sharma came aware of the entire facts on 21.08.2015 but they did not choose to file any application and only filed the^present original application that too after the expiry of 3^years, hence the same is barred by limitation. It is submitted that the property claimed to be mortgaged is not mortgaged as the title deed with the applicant bank are forged and fabricated and even not registered with the office of sub-registrar. It is submitted that the defendant no.4 has preferred the securitization application no.133/2015 being aggrieved by the steps taken by the applicant bank is respect of the subject propefi. The defendant no.4 is neither the borrower nor the mortgagor not the guarantor for the alleged limits availed by the borrower i.e., defendant nos.1 and 2 and the defendant no.4 is the legal, valid owner and in physical possession of the property. It is fufther submitted that the last week of May 2013, the defendant no. 1 along with his wife approached the applicant through propefi dealer;nd showed their

¶29

c,)

¶30

TANOlt729/2022 5

¶31

willingness to^purchase the subject^property for a sum of Rs.45 Lacs. The defendant no.4 was demanding^an amount of Rs.60 Lacs as she was in dire need of^money. The defendant nos. 1 and 2 through^{property dealer} became aware that the defendant no.4^{was facing} financial crunch, they make an offer to defendant^no.4 that if she is ready to sell the^{property for a sum of} Rs.45 Lacs, they would immediately^{pay the entiresale} amount within 15-20 days. Ultimately^{the deal was} settled, for a sum of Rs.49.50 Lacs,^{between the parties} i.e. defendant no.2 and defendant^{nos. 1 and 2. The} defendant nos. 1 and 2^{handedover proposedSale} Deed to be executed in their^{favour and alsohanded} over the demand draft of^{Rs.39.50 Lacs and asked the} applicant to sign along^{with witnesses. On asking for} remaining amount of Rs.10^{Lacs in cash, whichfinds} mentioned in the^{proposed sale deed, it was informed} that one should have trust^{in each other and once the} demand draft of Rs.39.50^{Lacs has been handed over} to the defendant no.4, she^{must sign the same, and} before registration of the Sale^{Deed, for which both the} parties are remain to be^present before the Office^{of the} Sub-Registrar, they would hand^{over the remaining} amount of Rs.10 Lacs in^cash at^{the residenceof the} defendant no.2 on the date of^{registration of proposed} sale deed and before delivery of^{physical possessionof} the property in^question. The^{said demand draft of} Rs.39.50 Lacs was handed over somewhere^on 121L3.06.2013 and the date of^{registrationof sale deed} was fixed as 17.06.2013 and before^{registration of sale} deed they would^pay remaining amount of^{Rs.10 lacs in} cash and take over the^{physical possession} of^the property. Accordingly, the defendant no.4 signed the proposed sale deed with the clear understanding that

¶32

¶33

TANO/1729/2022 6

¶34

once she receives the remaining^amount of^Rs.10 lacs in cash, she will hand over the^{physical possession} of the^property and shall^{present/appearbefore the} Office of the Sub-Registration for registration^{of said} sale deed in respect of^propefi in^question. It^is submitted that the defendant nos.^{1 & 2 did not turn up} on 17.06.2013 and thereafter^{they startedneglecting} the defendant no.4 on one ac@unt or^{the other. The} defendant no.4 becomes^{furiousand told the defendant} no. 1 ifthey are not interested to^{purchasethe propefi} then she would sell the^{property to somebodyelse and} shall forfeit the money so^{deposited,but there had been} no response since then,^{though he has been workingin} the same locality and had^{been assuring that due to} some financial crunch he could^{not arrangedthe} remaining amount of^Rs.10 lacs^{in cash and would} approach once he arranges the^{money but the} defendant no.4 specifically told^{him now the mafteris} over and^{property priceshave been increased,and} there has been no fault of the^{defendant no.4 and she} cannot wait and the amount^{stands forfeited. However,} some^persons claiming to be bank^{officials visitedthe} property and made enquiries about the^property, and have been asking the defendant no.2 to^{vacate the} same as the same was claimed to be^{mortgaged with} them. The defendant no.4 informed that she^{has never} visited the office of Sub-registrar for registration of sale deed in respect of^property in favour of defendant nos. 1 & 2 and as such they left the premises, but before leaving the premises they called the defendant no. 1 and got some signatures from him. The defendant no.2 objected to that but they said it is between bank and him and if there is no registered sale deed she should not worry about the same. Hoyrqler, on 10.08.2015,

