Allowed

Uco Bank v. Navkaar Creations and Anr.

DRT29 Oct 2025TA/3094/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by a bank for recovery of dues from a borrower who practiced industrial negligence and remained absent from proceedings. The court issued a recovery certificate directing the Payment Officer to recover the specified sum.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs.31,00,833/- with interest and costs within 30 days; recovery certificate to be issued.

Uco Bank versus Navkaar Creations and Anr. — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No.3094 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. 3094 of 2022

¶5

KO Bank 4yodhya Chowk, Sector-7 Rohini, Delhi-110085 Applicant

¶6

\ersus

¶7

Navkaar Creations Khasra No.75/1 & 79 Ground Floor, Plot no.23 Arya Nagar Industrial Area L r oni, Ghaziabad, U.P-201101

¶8

Sh. Pradeeep Jain s/o Prem Chand Jain C-7/288, Ground floor Lawrence Road, Keshav Puram Delhi-110035 Defendants 1:resent: Mr. Rajesh Rattan, Counsel for the applicant bank Date of Reserve: 07.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 29.10.2025

¶9

FINAL ORDER

¶10

This original application has been filed by the applicant ank on 24.01.2022 through Ms. Abha Jolly, authorized epresentative 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.31,00,833/- (Rupees

¶11

hirty One Lacs Eight Hundred Thirty Three only) along with endentelite interest @9.45% per annum with monthly rest rom 01.01.2022 till the date of realization and costs.

St-

T.A. No.3094 of 2022

. The brief facts of the case are that at the request of iefendant no.1 through its proprietor being defendant no.2, he applicant bank sanctioned Working Capital Cash Credit ; Facility for a sum of Rs.24,75,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs eventy Five Thousand only) on 19.01.2019 @10.60% interest er annum against hypothecation of stocks and receivables ;1 overed under CGTMSE scheme. Further, on the request of the efendants, the applicant bank sanctioned FITL Covid-19 limit of Rs.1,24,917/- and GECL loan facility for Rs.4,95,000/Rupees Four Lacs Ninety Five Thousand only) on 06.09.2020.

¶16

That in order to avail the said loan facilities, the defendant submitted loan applications and executed Demand Promissory Note, Letter of Continuity, Letter of Waiver, Firlypothecation of Goods to Secure Demand Cash Credit, pplication for loan under GECL scheme with the applicant ank on 29.01.2019 and 06.09.2020. ;

¶17

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after vailing the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendant failed to maintain financial discipline and pay the interest as per terms 034 f sanction. Ultimately, the applicant bank classified the ,ccount as NPA on 31.03.2021 as per RBI guidelines and issued

¶18

Recall Notice dated 22.07.2021 calling upon the defendants o pay the entire outstanding dues to the applicant bank but he defendants did not bother to clear the dues. Hence the pplicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of heir dues.

¶19

. Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and espite of proper service the defendants have chosen to absent rom the proceedings. As per order dated 11.07.2024, the efendants have been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared

54-

T.A. No.3094 of 2022

efore the Tribunal nor written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have been filed.

¶24

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its vidence by way of affidavit of Ms. Abha Jolly, authorized presentative of the applicant bank who has proved the ocuments as Board Resolution, MSME Loan Application, anction Letter, Demand Promissory Note, Letter of Waiver, etter of Continuity, Hypothecation of Goods to Secure a emand Cash Credit, Statement of Means and other supporting ocuments, Recall notice, Certified Statement of Account under anker's Book of Evidence Act marked as Ex.AW-1/1 to Ex.AW/11.

¶25

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 proved.

¶26

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.

¶27

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

¶28

ORDER

¶29

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the pplicant bank, jointly or severally, within a period of 30 days, sum of Rs.31,00,833/-(Rupees Thirty One Lacs Eight s -

¶30

¶31

T.A. No.3094 of 2022

¶32

Hundred Thirty Three only) together with pendentelite and future interest @9.45% interest per annum with monthly rest from 01.01.2022 till the date of realization with costs, failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale

¶33

f the hypothecated stocks and book debts etc. In case of hortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable end immovable properties of the defendants.

¶34

I) The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent ti e Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi.

¶35

( II) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery ; fficer, DRT I, Delhi on 29.12.2025.

¶36

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

¶37

Sd- ),-v)

¶38

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

¶39

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) ated: 29.10.2025

¶40

Uco Bank v. Navkaar Creations and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. Navkaar Creations and Anr.

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

Icici Bank Limited versus Uniforce Energy System Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

State Bank of India versus Sh. Avtar Singh

Ms Ghumam Mohammad Zargar through proprietor Ghulam Mohammad Zargar versus Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited

Bank of Maharashtra versus Parveen

Ajaysingh Ramsingh Rajput versus Piramal Finance Limited

Punjab National Bank versus Mr. Paramjit Singh