Allowed

Uco Bank v. M/S Sakshi Saree Selection

DRT19 Apr 2025TA/720/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by UCO Bank for recovery of dues against the defendants. The Tribunal found the bank's case proved beyond reasonable doubt and ordered the defendants to pay the principal sum, interest, and costs, directing a recovery certificate to be issued.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to pay Rs. 24,37,194/- with interest and costs within 30 days; recovery certificate to be issued for enforcement against assets.

Uco Bank versus M/S Sakshi Saree Selection — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 720 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.720 of 2022

¶5

UCO Bank Prashant Vihar, Sector-14 Rohini, Delhi-110085 Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s Sakshi Saree Selection Through its Proprietor Plot no.3, Kh No.312, Inder Enclave Main Mubarakpur Road Kirari, Delhi-110081

¶8

Beenu Shukla s/o Sh.Sushil Kumar (Proprietor) D-24, Bhagya Vihar, Madan Pur Dabas North West Delhi, Rani Khera Delhi-110081

¶9

Sushi! Kumar s/o Sh. Ram Kishan (Guarantor) D-24, Bhagya Vihar, Madan Pur, Dabas North West Delhi, Rani Khera Defendants Delhi-110081

¶10

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

¶11

Date of Institution: 11.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 19.04.2025

¶12

T.A. No. 720 of 2022

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 11.07.2022 through Mrs Hiral Makhija, auThorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.24,37,194/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Thirty Seven Thousand One Hundred Ninety Four only) as on 30.06.2022 along with pendentelite and future interest @9.80% per annum plus penal interest from the date of filing this application till the date of realization along with costs.

¶15

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the defendants, the applicant bank sanctioned Cash Credit Facility for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs only) on 04.12.2018, which was enhanced to Rs.17,00,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Lacs only) on 19.11.2019 @9.80% interest rate per annum against hypothecation of stocks, book debts and other current assets in favour of the applicant bank. Further, on the request of the defendants, the applicant bank sanctioned an additional amount of Rs.1,70,000/- (Rupees One Lacs Seventy Thousand only) on 08.06.2020. The defendant no.3 stood as guarantor for cash credit Facility sanctioned in favour of the Defendant no.1 & 2.

¶16

In order to avail the loan facilities, the defendants submitted loan applications and executed Demand Promissory Note (A-1), Letter of Waiver Note (A-47), Letter of Continuity Note (A-3), Hypothecation of Goods (A-9), Hypothecation of Book Debts (A-9B), Letter of guarantee (A-21) on 04.12.2018 and 19.11.2019. Further, for availing loan facility of Rs.1.70 lac,

¶17

¶18

T.A. No. 720 of 2022

¶19

the defendants executed Composite Deed of Hypothecation, Agreement relating to Term Loan (A-109) on 08.06.2020 in addition to aforesaid documents.

¶20

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 regularize the account with the applicant bank despite restructuring the FITL account. The applicant bank issued recall notice dated 01.06.2021 along with several reminders to the defendants for regularization of the accounts, but the defendants have failed, hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶21

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite of proper service, the defendants haves chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 27.09.2024, 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.

¶22

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Ms. Avantika Belwal, authorized representative of the applicant bank, who has proved the documents as Common Board Resolution Ex.AW-1/1, Loan Applications Ex.AW-1/2 & Ex.AW-1/10, Sanction Letters Ex.AW-1/3 & Ex.AW-1/11, Demand Promissory Notes Ex.AW1/4, AW-1/12 & AW-1/17, Letter of Waiver Ex.AW-1/5 & AW1/13, Letter of Continuity Ex.AW-1/6 & AW-1/14, Deed of Hypothecation of Stock Ex.AW-1/7 & AW-1/15, Deed of Hypothecation of Book Debts Ex.AW-1/8 & AW-1/16, Letter of Guarantee Ex.AW-1/9, Letter of Waiver dated 08.06.2020 Ex.AW-1/18, Composite Deed of Hypothecation Ex.AW-1/19, sd-

¶23

¶24

T.A. No. 720 of 2022

¶25

Agreement relating to Term Loan Ex.AW-1/20, Acknowledgement Letter Ex.AW-1/21, Recall Notice Ex.AW1/221^{Statement of Accounts Ex.AW-1/23(Colly), Interest} Certificate Ex.AW-1/24, Certificate by In Charge of the Computer System Ex.AW-1/25.

¶26

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.

¶27

The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebuqed and there is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant bank and the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts.

¶28

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

¶29

ORDER

¶30

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.24,37,194/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Thirty Seven Thousand One Hundred Ninety Four only) together with pendentelite and future interest @9.80% per annum plus penal interest with monthly rests from the date of filing the application till the date of realization and costs; failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stocks, book debts, etc. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶31

¶32

T.A. No. 720 of 2022

¶33

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

¶34

(III)^{Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery} Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 18.06.2025.

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 19.04.2025

¶38

Uco Bank v. M/S Sakshi Saree Selection

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. M/S Sakshi Saree Selection

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 Prahalad Verma

Hdfc Bank versus Babu Khan

Bank of India versus M/S Gupta Traders

Bank of India versus Dilip Kumar

State Bank of India versus Mr. Daljit Singh

Punjab National Bank versus Neeraj Khullar