Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S Tathagat Enterprises

DRT3 Nov 2025TA/2161/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's Original Application for recovery of dues totaling Rs. 21.29 lakhs along with interest and costs against defendants who failed to repay a working capital loan under Stand Up India Scheme, proceeding ex-parte.

What did the court decide?

Payment of Rs. 21,29,642.88 along with pendentelite and future interest @11.40% per annum from 01.09.2021, plus costs, to be made within 30 days; failure to pay mandates recovery from sale of hypothec

Union Bank of India versus M/S Tathagat Enterprises — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

¶2

T.A. No. 2161 of 2022

¶3

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

¶4

Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sharma

¶5

T.A. No. 2161 of 2022

¶6

Union Bank of India (e-Andhra Bank)

¶7

Plot No.C-9/116, Ground Floor

¶8

Sector-8, Rohini, Delhi-85 Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

M/s Tathagat Enterprises Proprietorship concern A-273, Phase I, Street No.19 Budh Bazar Road, Vijay Vihar Delhi-110076

¶11

Also at: Vill & P.O. Dumaria Bazurg Thana Dumaria Khagaria, Bihar-851216

¶12

Mrs.Ranju Devi Proprietress M/s Tathagat Enterprises R/o A-273, Phase I, Street No.19 Budh Bazar Road, Vijay Vihar Delhi-110076

¶13

Also at: Vill & P.O. Dumaria Bazurg Thana Dumaria Khagaria, Bihar-851216 Defendants

¶14

Present: Sh. Brijesh Kumar Tamber, counsel for the applicant bank

¶15

Date of Reserve: 09.10.2025

¶16

Date of Pronouncement: 03.11.2025

¶17

54 -

¶18

T.A. No. 2161 of 2022

¶19

FINAL ORDER

¶20

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 21.09.2021 through Shri Kundal Prabhakar, 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.21,29,642.88 (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Twenty Nine Thousand Six Hundred Forty Two & paisa Eighty Eight only) as on 31.08.2021 along with pendentelite and future interest @11.40% per annum with monthly rest and @2% penal interest from 01.09.2021 till the date of realization and costs.

¶21

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of defendant no.1 being proprietorship concern of defendant no.2 vide their loan application dated 05.03.2018, the applicant bank sanctioned Working Capital Demand Loan of Rs.24,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four lacs only) @12.60% interest per annum subject to change as per bank's guidelines on 14.03.2018 for purchase of stock under Stand Up India Scheme against hypothecation of stock and receivables to be repayable in 60 EMI of Rs.54,118/- per month.

¶22

That in order to avail the loan facility, the defendant no.1 through its proprietor being defendant no.2 submitted loan application dated 05.03.2018 and executed Acceptance of Sanction Letter, Composite Agreement, Acknowledgement of Debt, Demand Promissory Note, Consent Letter for Disclosure of Information, Bank's Right to Cancel Limits, Undertaking, Letter of Assurance — maintaining sufficient balance in Deposit Account, Declaration and Undertaking/ Declarations all dated 14.03.2018 towards the applicant bank.

¶23

5Cif

¶24

¶25

T.A. No. 2161 of 2022

¶26

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facility, the defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions and despite several requests, the defendants failed to pay the monthly installments in time to the applicant bank. The Applicant Bank classified the account as NPA on 13.04.2020 as per RBI guidelines and issued recall notice on 10.06.2021 but defendants failed to regularize the account; hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶27

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite proper service the defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings. Vide order dated 01.11.2023, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as they have not appeared before the Tribunal nor written statement, list of all bank accounts and affidavit of assets etc. have been filed.

¶28

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Kundan Prabhakar, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as Gazette Notification Ex.AW-1/1, Authority Letter Ex.AW-1/2(0SR), Loan Application Ex.AW-1/3, Letter of Sanction Ex.AW-1/4, Acceptance of Sanction Letter Ex.AW-1/5, Composite Agreement Ex.AW-1/6, Acknowledgement of Debt Ex.AW-1/7, Demand Promissory Note Ex.AW-1/8, Consent Letter Ex.AW-1/9, Bank's Right to Cancel limits Ex.AW-1/10, Undertaking Ex.AW-1/11, Letter of Assurance for Sufficient Balance Ex.AW-1/12, Declaration Ex.AW-1/13, Undertakings / Declarations Ex.AW-1/14 & Ex.AW-1/15, Notice & Postal Receipts Ex.AW-1/16(Colly), Statement of Accounts along with Certificates u/s 2 of Banker's

¶29

T.A. No. 2161 of 2022

¶30

Books of Evidence Act & Certificate under Section 65(6)(4) of Indian Evidence Act Ex.AW-1/17(Colly).

¶31

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.

¶32

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.

¶33

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

¶34

ORDER

¶35

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank, jointly or severally, within a period of 30 days a sum of Rs.21,29,642.88 (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Twenty Nine Thousand Six Hundred Forty Two & paisa Eighty Eight only) as on 31.08.2021 along with pendentelite and future interest @11.40% per annum with monthly rests from 01.09.2021 till the date of realization and costs, failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stock and receivables. 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 the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi.

¶37

¶38

T.A. No. 2161 of 2022

¶39

(III) Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 02.01.2026.

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 03.11.2025

¶43

Union Bank of India v. M/S Tathagat Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S Tathagat Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Harjit Singh

Canara Bank versus Shri Harpal Singh

Idbi Bank versus Amrik Kaur

Canara Bank versus M/S Lucky Plast India

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S Sai Constructions

State Bank of India versus Sh. Harnek Singh