¶35

¶36

TANOl1729l2022 7

¶37

one notice dated 29.07.2015 was^found pasted at the propefi of the applicant and in the said notice it was stated that the Receiver appointed^{by Shri} Vivek Kumar Gulia, Ld. CMM Delhi is^{going to take} physical possession of the property in question on 22.08.2015. It is fufther submitted that^{the defendant} no.4 and the relatives of the defendant^no.4 approached the applicant bank^{who after knowledgeof} the entire factual^{position agreed to help the defendant} no.2 and they were also shocked to^{know these facts,} but they said that they are^{helplessand they can't help} her and the best recourse^{would be approachingto this} Hon'ble Tribunal. However, they^{were kind enough to} provide the details of the sale deed which was according to them is registered with the^{Office of Sub- Registrar} IX, Kapashera, Delhi with^{Reg. No. 71581, Book No. 1,} Vol. No. 7247 from^pages124 to^{135 dated 27.06.2013.} It is submitted that the said^{propefi is not a secured} asset in the hands of the applicant^{bank and the} applicant bank cannot^{proceed againstthe propefi in} question. It is submitted that the applicant bank^is claiming its right over the^{proposedsaledeed whichhas} never been registered and in the absence^of the^same, no title is devolved upon defendant nos.¹ &^{2. From} the above it is clear that fraud has been^{played and the} proposed sale deed has been forged by pufting stamps and registration numbers of the Sub- Registrar and photographs of the witnesses have also been manipulated. It is submitted that the measures taken by the applicant bank under the^provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002, the defendant no.4 had filed the Securitisation Application No. t3312015 which is pending adjudication. It is submitted that this Hon'ble Tribunal did not granted any jnterim relief to the 9)

¶38

TANOl1729l2022 8

¶39

defendant no.4 and hence the^{physical possession} of the property was taken by the applicant bank. It^is submitted that the steps taken by the^{applicantbank} are bad in law as on the^proposed sale deed^{the alleged} mortgage has been created. It is submitted that^there is no security interest created in favour^{of the applicant} bank as there is no interest created^{in favour of} defendant nos. 1 & 2.^The applicant^{bank be directed} to provide the entire chain of^{loan documents including} the alleged documents of creation of^mortgageand legal search report, visit reports,^{inspections, valuations} etc. It is submitted that the applicant^{bank has not} fulfilled ib obligations under^{law and it has not} discharged its duties and^{functionsin legal and proper} manner before taking steps under^{SecuritizationAct' It} is submitted that the applicant^{bank is not competent} to issue^possession notice or^{take possessionas no} Notice under section 13(2)^{have ever issuedto the} defendant no.4 and in the^{absence on notice under} Section 13(2) of the Securitization^{Act, any stepstaken} thereafter without notice under^{section 13(2) to} proceed further for taking^possession would^{amount to} illegality of the highest level. It^{is prayedthat this} Honble Tribunal may dismiss^{the originalapplication} and the decree be^{passed in favourof the defendants} and against the applicant^{bank for damagesto the tune} of Rs.37.60 lacs and direct^{the applicantbank to restore} back the^{physical possession of the property in question} to the defendant no.4

¶40

The applicant bank^{has filed their respective} evidence and exhibited the^documents.

¶41

Heard the Ld. Counsel of both^{the parties and} perused the record. 9.\

¶42

TANOn729l2022 9

¶43

The main contention of the applicant bank^is that the defendant no.1 & 2 appeared before^the applicant bank and applied for a loan for^purchase of the subject^property from defendant no.4.^The defendant no.3 has stood as^{guarantor of} the^{loan. It is} fufther submitted that the defendant^{no.4has executed} agreement to sell in favour of the defendant^{no.l & 2} and has signed the sale deed and^{has assured that the} sale deed will be executed after^getting the^full consideration. The applicant bank^issued a^demand draft of Rs.39,50,000/-ⁱⁿ the^{name of defendantno.4} and the same was credited in^{the account of the} defendant no.4. Subsequently the^{defendantno.l & 2} deposited the sale deed executed^{by the defendant no.4} before the applicant bank and^{the applicantbelieving} that the sale deed has been executed,^{placedthe same} on the record of the loan.^{Subsequentlythe defendant} no.1 & 2 failed to maintain the financial^{discipline and} therefore, the account of the defendant^{no.1 & 2 has} become NPA. The applicant bank^{has issueda notice} under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI^{Act against the} borrower and the^guarantor but they have hiled^to repay the loan. It is submitted that the demand draft^of Rs.39,50,000/- has been issued to the defendant^no.4 and therefore, they are filing the OA against defendant no.4 as the defendant no.4 is the beneficiary of the amount paid by the bank. It is submitted that the applicant bank believed that the sale deed has been duly executed by defendant no.4 in favour of the defendant no.1 & 2. On the other hand the defendant no.4 has contended that there is no privity of contract between the applicant bank and the defendant no.4. The defendant no.4 has not executed any loan document and has not executed any deed of guarantee c\

