Allowed

Indian Bank v. M/S Ujjwala Food Industries

DRT11 Sept 2025TA/509/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of approximately Rs. 2.33 crore along with interest and costs against defaulted borrowers, directing immediate payment or recovery through the sale of mortgaged property already auctioned to a third party.

What did the court decide?

Directed defendants to pay Rs. 2,33,69,460/- with future interest at 10.95% per annum within 30 days, failing which recovery from sale of properties. Recovery certificate issued.

Indian Bank versus M/S Ujjwala Food Industries — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 509 of 2023

¶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.509 of 2023

¶5

Indian Bank (E-Allahabad Bank) Stressed Asset Management Branch 17, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001 Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s Ujjwala food industries Through its Proprietor Mr. Manmohan Singh D-63, Sector A-7 Trans Delhi Signature City Loni, Ghaziabad (U.P)-201102

¶8

Also at: G-3, 107-108, Entire first floor Sector-16, Rohini Delhi Also at: D-11, Sector-21 Tronica City, Loni Ghaziabad-201012

¶9

Mr. Manmohan Singh Sole Proprietor of M/s Ujjwala Food Industries D-63, Sector A-7 Trans Delhi Signature City Loni, Ghaziabad, U.P-201102

¶10

Also at: G-3, 107-108, Entire first floor Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi Also at: B-13471 Gali no.5, Block-B Baba Colony, Burari-110084

¶11

¶12

T.A. No. 509 of 2023

¶13

Union Bank of India SSI Finance Branch, Sector-15 Naya Bans, Opposite Nirula's Noida-201301, Uttar Pradesh

¶14

Punjab & Sind Bank 206, A.J. Chamber, Naiwala Bank Street, Karol Bagh New Delhi-110005

¶15

M/s Chandra Fabrics Pvt. Ltd Through its Director Mr. Ankur Jain S-18, Chanakya Place Part II New Delhi-110059 Defendants

¶16

Present: Mr. Arvind Kumar, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶17

Date of Institution: 01.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 11.09.2025

¶18

FINAL ORDER

¶19

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 01.11.2017 before DRT-III, Delhi and then transferred to DRT-1, Delhi through Sh.Sanjoy Roy, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 against the defendant no.1 and 2 for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,33,69,460/- (Rupees Two Crores Thirty Three Lacs Sixty Nine Thousand Four Hundred Sixty only) along with pendentelite and future interest @10.95% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing this application till the date of realization along with costs. Further, the name of Sh.Ashish Jindal was substituted as authorized representative in place of Sh.Sanjoy Roy, erstwhile AR for the applicant bank. The

¶20

¶21

T.A. No. 509 of 2023

¶22

defendant no.3 and 4 are made parties in the application claiming their rights on the mortgaged property and defendant no.5 is the auction purchaser who purchased the property auctioned by defendant no.3.

¶23

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the defendant no.2, sole proprietor of Defendant no.1 vide loan application dated 10.01.2014, the applicant bank sanctioned Cash Credit Limit of Rs.200.00 lacs (Rupees Two Hundred Lacs only) on 13.03.2014 at base rate @1.50% per annum (BR as on date 10.25%) against hypothecation of stocks and book debts and mortgage of commercial property situated at Plot No.D-11, Sector A-2, Tronica City, admeasuring 1250 sq. mts., Loni, Ghaziabad, U.P.-201102.

¶24

In order to avail the loan facility, the defendant no.2 as sole proprietor of defendant no.1 executed Demand Promissory Note, Deed of Hypothecation of Goods and Book Debts, Undertaking, Authorization Letter, Letter of Consent, Declaration, General Power of Attorney and Agreement of Guarantee on 15.03.2014 with the applicant bank.

¶25

That in order to secure the cash credit facility, the defendant no.2 hypothecated the machinery, goods and book debts towards applicant bank. The defendant no.2 created equitable mortgage of commercial property situated at Plot No.D-11, Sector A-2, Tronica City, admeasuring 1250 sq. mts., Loni, Ghaziabad, U.P.-201102 with the applicant bank on the basis of Permission to mortgage letter dated 13.11.2014 granted by Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. on 15.11.2014 by depositing Original Lease Deed No.17974 dated 24.09.2005, Original Sanction Factory

¶26

¶27

T.A. No. 509 of 2023

¶28

Building Plan, Original Entrepreneur Memorandum dated 30.07.2007 and Original NOC for Pollution dated 20.05.2005.

¶29

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facility, the defendant no.1 & 2 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. The applicant bank sent various letters to regularize the account, but they still failed to do so. Ultimately, the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 27.02.2017 but no response, hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶30

Notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 dated 01.03.2017 was issued to the defendants but the defendants did not clear the dues.

¶31

The defendant no.3 filed OA no.449/2011 against proprietorship concern of M/s Ujjawal Flour Mills and defendant no.2 along with Ms Jyoti as guarantor and got issued RC no.214/2013 by Hon'ble DRT-III Delhi and mortgaged property was auctioned to defendant no.5 without deciding the objections filed by the applicant bank. The applicant bank filed Appeal No.37/2016 against the order dated 18.05.2016 confirming the Sale of property in question by Ld. RO DRT-III Delhi is pending for disposal.

¶32

The defendant no.4 also given loan of Rs.50.00 lacs in April 2012 against mortgage of property in question to defendant no.1 & 2 and also filed objection in RC No.214/2013.

T.A. No. 509 of 2023

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendant no.1 and 2 and despite of proper service, the defendant no.1 & 2 have chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 24.05.2018, the defendant no.1 & 2 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 defendant no.1 & 2.

¶37

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of Affidavit of Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as Power of Attorney, Original Application, Loan Application Form, Sanction Letter, Acknowledgement of Sanction, Demand Promissory Note, Deed of Hypothecation of Goods and Book debts, Undertaking, Authorization Letter, Letter of Consent, Declaration by the Defendant, Authorization Letter, Agreement of Guarantee, Mortgage Permission Letter, Letter evidencing deposit of title Deeds, Various Letters, Notice u/s 13(2), Copy of objection, Copy of Appeal, Statement of Account along with Certificate Ex.AW-1/1 to Ex.AW-1/23 .

¶38

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.

¶39

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.

5a -

T.A. No. 509 of 2023

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

¶44

ORDER

¶45

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.2,33,69,460/- (Rupees Two Crores Thirty Three Lacs Sixty Nine Thousand Four Hundred Sixty only) together with pendentelite and future interest @10.95%% 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 movable and immovable properties of the defendants as the mortgaged property already sold to defendant no.5.

¶46

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

¶47

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 10.11.2025.

¶48

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

¶49

(GOVIND BALLATii=1 SF'Al RMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶50

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 11.09.2025

¶51

Indian Bank v. M/S Ujjwala Food Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Bank v. M/S Ujjwala Food Industries

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

Veerankutty versus Kerala Gramin Bank

Hdfc Bank versus Tanveer Ahmed

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Ezoom Mobility Private Limited

Birendra Kumar Singh versus Central Bank of India

Nazrul Islam and Ors. versus Bank of India

Smt Manju Shaw and Anr. versus Authum Investment and Infrastructure Limited