Allowed

Andhra Bank v. Ms Ally India Products

DRT28 Aug 2025TA/185/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Andhra Bank for recovery of dues from M/S Ally India Products. Proceeding ex-parte due to the defendant's absence, the debt of Rs. 11,84,685 along with interest and costs was confirmed, and a recovery certificate was directed to be issued.

What did the court decide?

Payment of Rs. 11,84,685 with 11.30% p.a. interest and costs within 30 days; sale of hypothecated stocks and properties if amount not realized; issuance of recovery certificate.

Andhra Bank versus Ms Ally India Products — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 185 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.185 of 2023

¶5

Andhra Bank

¶6

K-7, Model Town-III, New Delhi-110009

¶7

Through It's Branch Manager Mr.Raj Kumar G.

¶8

Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

M/S Ally India Products Through It's Prop. Mr. Anurag Prabhakar 3rd Floor, Plot No.6, Vishnu Garden, Punjabi Market New Delhi-110018

¶11

Also at: Plot No.33, Block-WZ, First Floor, Navyug Block, Vishnu Garden, Tilak Nagar, West Delhi-110018

¶12

Defendant

¶13

Present: Mr. P.K Jha, Ld. Counsel for the applicant bank

¶14

Date of Institution: 07.03.2019

¶15

Date of Pronouncement: 28.08.2025

¶16

FINAL ORDER

¶17

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank before DRT-III, Delhi and then transferred to DRT-I

¶18

-1

¶19

T.A. No. 185 of 2023

¶20

through its authorized representative under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.11,84,685/(Rupees Eleven Lacs Eighty Four Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Five Only) as on 31.01.2019 along with pendentelite and future interest ©11.30% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization and costs.

¶21

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the defendant, the applicant bank sanctioned Overdraft Facility of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs Only) on 28.09.2016 with floating interest ©11.30% per annum against hypothecation of stocks.

¶22

In order to avail the over draft loan facility, the defendant submitted loan application and executed Composite Agreement and Demand Promissory Note in favor of the applicant bank .

¶23

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facility, the defendant failed to comply with the terms and conditions of sanctioned loan. Therefore, the account of the defendant became irregular and was declared NPA as on 31.01.2018 as per RBI guidelines and issued Legal/demand, overdue amount notice and Recall notice dated 13.10.2017, 27.10.2017, 02.11.2017, 03.02.2018 and 07.01.2019 which were neglected by the defendant. Hence, the applicant bank approached this tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶24

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite proper service, the defendant has chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 03.06.2024, the

¶25

¶26

T.A. No. 185 of 2023

¶27

defendant has been proceeded ex-parte as he has not appeared before the Tribunal and even written statement has not been filed.

¶28

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Raj Kiran Kumar G, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as General Power of Attorney, Sanction letter, Demand Promissory note, Statement of Loan accounts as exhibit AW-1/1 to AW-1/5 (Golly).

¶29

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 approved.

¶30

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.

¶31

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

¶32

ORDER

¶33

I, allow this TA and direct the defendant to pay to the applicant bank, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.11,84,685/- (Rupees Eleven Lacs Eighty Four Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Five only) together with pendentelite and future interest @11.30% per annum from the date of decree passed till the date of realization and costs; failing which the amount shall be recovered from sale of hypothecated stocks

¶34

T.A. No. 185 of 2023

¶35

and book debts. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶36

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

¶37

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 31.10.2025.

¶38

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

¶39

2 .-i-

¶40

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

¶41

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 28.08.2025

Andhra Bank v. Ms Ally India Products

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Andhra Bank v. Ms Ally India Products

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

Manoj Cm versus Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Punjab National Bank versus Smt. Maninderjeet Kaur

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Dharmender

Idfc First Bank Limited versus Sanjeev Kumar Gupta

Canara Bank versus Jitender Yadav

Hdfc Bank versus Ajay Sharma