¶44

TANOlt729l2022 l0

¶45

in favour of the applicant bank. Therefore, the applicant bank cannot sue the defendant^{no.4 by filing} the original application under^provisions of the^{RDB Act.} The defendant no.4 is not the borrower of the^applicant bank and therefore, no action under^{Section 19 of the} RDB Act can be taken against the defendant^{no.4. It is} further contended that the defendant no.1 & 2^has agreed to^pay Rs.10 Lacs in addition^{to Rs.39,50,000/-} and then the defendant no.4^{has to execute the sale} deed in favour of defendant^no.1 &^{2. The defendant} no.1 & 2 has failed to made the^{paymentof Rs.10Lacs} and therefore, the defendant^{no.4 has never executed} any sale deed in favour of^{the defendant no.l & 2. It is} further submitted that the sale^{deed depositedwith the} bank is a forged and fabricated^{sale deed and the} defendant no.4 has received a^{communicationfrom the} Sub Registrar that no such sale^{deed exists in the} records of the Sub Registrar^{regarding the sale of the} subject^property. Therefore,^{it is clearthat the sale deed} deposited with the applicant bank^{by the defendant} no.l & 2 is a forged and fabricated^{sale deed and} therefore, the defendant no.4^{is not liable to pay any} amount. From^perusal of the rival^{contention of both} the^pafties, the main^point for consideration^{is whether} the alleged sale deed deposited by the^{defendantno.1} & 2 with the applicant bank is a^{genuine sale deed} executed by defendant no.4 in favour^{of defendant no.1} & 2. From^perusal of the^pleadings it^{is clear that the} applicant bank has never claimed that the^allegedsale deed executed by the defendant no.4 in favour of defendant no.1 & 2 is a^genuine sale deed. It^{has been} submitted that as^per his knowledge the document^{is a} genuine sale deed. In the para no.6 of the^plaint it has been mentioned that \he applicant bank believed the €"I

¶46

TANO11729/2022 1l

¶47

defendants that a valid sale deed has^been signed, executed and registered by Smt.^{Baby Sharma} in favour of defendant no.1 & 2 and the^{bank has held} the aforesaid immovable^{property as} its^{securityasset} being its moftgagee under a bonafide^{belief and} impression that a valid title deed^{has been deposited by} the defendant with the bank". It^{is also submitted in} para no. 9 (a) of the plaint that defendant no.4 has flled SA no. L3312015 Smt.^{Baby Sharma Vs. Uco Bank and} Anr. and in the SA it has been claimed that^{she has not} executed any alleged sale^{deed in favourof defendant} no.1 & 2 and the original^{sale deed lying with the bank} is a forged and fabricated document.^{It hasbeen} alleged by the defendant^{no.4 that the sale deed has} never been registered with the^{Sub Registrar.In para} no. 9 it has been submitted that "applicant^{bank is} not awate for want of^{knowledgethat the} aforesid sle ded dafud^{17.O6'2O73 lying} deposited with it was never^{got rcgisfutd by} Smt Baby Sharma in favour of^{defendant no,7 &} 2 as alleged by hen"Therefore,^{it is clear that the} applicant bank has made^{pleading that he cannotsay} that the sale deed has been^{registeredor not because} he has no knowledge of the same.^On the other^hand the defendant no.4 has clearly mentioned^{in para no.19} of the written statement that the answering^defendant approached the concerned Sub Registrar and^applied for the certified copy of the same on the basis of the details provided by the applicant bank. The Sub Registrar in his reply has informed as under:

¶48

" With reference to your application uide slip no. 49649 dated 13.08.2015 you have applied for certrfid copy uide rqistration no.71581 Book no.l Vol. No. 7247

¶49

¶50

TANOlt729l2022 12

¶51

from pages 124 to 135 dated 27.06.2013 Sbmp FFr^{no. IM-D11015N.}

¶52

The details prouidd by^you for ceftifid^{copy does not} find match from our ruords. Hence the applicatron^with your above details is rejectd.

¶53

s/_

¶54

Sub Rqistrar

¶55

IX, Kapashera, New Delhi

¶56

In rejoinder to the^{writtenstatement the applicant} in para no.7 has submitted that^{the submissions are} wrong and denied for want of^{knowledge'It is denied} for want of knowledge that^the title^{deed is forgedand} fabricated and in^para no.19 it^{has been submitted that} the contents of^para no.19 of the^{brief submissions are} wrong and denied and the defendant^{is put to strict} proof of the same.

¶57

From^perusal of the above^{pleadings it is clear} that the defendant no.4 is clearly submitting^{that she} has never registered any sale deed in favour^of defendant no.1 & 2 and has also^{relied uponthe reply} given by the Sub Registrar that no such sale deed has been registered on the record. Therefore, the defendant no.4 is making a clear submission that the sale deed is forged and fabricated. The applicant bank can duly investigate the matter and get the certified copy of the original sale deed executed by defendant no.4 to defendant no.1 & 2 from Sub Registrar and can say that the sale deed has been actually registered with the Sub Registrar and the contention of the defendant no.4 are totally false. The applicant bank has never said that he has made an inquiry with the Sub Registrar and

¶58

¶59

TANOlt7292022 13

¶60

found that the sale deed has been duly registered and the contention of the defendant no.4 are^wrong. Instead of making such submission the applicant bank is saying that the bank has no knowledge that the^sale deed is forged and fabricated and he deemed^{the sale} deed as genuine because it has been deposited^by defendant no.1 & 2. Therefore, it is clear^{that the} applicant bank has never contended that^{as per his full} knowledge and as^per inquiry made by the^{bank, the} sale deed deposited with the^{bank is genuine'} Therefore, the contention of the defendant^no.4 appears to be true because^{it has not beendenied by} the applicant bank. The applicant^{bank is opposingthe} contention of defendant no.4 only^{on the basisthat the} bank has no knowledge of^{the fact. The bank can easily} get the knowledge of the fact as to whether the alleged sale deed is^genuine or false and^{fabricated. Therefore,} the contention of the defendant^{no.4 is liable to be} accepted and it is clear that the defendant^{no.4 has} never registered any sale deed in^favour of^the defendant no.1 & 2 and the sale^{deed depositedby the} defendant no.1 & 2 with the applicant^{bankis a forged} and fabricated sale deed.

¶61

The next contention of the applicant^{bankis that} the demand draft has been^paid to the defendant^no.4 and therefore, the defendant no.4^{is beneficiary} of^the amount disbursed by the applicant bank, therefore,^the applicant bank can file the OA against the defendant no.4. But the contention of the applicant bank cannot be accepted. As^{per provisions} contained under Section 19(2) of the RDB Act, where a bank or financial institution, which has to recover its debt from any person has to file an application to the Tribunal under Sub Section (1). Thereforq, it is clear that there must <J

¶62

TANOfi729/2022 14

¶63

be a debt which has to be recovered from the defendants. The debt has been defined^underSection 2(g) of the RDB Act. In the^present matter^{the loan was} granted to the defendant no.1 & 2 and the defendant no.3 has stood as^guarantor and therefore,^it cannot^be said that the loan has been^granted to the^defendant no.4 and there is a debt due against the defendant^no.4 merely because the demand draft was^{issued in favour} of the defendant no.4. There is no^privity of^contract between the applicant bank and^{the defendant no.4 and} no debt is due against the defendant no.4,^therefore, the OA cannot be sustained against^{defendantno'4. If} the sale deed has not been registered^despite disbursement of the loan, the bank^{is entitled to recover} the same from defendant^no.1 to^{3 but the same cannot} be recovered from defendant^{no.4, because the} defendant no.4 is not a borrower^{of the debt.}

¶64

On the basis of above discussion it^{is clear that the OA} cannot be decreed against the defendant^{no.4 but it can} be allowed against defendant no.1^{to 3. As the sale} deed has not been registered^{in favourof defendant} no.1 & 2, therefore, the applicant bank^{cannotrecover} the same from the subject^{propertyallegedto be sold} by defendant no.4 to defendant no.l^{& 2.}

¶65

In the light of the above discussions, the^{present TA} deserues to be allowed against defendant^{no.1 to 3.}

¶66

ORDER

¶67

I hereby allow this T.A. of the Applicant Bank and direct the defendant nos. 1 to 3 to^{pay jointly and} severally to the applicapt !a{y!!nin 30 days from (-.\ \

¶68

TANOlt729/2022 15

¶69

today, a sum of Rs.42,L2,673/- along with cost, expenses and interest @10.20olo from the date of filing of this O.A which has become TA till the date of realization.

¶70

In case of failure to deposit the above amount within the stipulated^period, the same shall be recovered from the sale of^personal movable and immovable assets of the defendant nos.1 to 3.

¶71

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

¶72

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

¶73

Parties are direct to appear before the^Ld. Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi on 28.08.2025. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

¶74

File be consigned to records.

¶75

g)'

¶76

Date:27.06.2025

¶77

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

¶78

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

¶79

(s4

¶80

(SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFRCER DRT-II, Delhi

¶81

Date:27.06.2025

¶82

Uco Bank v. Sh. Dharmendra Deo Chodhary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. Sh. Dharmendra Deo Chodhary and Others

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