Allowed

Uco Bank v. M/S P.R.Creation Enterprises

DRT18 Jan 2025TA/3014/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an application by UCO Bank for recovery of dues from M/s P.R.Creation Enterprises. The court found the case unrebutted and ordered the defendants to pay the outstanding sum with interest.

What did the court decide?

Ordered defendants to pay Rs.47,24,526/- with 9.45% interest and costs within 30 days, failing which recovery attachable from hypothecated assets.

Uco Bank versus M/S P.R.Creation Enterprises — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No.3014 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. 3014 of 2022

¶5

UCO Bank

¶6

Ayodhya Chowk, Sector — 7

Rohini, Delhi-110085

Applicant

Verse's

M/s P.R.Creation Enterprises

¶11

Through its proprietor Sh.Rohit Jain

¶12

Khasra No.2/3, Gujjar Mohalla

¶13

Shani Bazar Road, Village Johripur

¶14

Delhi-110094

¶15

Sh. Rohit Jain s/o Sh.Pradeep Jain

¶16

C-7:288, Lawrence Road, Keshav Puram

¶17

Delhi-110035

¶18

Also at:

¶19

Sh. Rohit Jain s/o Sh.Pradeep Jain 4/10, Plot No.776, Bagichi Gali Near 60 Ft.Road, Vishwas Nagar Defendants Sha idara, Delhi-110032

¶20

Preient: Shri Rajesh Rattan, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶21

Date of Institution: 20.01.2022

¶22

Date of Pronouncement: 18.01.2025

¶23

FINAL ORDER

¶24

This original application has been filed by the applicant ban on 20.01.2022 through Ms Abha Jolly, authorized rep! esentative of the applicant bank cider Section 19 of Rec wer^{-f of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 read with Rule 8}

¶25

T.A. No.3014 of 2022

¶26

of he Debts Recovery Tribunal Rules 1993 against the def( ndants for recovery of a sum of Rs.47,24,526/- (Rupees Forty Seven Lacs Twenty Four Thousand Five Hundred Twenty Six oniy) as on 31.12.2021 along with^{_pendentelite_interest} @9,.45% per annum with monthly rest from 01.01.2022 till the datE of realization and costs.

¶27

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of deR ricant no.2 being sole proprietor of M/s P.R.Creation Ent( .rprises i.e. defendant no.1 submitted loan application alor g %with General Registration certificat, dated 19.09.2017, PAID Aadhar Card etc. for carrying on business of readymade gars rents, the applicant bank sanctioned Working Capital Cash Cre( it Hypothecation facility of Rs.40.00 lacs on 09.02.2018 @1(.63=% rate of interest against hypothecation of stocks, rca ivdb es and current assets. Due to Covid 19 pandemic, app icant bank sanctioned FITL loan of Rs.2,13,949/- on 06.( 5.2020 to meet financial crunch faced by MSME units in the )•„isiness as per Govt.of India guidelines dated 07.07.2020. Furl:ie.:, WCTL facility of Rs.0.75 lac was sanctioned under GEC L ::(.neme on 31.12.2020 in favour of defendants.

¶28

hat in order to avail the said loan facility, the defendant no: i:-^{,:ough defendant no.2 executed Demand Promissory} Not (Form A-1), Letter of Waiver (Form A-47), Letter of '4 (Form A-3), Hypothecation of Goods to Secure a Deria Li Cash Credit (Form A-9), Demand Promissory Note (Foi m .( -3), Deed of Guarantee (Form A-21) and Agreement Reiztiiig-^{to Term Loan (Form A-109) on 08.02.2018 and} 31.: 2..i.020 with the applicant bank.

¶29

has been submitted by the applicant bank that after ava i, .a the aforesaid loan facility, the defendants failed to

¶30

SQ/'

¶31

T.A. No.3014 of 2022

¶32

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 on 31.03.2021 and issued recall notice dated 22.07.2021 but to no avail. Hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶33

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 05.01.2024, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as they have not appeared before the Tribunal nor written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have been filed.

¶34

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Ms Abha Jolly, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the docuriv;nts as Board Resolution Exh.AW-1/1, Loan Application with ra!ated documents Exh.AW-1/2(colly), Sanction Letter Exh.AW-1/3, Demand Promissory Note Exh.AW-1/4 & 10, Letter of Waiver Exh.AW-1/5, Letter of Continuity Exh.AW-1/6 & AN-1/11., Hypothecation of Goods to Secure Demand Cash Credit Exh.AW-1/7 & AW-1/13, Letter of Additional Loan Exh.A112-1/8(colly), Request for GECL Loan Exh.AW-1/9, Agreement to Term Loan Exh.AW-1/12, Undertaking Exh.AW1/14, Recall Notice Exh.AW-1/15(colly), Statement of Accounts certified under Bankers' Book of Evidence Act Exh.AW-1/16 to AW 1/13.

¶35

T.A. No.3014 of 2022

¶36

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.

¶37

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.

¶38

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

¶39

ORDER

¶40

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay to the applicant bank within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.47,24,526/- (Rupees Forty Seven Lacs Twenty Four Thousand Five Hundred Twenty Six only) together with pendentelite and future interest @9.45% per annum with monthly rest from 01.01.2022 till the da.e of realization with costs, failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of the hypothecated stocks, receivables and current assets. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶41

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

¶42

T.A. No.3014 of 2022

¶43

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 19.03.2025.

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 18.01.2025

Uco Bank v. M/S P.R.Creation Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. M/S P.R.Creation Enterprises

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

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Shankar Ganpati Engineering Consultancy Pvt. Ltd.

Ms Bhaavya Pipe Pvt. Ltd. versus Indian Bank

Bank of India versus Ms Moti Construction

Icici Bank Limited versus M/S Hitani Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

Icici Bank Limited versus Shri Manish Dhanda

Canara Bank versus M/S Shresth Woods Products