Allowed

Uco Bank v. M/S Riddhi Medical Store

DRT20 Sept 2025TA/2189/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte recovery proceeding, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank application for recovery of Rs. 25.43 lakhs along with interest. The court directed the realization from hypothecated assets followed by movable and immovable properties in case of shortfall.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to pay Rs. 25,43,503/- plus interest and costs within 30 days; recovery from hypothecated stock, book debts, current assets and immovable properties on default.

Uco Bank versus M/S Riddhi Medical Store — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 2189 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.2189 of 2022

¶5

UCO Bank

¶6

A-1/20„ First Floor, Prashant Vihar, Sector-14, Rohini, Delhi-110085 Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s Riddhi Medical Store Through its Proprietor Shop no.3, Property no.C-39, GF Prashant Vihar, Sector-14 Rohini, Delhi-110085

¶9

Also at:

¶10

JA/6A, MIG Flats, Phase I Ashok Vihar, Delhi-110052

¶11

Sh. Vikas Gupta s/o Sh. Mahesh Gupta (Proprietor)

¶12

Shop no.3, Property No.C-39, GF Prashant Vihar, Sector-14 Rohini, Delhi-110085

¶13

Also at:

¶14

JA/6A, MIG Flats, Phase I Ashok Vihar, Delhi-110052 Defendants

¶15

Present: Shri C.M.L. Das, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶16

Date of Institution: 17.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 20.09.2025

¶17

FINAL ORDER

¶18

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 17.08.2022 before DRT-III, Delhi and then transferred

¶19

¶20

T.A. No. 2189 of 2022

¶21

to DRT-1, Delhi through Ms.Avantika Belwal, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.25,43,503/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Forty Three Thousand Five Hundred Three only) as on 30.06.2022 along with interest @9.80% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing this application till the date of realization along with costs.

¶22

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the defendants, the applicant bank sanctioned Credit facility for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lacs only) on 04.12.2018, which was enhanced to Rs.16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lacs only) on 26.11.2019. Further, on the request of the defendants, the applicant bank sanctioned an additional amount of Rs.1,60,000/- on 19.05.2020 and Rs.3,20,000/- on 08.07.2020 against hypothecation of current assets i.e. stocks, book debts and other current assets.

¶23

In order to avail the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendants submitted loan applications and executed various loan documents such as Demand Promissory Note(A-1), Letter of Waiver(A-47), Letter of Continuity(A-3), Hypothecation of Goods and Book Debts(A-9) & (9-B) Agreement related to Term Loan(A-109), Agreement related to Funded Interest Term Loan, Agreement for Rescheduling of Loans (A-100) and Composite Deed of Hypothecation with the applicant bank on 04.12.2018, 26.11.2019, 19.05.2020 and 08.07.2020.

¶24

¶25

T.A. No. 2189 of 2022

¶26

The Defendants also executed Acknowledgement of debt dated 31.05.2021 acknowledging the debt in favor of the applicant bank.

¶27

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions of sanction and failed to maintain financial discipline for regularization of the account with the applicant bank. Ultimately, the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 31.05.2021 as per RBI guideline and issued Loan recall notice dated 01.12.2021 but defendants failed to regularize the account. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶28

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 13.09.2024, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared before the Tribunal and even written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have not been filed by the defendants.

¶29

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Ms. Avantika Be!waif authorized representative of the applicant bank, who has proved the documents as Common Board Resolution, Loan Application, Demand Promissory note, Letter of Waiver, Letter of Continuity, Deed of Hypothecation of Stock and Book debts, Letter of Continuity, Hypothecation of goods, Agreement relating to term loan, Acknowledgement of debts, Agreement for rescheduling of loan, Agreement related to Funded Interest Term Loan, Recall Notice, Statement of accounts, Interest

¶30

¶31

T.A. No. 2189 of 2022

¶32

Certificate, Certificate u/s 2A by the Manager in charge of the Computer System marked as Ex.AW-1/1 to Ex.AW-1/36.

¶33

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.

¶34

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.

¶35

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

¶36

ORDER

¶37

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.25,43,503/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Forty Three Thousand Five Hundred Three only) as on 30.06.2022 together with interest @9.80% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing this application till the date of realization and costs; failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stock, book debts and current assets. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶38

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

¶39

¶40

T.A. No. 2189 of 2022

¶41

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 19.11.2025.

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 20.09.2025

¶45

Uco Bank v. M/S Riddhi Medical Store

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. M/S Riddhi Medical Store

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

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Eagle Inn Resort

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Bhoomi Telecom

Ms Kashyap Trading Company versus Canara Bank

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Sunrise Enterprises

Central Bank of India versus M/S Pragati Cables

Icici Bank Limited versus Lokender Attari