Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Government Tele Communication Employees Co. Operative Society Ltd.

DRT13 Nov 2025TA/88/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the Open Application (OA) filed by Union Bank branches for recovery of dues from a co-operative society. The court relied on admission in the written statement, dismissal of limitation arguments due to extended settlement offers, and issued a recovery certificate with injunctive relief against asset alienation and directions for pari passu sharing of proceeds.

What did the court decide?

Directions to pay Rs. 158,16,07,949.98 plus 9% interest; injunction on alienation of assets; recovery certificate issued against First Defendant; proceeds from asset sales to be shared pari passu with

Union Bank of India versus Government Tele Communication… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –I AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 13^th Day of November, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI A.S.JAYACHANDRA Presiding Officer

¶4

T.A. No.88 of 2022

¶5

Union Bank of India Mid – Corporate Branch Shakthi Towers No. 766 (Old)/178 (New) Anna Salai

¶6

Chennai – 600 002. Represented by its Asst. General Manager IFSC Code : UBIN0569020 e- Mail: [email protected]

¶7

Union Bank of India (e AB) Triplicane Branch, Old No. 55, New no. 111, Big Street, Triplicane, Chennai – 600 005. Represented by its Branch Manager IFSC Code : UBIN0805645 e- Mail: [email protected] …..Applicants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Government Tele – Communication Employee’s Co-operative Society Limited RegdNo: MSCS/CR – 10/86 No. 37 – A, Sembudoss Street, Chennai – 600 001 Represented by its President PAN No: AABAT3072B

¶10

¶11

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Office of the Chief General Manager TamilNadu Telecom Circle HCM – pay wing,4^th Floor 16, Greems Road Chennai – 600 006 Represented by its Accounts Officer (HCM – pay Roll)

¶12

Bank of India Mylapore Branch No. 120/174, Luz Chruch Road Chennai – 600 004 Represented by its Chief Manager

¶13

Central Bank of India Mid Corporate Branch 48/49, Montieth Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. Represented by its Asst. General Manager

¶14

State Bank of India SME Branch No.556, Jeevananand, Anna Salai, Tenyampet, Chennai – 600 018

¶15

Repco Bank Corporate Branch No.18, C. P. Ramasamy Road Alwarpet Chennai – 600 018 Represented by its General Manager

¶16

Canara Bank Anna Nagar East A12/13, II Avenue, Anna Nagar Chennai – 600 040 Represented by its Asst. General Manager\

¶17

IDBI Bank Ltd, No.115, Anna Salai Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015. Represented by its Asst. General Manager

¶18

¶19

City Union Bank Ltd., Mount Road Branch, 706, Anna Salai, Thousand Lights Chennai – 600 006. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶20

……Defendants

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The same Applicant Bank described as Applicant No.1 and 2 had filed this OA initially before DRT 2 for recovery a sum of Rs.158,16,07,949.98p against the defendant no. 1 only.

¶23

No relief is sought against the other defendants except stating that the defendant 3 to 9 are also entitled for share on pari passu basis over the security offered by the Defendant no. 1.

¶24

The defendant no 1 has filed the written statement on 12.12.2022. Though the, Bank had examined its witness AW-1 Ms. D. Deepa Devi, in the first part of the deposition dated 25.07.2025, this witness had relied on exhibit A 1 to A117. In the second part of the deposition she had further relied on exhibit A 118 to A151.

¶25

The brief facts of the case of the Applicant bank is that both the applicants are the branches of the bank which is a registered banking company. The first defendant is herein is a multi state co-operative society having its business spread across different states. The second defendant is having no banking transaction but arrayed as a party. It is also pleaded that the defendants 3 to 8 are also the lenders to defendant no. 1 under multiple banking arrangements.

