Allowed

Union Bank of India (E-Andhra Bank) v. M/S R.S.Electrical

DRT6 Mar 2025TA/831/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allowed an original application by Union Bank of India for recovery of Rs.27,35,387.70 along with interest from M/s R.S.Electric and guarantors who absent themselves from proceedings, directing payment within 30 days via sale of hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Directing the defendants to jointly or severally pay Rs.27,35,387.70 with interest @12.90 p.a. from 01.11.2020 within 30 days, failing which recovery from sale of hypothecated and other properties.

Union Bank of India (E-Andhra Bank) versus M/S… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No.831 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. 831 of 2022

¶5

Union Bank of India (e-Andhra Bank) Plot No.4, Pocket H-32 Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi-110085 Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s R.S.Electric Through its proprietress 3rd Floor, 310, Aggarwal Tower Plot No.2, Sector-5, Rohini, Delhi-85

¶8

Also at: H.No.27, Pocket G-30, Sector-3 Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi-85

¶9

Ms. Reshma d/o Mohd Javed Ansari Proprietress H.No.7135, Beriwala Bagh Azad Market, Delhi-110007

¶10

Also at:

¶11

G-26/309, Sector-3, North West Delhi Rohini, Delhi-110085

¶12

Also at:

¶13

D-2/294, Nehru Vihar, Dayalpur North East Delhi, Delhi-110094

¶14

Also at: H.No.27, Pocket G-30, Sector-3 Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi-85

¶15

Ms. Nasreen Naaz w/o Mohd Javed (Guarantor) H.No.27, Pocket G-30, Sector-3 Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi-85 Defendants

¶16

T.A. No.831 of 2022

¶17

Present: Shri M.K.Jha, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶18

Date of Institution: 04.12.2020

¶19

Date of Pronouncement: 06.03.2025

¶20

FINAL ORDER

¶21

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 04.12.2020 before DRT-III, Delhi and then transferred to DRT-I Delhi through Shri Ajit Kumar, authorized representative 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.27,35,387.70 (Rupees Twenty Seven Lacs Thirty Five Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Seven and paisa Seventy only) as on 31.10.2020 together with pendentelite and future interest @10.90% plus 2% penal interest from 01.11.2020 till its realization with costs.

¶22

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant no.1 through defendant no.2 as its proprietress, the applicant bank sanctioned OCC loan facility for working capital under Stand Up India Scheme for Rs.24.00 Lacs (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Only) @11.10% interest per annum subject to change as per RBI guidelines on 03.11.2017 against hypothecation of stocks and book debts. The defendant no.3 stood as guarantor for the credit facility sanction in favour of defendant no.1 by the applicant bank. The defendants liable to pay penal interest @2% per annum with monthly rests on overdue interest. On the request of defendant nr.1, the applicant bank renewed the OCC limit on 21.02.2019 @11.40% interest per annum as per terms of sanction.

¶23

T.A. No.831 of 2022

¶24

That in order to avail the said loan facility, the defendants no.1 through its proprietress submitted loan applications with relevant documents and executed Sanction Letters dated 03.11.2017 and 21.02.2019, R.F.210, Composite Agreement, R.F.291 General form of Guarantee, Consent Letters for Disclosure of Information to CIBIL etc. on 03.11.2017 and 25.02.2019 in favour of applicant bank.

¶25

That in order to secure the loan facility, the defendant no.1 through its proprietress hypothecated the stock:- of raw materials, goods of electrical items etc. in favour of applicant bank.

¶26

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendant failed to honor its commitments to make the payment as per terms and conditions of the sanction and failed to regularize the account despite regular follow up, visits etc. The applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 31.01.2020 and issued recall notice dated 26.11.2020 to pay the entire outstanding dues and invoked the guarantee of defendant no.3, but defendants neglected the same. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶27

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 30.10.2024, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared before the Tribunal and even no written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have been filed by the defendants.

¶28

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Ajit Kumar, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has submitted the

¶29

T.A. No.831 of 2022

¶30

documents such as Power of Attorney Ex.AW-1/1, Gazette Notification Ex.AW-1/2, Loan Application Ex.AW1/3, Sanction Letter dated 03.1'1.2017 Ex.AW-1/4, Loan Application dated 04.02.2019 Ex.AW-1/5, Sanction Letter dated 21.02.2019 Ex.AW-1/6, R.F.210 Ex.AW-1/7, Composite Agreement Ex.AW-1/8, R.F.291 General form of Guarantee Ex.AW-1/9, Consent Letter for Disclosure to CIBIL Ex.AW-1/10 & Ex.AW1/11, Recall Notice with Postal Receipts Ex.AW-1/12, Certified Statement of Account Ex.AW-1/13, Certificate under Section 65-B(2) of Indian Evidence Act Ex.AW-1/14, U/s 2A(B) of Bankers Books Evidence Act Ex.AW-1/15.

¶31

The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments made in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole cas€ of the applicant bank is based on the documents and the same have been duly proved.

¶32

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.

¶33

10.^{In the light of the above discussions, the Original} Application deserves to be allowed.

¶34

ORDER

¶35

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.27,35,387.70 (Rupees Twenty Seven Lacs Thirty Five Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Seven and paisa Seventy only) as on 31.10.2020 along with interest @12.90% per annum from 01.11.2020 till the date of realization failing

¶36

T.A. No.831 of 2022

¶37

which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stocks/goods etc. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶38

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

¶39

(Ill) Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 05.05.2025.

¶40

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

¶41

Set Difvf. (GOVIND BALLABFI RMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶42

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 06.03.2025

Union Bank of India (E-Andhra Bank) v. M/S R.S.Electrical

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India (E-Andhra Bank) v. M/S R.S.Electrical

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

Archana Kumari and Others versus Can Fin Homes Ltd.

State Bank of India versus M/S Radhe Radhe Enterprises

Msmodgil Filling Station versus Punjab National Bank

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) versus M/S Shreya Polymers Pvt. Ltd.

Suraksha Asset Reconstruction Ltd. versus Mrs. Sunita Kumar

Pushpa Bakery versus Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank