Allowed

Uco Bank v. Jasmine Kapoor

DRT28 Apr 2025TA/1847/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application by UCO Bank for recovery of Rs. 33.97 lacs plus interest from a defendant who failed to repay a sanctioned MSME cash credit facility. The case was decided ex parte as the defendant did not appear.

What did the court decide?

Defendant directed to pay Rs. 33,97,979.41 plus interest within 30 days; recovery certificate issued; recovery to be met from hypothecated assets or other properties.

Uco Bank versus Jasmine Kapoor — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No.1847 of 2022

¶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. 1847 of 2022

¶5

UCO Bank

¶6

Ayodhya Chowk, F-26/13, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi-110085

¶7

Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Ms Jasmine Kapoor Proprietress of M/s Arrtham Enterprises 3029, Ground Floor, Chotti Baradari Ballimaran, Delhi-110006

¶10

Also at:

¶11

Ms Jasmine Kapoor s/o Shalabh Kapoor 53, 1st Floor, Cedar Crest Nirvana Country Gurugram, Haryana-122018

¶12

Defendant

¶13

Present: Shri Gaurav Gupta, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶14

Date of Institution: 12.03.2020 Date of Pronouncement: 28.J4.2025

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 12.03.2020 through Shri Mukesh Kumar Singh, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial InsJtutions Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.33,97,979.41 (Rupees Thirty Three Lacs Ninety Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy Nine & paisa Forty One only)

¶17

S'a

¶18

T.A. No.1847 of 2022

¶19

as on 31.12.2019 along with pendentelite interest @10.80% per annum with monthly rest from 01.01.2020 till the date of realization and costs.

¶20

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant being sole proprietor of M/s Arrtham Enterprises submitted MSME Loan application dated 31.05.2018 along with related documents, the applicant bank sanctioned MSME Cash Credit facility of Rs.30.00 lacs on 12.06.2018 @10.80% rate of interest for trading of bathroom fitting, sanitary items etc. against hypothecation of stocks and book debts covered under CGTMSE.

¶21

That in order to avail the said loan facility, the defendant submitted loan application and executed Hypothecation of Goods to Secure a Demand Cash Credit, Demand Promissory Note on 12.06.2018 with the applicant bank.

¶22

It has been submitted by the applicant bank ti- at after availing the aforesaid loan facility, the defendant failed to maintain financial discipline and failed to pay the interest as per terms of sanction despite repeated requests and reminders. Ultimately, the applicant bank calling upon the defendants to pay the entire outstanding dues to the applicant bank but the defendants did not bother to clear the dues. The applicant bank classified the account as NPA and issued recall notice dated 04.01.2020 but to no avail. Hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶23

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendant and despite of proper service the defendant has chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 01.02.2024, the defendant has been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared

¶24

¶25

T.A. No.1847 of 2022

¶26

before the Tribunal nor written statement, eviderce and affidavit of assets have been filed.

¶27

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Mukesh Kumar Singh, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as Authorization Letter Ex.AW-1/A, MME Loan Application with related documents Exh.AW-1/B, Hypothecation of Goods to Secure Demand Cash Credit Exh.AW-1/C, Demand Promissory Note Exh.AW-1/D, Loan Recall Notice Exh.AW-1/E(colly), Certified Statement of Account Hypothecation of Goods to Secure Demand Cash Credit Ex.AW-1/F.

¶28

The applicant bank has fully corroborated the av2rments 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.

¶29

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.

¶30

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

¶31

T.A. No.1847 of 2022

¶32

ORDER

¶33

I, allow this OA and direct the defendant to pay to the applicant bank within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.33,97,979.41 (Rupees Thirty Three Lacs Ninety Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy Nine & paisa Forty One only) together with pendentelite and future interest @10.80% per annum with monthly rest from 01.01.2020 till the date of realization with costs, failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of the hypothecated stocks and book debts etc. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶34

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

¶35

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 26.06.2025.

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 28.04.2025

¶39

Uco Bank v. Jasmine Kapoor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. Jasmine Kapoor

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

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Komal Arora

State Bank of India versus Sh. Ajay Kumar Tyagi

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Umaxe Projects

Jacy Fazal versus Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Union Bank of India versus Sri/ Maruti Vaiju Kodalkar

Sri Nagendra Jha versus Central Bank of India