Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S Pam International

DRT27 Feb 2025TA/2833/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Union Bank of India for recovery of Rs. 26,33,447 from Pam International. The case was tried ex-parte as the defendant did not appear. The bank's documentary evidence was accepted, and a recovery certificate was directed to be issued.

What did the court decide?

Directed defendant to pay Rs. 26,33,447 with interest and costs within 30 days; recovery certificate issued for execution against movable/immovable properties if shortfall.

Union Bank of India versus M/S Pam International — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 2833 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.2833 of 2022

¶5

nion Bank of India (e-Andhra Bank)

¶6

uchandi Bawana Road awana Village, Delhi-110039 Applicant ersus

¶7

/s Pam International hrough its proprietor rs. Kamlesh Sharma w/o Late Sh.Jaibir Sharma /o C-112, Prahladpur elhi-110042 Iso at: lat No. 303, Sanskriti Apartment ector-19B, Dwarka, ew Delhi-110075 Defendant resent: Sh.Subhash Kumar Jha, Counsel for applicant bank Date of Institution: 31.08.2020 Date of Pronouncement: 27.02.2025

¶8

FINAL ORDER

¶9

This original application has been filed by the applicant ank before DRT-III, Delhi and then transferred to DRT-I Delhi n 31.08.2020 through Sh.Jaideep Kumar, authorized epresentative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of ecovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the efendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.26,33,447/- (Rupees

¶10

T.A. No. 2833 of 2022

¶11

wenty Six Lacs Thirty Three Thousand Four Hundred Forty even only) as on 04.03.2020 along with pendentelite and uture interest @12.35% per annum from 04.03.2020 till the ate of realization along with costs.

¶12

The brief facts of the case that on the request of rs.Kamlesh Sharma, sole proprietress of defendant, the pplicant bank sanctioned Business Loan facility of Rs.20.00 acs (Rupees Twenty lacs only) under Stand Up India Scheme overed under CGTMSE on 16.04.2018 @12.35% rate of interest per annum plus 2% penal interest on overdue amount ith monthly rests against hypothecation of stock of basic iron nd steel.

¶13

In order to avail the loan facility, the defendant submitted oan Application Form dated 12.04.2018 along with related ocuments i.e. Registration Certificate, Udyog Aadhar egistration Certificate, PAN Card, Aadhar Card etc. and xecuted Sanction letter dated 16.04.2018, Composite greement (Comp No.40150), Composite No.40221 DPN etc. ated 17.04.2018 in favour of the applicant bank.

¶14

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after vailing the aforesaid loan facility, the defendant failed to omply with the terms and conditions of sanction and failed to egularize the account with the applicant bank. Ultimately, the pplicant bank classified the account as NPA on 31.05.2019 as er RBI guidelines and issued legal notice dated 01.07.2019 ut the defendant neglected the same and hence the applicant ank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of thei: dues.

¶15

T.A. No. 2833 of 2022

¶16

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendant and espite of proper service, the defendant has chosen to absent rom the proceedings. As per order dated 17.06.2022, the efendant has been proceeded ex-parte as they have not ppeared before the Tribunal and even written statement, vidence and affidavit of assets have not been filed by the efendant.

¶17

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its vidence by way of submitting Authority Letter in favour of Shri aideep Kumar, authorized representative of the applicant bank ho has proved the documents as Authority Letter Ex. AW-1/1, equest for Application for Loan Ex. AW-1/2, Sanction Letter ated 12.04.2018 Ex. AW-1/3, Composite Agreement (40150) ated 17.04.2018 Ex.AW-1/4, Composite No.40221 DPN dated 7.04.2018 Ex.AW-1/5, Legal Notice dated 01.07.2019 Ex. AW/6 & AW-1/7, Certified Statement of Account Ex. AW-1/8.

¶18

The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments ade in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the pplicant bank is based on the documents and the same have een duly approved.

¶19

The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and here is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant ank and the applicant bank has proved its case beyond easonable doubts.

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

T.A. No. 2833 of 2022

¶23

ORDER

¶24

I, allow this OA and direct the defendant to pay to the pplicant bank within a period of 30 days, a sum of s.26,33,447/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs Thirty Three housand Four Hundred Forty Seven only) as on 04.03.2020 ogether with pendentelite and future interest @12.35% per nnum from 04.03.2020 till the date of realization and costs; ailing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the ale of hypothecated stock of basic iron and steel etc. In case f shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of ovable and immovable properties of the defendant.

¶25

II) The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent o the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi. III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery fficer, DRT I, Delhi on 28.04.2025.

¶26

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

¶27

(GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI Dictated and pronounced in open court) ated: 27.02.2025

Union Bank of India v. M/S Pam International

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S Pam International

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

Ziaul Hoeue versus Bangiya Gramin Vikas Bank

Icici Bank versus Uma Shankar Mandal and Anr.

Liladhar S/O Shrawanji Dhakate versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus Parvathamma

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus B Manjanna

Idfc First Bank Ltd. versus Bhoruka Classic Finance Pvt. Ltd.