¶26

4.1 The defendant no. 1 Society in its business of money lending to its members had approached the Applicant bank and the Applicant bank alleges that the defendant availed the loans Term Loan 1 by executing promissory note for Rs. 25 crore apart from executing the loan documents on 09.12.2013. Likewise the Applicant no. 2 ( e-Andhra Bank) had also accorded and sanctioned loan limit of Rs.50 crores on 06.12.2013 and the documents were executed on 23.12.2013. (the pleading are

¶27

¶28

incoherent at para 8 of the OA as regards the e Andhra Bank transactions).

¶29

4.2 It is alleged that after execution of this documents, security interest came to be created over the receivables of the society and the primary receivable of the member of the society is the payment of the salary and benefits of employee of BSNL which is second defendant herein.

¶30

4.3 It is also alleged that the first defendant again approached the Applicant between 2013 – 2018 and D1 availed the following facilities : -

¶31

(a) TL II– Rs. 25crores–executed documents including DPN on 29.06.2013.

¶32

(b) TL–III- Rs. 50crores executed documents including DPN on 22.03.2014.

¶33

¶34

(d) TL–V- Rs. 50crores executed documents including DPN on 30.06.2017.

¶35

(e) TL–VI-Rs. 10crores executed documents including DPN on 10.10.2018.

¶36

(f) TL–VII-Rs. 10crores executed documents including DPN on 10.10.2018.

¶37

4.4 It is also pleaded that, the defendant no. 1 had given the debit balance confirmation and acknowledgment of debt on 17.10.2019 consequent to the resolution passed by defendant 1 dated 14.10.20219. The Applicant had pleaded various amounts duly acknowledged as balance on two different dates i.e. 09.10.2018with regard to term loan I to V and again on 17.10.2019 with regard to the term loans I to IV and further on 18.02.2020 as regards TL I to III. It is pleaded that the first Applicant classified loan account as NPA on 30.11.2019 and issued a demand notice dated 18.12.2019 calling upon the first defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 93,52,62,404.37 paise and the

¶38

¶39

first Applicant had recalled the facilities on 02.12.2019. These sums are not paid so far. It is also pleaded that the second Applicant had recalled the facilities vide its notice dated 26.08.2019.

¶40

4.5 It is submitted that the first defendant society had kept on promising to clear thedues in its JLM convened. The minutes of the meeting held on 25.02.2020 is reproduced in the OA wherein it is noted that GTECS Officials presented the following to the JLM members :

¶41

The society has been outstanding with all the lenders at about Rs. 425 crores. There are about 6000 members in the society currently with outstanding book of about Rs. 162 crores. Of these Members, around 4300 Members had opted for VRS and the total receivables to the society from these VRS Optees would be around Rs 130crores.

¶42

4.6 Based on these assurances, the bank anticipated the better performances of the Defendant – 1 Society. However, the society had not taken any positive effort to clear the outstanding dues. It is pleaded that the Defendant no. 1 is liable to make the payments as under:-

¶43

(a) To the first Applicant – as on 30.11.2020 - Rs. 91,13,76,850.47p.

¶44

(b) To the second Applicant - as on 30.11.2020 - Rs. 67,02,31,099. 51p.

¶45

4.7 It is further alleged that the Defendant no. 1 society availed these loans for the benefits of its members and thus the Applicant are entitled to the interests as per the RBI guidelines. The true statements of accounts are also furnished by segregating the different claims and the interests. Thus the OA is filed for recovery of Rs.158,16,07,949.98 paise along with interest and cost.

¶46

4.8 In the prayer, it is to be noted that the Applicant have sought for recovery certificate along with the cost and also had sought for the realization of the amounts noting the share of defendants no. 3 to 9 on the pari passu basis concerning the security offered by the Defendant no. 1. The

¶47

¶48

security is offered at schedule - A is the “Book debts and the receivables” as per the receivable statementdated 11.03.2020 submitted to the tune of Rs. 534.75 crores under pari passu charge and under schedule B it is described as “ all the current assets of first defendant”.

¶49

4.9 It is to be noted that the OA does not specify any immovable properties or other valuable securities owned by the defendant no. 1 society.

¶50

Written Statement of Defendant -1

¶51

In the written statement filed by the Defendant no. 1, it is pertinent to note that the same is filed by the Secretary and the following admissions are found :-

¶52

(a) The society admits availing the credited the facility to further lend the money to its members.

¶53

(b) It admits having creating charge over the receivables.

¶54

(c) It admits having paid certain EMIs. It could not pay regularly since the society was unable to recover the loans advanced to its members and thus, it failed

¶55

(d) This tribunal has no jurisdiction since the exorbitant interest is charged and the bank had capitalized the penal interest.

¶56

(e) It admits the signature found on the loan document but with a rider that the same were obtained without the knowledge.

¶57

(f) Applicant has not produced the statement of the accounts.

¶58

(g) It denies having executed the security interest on the receivables

¶59

(h) It also denies having executed balance confirmation and AODs.

¶60

(i) The statement of accounts produced by the Bank are also denied, however, admitting the availing of the loans to the tune of Rs. 2004,93,53,684.16 (including the claims of the Applicants).

¶61

(j) It pleads that the society has a good record for prompt repayment.

¶62

¶63

The D2 has not filed the written statement though one counsel had undertaken to file the Vakalathnama. The opportunity to file the WS is closed on 15.11.2022 after the matter is transferred to this Tribunal consequent to the notification of the DFS dated 04.10.2022.

¶64

The other defendants except D9 have not filed their written statements and the opportunity is closed.

¶65

Written Statement of D9:

¶66

The D9 City Union Bank had filed its WS. In the WS it is submitted that the D1 society had also borrowed certain sums and this defendant had filed OA 94/2022 before DRT – 1, Chennai (Now transferred to DRT – II, Chennai bearing TA 261/2022). The D9 further submits that it filed the above claim based on the documents describedat part no. 5 of the WS. It alleges that D1 had miserably filed and neglected in making repayment of the loans and the police compliant is lodged alleging fraud. It also pleads that the D9 had pari passu charge on the securities. The prayer is to note the pari passu charge.

¶67

The Case of D6:

¶68

The D6 Repco Bank which had not filed the WS in time which opportunity is forfeited on 15.11.2022 had filed one petition to accept the WS only on 05.01.2023 the IA is not numbered however, the WS filed shows that this bank had also accorded various credit facilities and the dues payable by the D1 & D2 is Rs.60,38,17,139 to D9. It is also submitted that this defendant is only a formal party having pari passu charge over the schedule properties mentioned in the OA. Thus the IA filed for accepting the WS is unnumbered which Dy.No. 7/2023 stands allowed and the gist of the WS of D6 is already stated.

¶69

Subsequent Developments:

¶70

It is to be noted this applicant bank had sanctioned OTS to settle the dues at Rs.70 crores vide its letter dated 24.03.2025. It is alleged in the memo of the applicant dated 13.10.2025 (filed on 13.11.2025) that the

¶71

¶72

terms of OTS were not followed by D1 and it failed in its performance of the OTS conditions. Accordingly, the applicant bank had withdrawn and cancelled the OTS which is also communicated to the D1. The cancellation letter is dated 06.10.2025.

¶73

However, the applicant bank had also filed IA 155/2025 seeking attachment before judgment of the properties mentioned in the IA in which six properties are cited without showing the corresponding ownership or occupation by the D1 society. After hearing the Ld. Counsel on either side, this Tribunal is also disposes this IA with direction to D1 not to alienate the properties till proper recoveries are made – since the entire claim is admitted by D1 in their WS which is noted above. The applicant mayfile proper applications for attachment before the Recovery officer by producing relevant documents. Suffice to say that this IA stands disposed of with a direction to the D1 company not to alienate any of its immovable properties standing in the name of D1 Company.

¶74

The D1 had also filed IA 169/2025 with a prayer to receive the counter proof affidavit by condoning the delay of 15 days in filing the same. The same stands allowed and the CPA will be read in disposal of the case. There are no documents to be marked. Thus IA 169/2025 stands allowed.

¶75

The IA filed in IA 170/2025 by the D9 seeking condoning the delay in filing the CPA also stands allowed and the CPA filed will be read in evidence.

¶76

IA 171/2025 filed by the D9 to produce additional documents stands dismissed, after having noted that the D9 has already filed one OA and further no relief having been claimed by the applicant bank against D9 City Union Bank.

¶77

Evidence on record:

¶78

The applicant has examined the same witness twice as AW-1 which is adduced evidence on behalf of applicant no. 1 and 2. In the evidence this witness had relied on documents at exhibit A1 to A 151.

¶79

There is the no evidence of the D6.

¶80

¶81

On behalf of D1the counter proof affidavit is filedby one D. Veeramani who is the secretary of the defendant. The same will be discussed while answering the points for determination.

¶82

Points for determination:

¶83

In the context of above pleadings and evidence on record and after hearing the Ld. Counsel the only point that arises for determination in this OA proceedings is as under:

¶84

a. Whether the applicant is entitled for recovery certificate against defendant no. 1 if so, what order?

¶85

Answer for the point for Determination:

¶86

The Ld. Counsel for the applicant Shri. Grish, submits that applicant is entitled for recovery certificate in view of the clear admissions found in the WS of D1. On the otherhand the Ld. Counsel for the D1 submits that the admissions are not clear and further the claim is barred under limitation. He submits that the OA may be dismissed.

¶87

The contentions of the other contesting defendants are that the D6 Repco Bank also claims some amounts to the tune of Rs.60 crores for which they have not filed any suit or applications as submitted by the Ld. Counsel Shri. N. Saravanan, Adv.

¶88

The claim of D9 is pending adjudication in TA 261/2022 before the Ld. DRT – II, Chennai as submitted by the Ld. Counsel for D9 Ms. Varsha Jain.

¶89

The only contention of the 1^st defendant in their CPA is that the bank had not given due credits to the payments and that the documents executed by the D1were signed in blank. It is also contended that the D1 society had not executed the acknowledgement of debts. This witness further deposed that due to VRS opted by its members, the repayment of loans granted to its members by this society had affected the recovery and consequently the failure in discharging the debt of the applicant.

¶90

All these contentions deposed through its CPA does not call for any indulgence or appreciation for the following reasons.

¶91

¶92

a. The aspect of the limitation urged in the evidence of one Veeramani of the D1 society goes in to the oblivion in view of the same society having approached the applicant bank which had accorded the OTS vide its letter dated 24.03.2025 for a sum of Rs. 70 crores. Further, after considering the documentary evidence at exhibit A 23 letter of continuity dated 29.06.2013 and exhibit A - 47 dated 31.03.2016 and exhibit A – 78 dated 09.10.2018 consisting of and exhibit A -96 dated 17.10.2019, fresh DPN at exhibit A -97, letter of undertaking and promise at exhibit A – 98, DPN for the term loan – III and other documents at exhibit A – 94 to A – 106, the contention of the D1 company that the debt is barred by limitation cannot be accepted. It is more so in the context of the D1 Company having approached the bank for OTS which failed. The Ld. Counsel for the D1 does not dispute the OTS offer and its failure.

¶93

b. The contention of the deponent on behalf of D1 that the officials of the society have signed the blank papers cannot be accepted since the high officials who are the employees of BSNL who are the members and elected to the society of such employees are all educated and this defense is taken only to circumvent the situation. Therefore, this contention cannot be accepted.

¶94

c. The other contention is that the statement of accounts does not show the proper remittances made by the D1 company also falls to the ground since the D1 has not produced the remittance slips / Challans and had not even given the dates of such payments and the amounts. Therefore, this contention cannot be accepted.

¶95

This Tribunal has gone through the documentary evidence of the statement of accounts pertaining to term loans – I to VI produced at exhibits A – 111 to A – 116 and the certificate issued under Section 2(A) of Bankers book of evidence Act at Exhibit A – 117.

¶96

The statement of accounts produced at exhibit A -111 to A -116 is not disputed by the D1.

¶97

There is no recovery sought against the other defendants except D1.

¶98

¶99

After careful perusal of the documentary evidence and after considering the admissions found in the WS coupled with the subsequent developments noted above, the contention of the applicant bank that they are entitled of the recovery above sum as prayed for in the OA against D1 cannot be rejected. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the OA succeeds against D1. It is also made clear that the applicants have no securities except the books of accounts and receivables of D1 company as mentioned int eh OA. Consequently the following:

¶100

ORDER

¶101

The OA filed by the applicant bank is allowed. The D1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.158,16,07,949.98p to the applicants bank along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing i.e., 18.12.2020 till realization along with the costs.

¶102

It is also made clear that while enforcing the recovery by way of sale of any of immovable assets of the D1, the pari passu charge of the other defendant bank / lenders be also taken care and the proceeds be shared accordingly by the banks.

¶103

An injunction against D1 restraining it from alienating any of its immovable assets lies till the recovery of the above sums.

¶104

Any sums paid during the pendency of this OA be properly given deductions in the recovery.

¶105

Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly only against D1.

¶106

A copy of this order be communicated to all the parties concerned as per Rules.

¶107

Sd/- (A.S.JAYACHANDRA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, CHENNAI

¶108

(Dictated to Steno who typed in the system, corrected, signed and pronounced in open court on this 13^th Day of November, 2025)

¶109

¶110

List Of Exhibits

¶111

S.No	Particulars	Exhibit
	Letter of Authorization in favour of the signatory to the1^st applicant	A1
06.02.2013	BoardResolutionof 1^st defendantfor Term Loan I	A2
	General Term Loan – I Agreement	A3
	Term loan – I Agreement (Hypothecation of movables)	A4
	Hypothecation (Book Debts) Agreement – Term Loan I	A5
09.02.2013	Agreement of rate of interest (For Base Rate) – Term loan I	A6
	LetterofcontinuityAd–09– Term Loan I	A7
	DPN for Term Loan – I	A8
	Undertaking letter for disclosure to CIBIL – Term Loan – I	A9
11.02.2013	ScrutinyReportfor vetting ofdocuments	A10
25.02.2013	1^st defendantletterto1^st applicant bank	A11
26.02.2013	1^stdefendant letter to 1^stapplicant bank w.r. to submittingNOCfromotherbanks	A12
01.03.2013	1^stdefendant letter to 1^stapplicant bank for disbursement of sanction loan	A13
01.03.2013	1^st defendantletterto1^st applicant bank	A14
28.06.2013	Sanction letter for Term Loan II	A15
28.06.20113	BoardResolutionof 1^st defendantfor Term Loan II	A16
28.06.2013	1^stdefendant letter to 1^stapplicant Bank wrt submitting NOC from the other banks	A17
28.06.2013	1^stdefendant letter to 1^stapplicant bank agreeing to terms ofsanction letter	A18
	General Term Loan – II Agreement	A19
	Term Loan – II Agreement (Hypothecation of movables)	A20
29.06.2013	Hypothecation (Book Debts) Agreement – Term loan II	A21
	Agreement on rate of interest (For Base Rate) Term loan II	A22
	DPN for Term Loan II	A23
	LetterofcontinuityAD -09– Term Loan II	A24
	Undertaking letter for disclosure to CIBIL – Term Loan II	A25
05.07.2013	1^stDefendantletterto1^st applicant bank	A26
06.07.2013	Scrutiny of Documents byAdvocate	A27
18.03.2014	Sanction of Term Loan III	A28
20.03.2014	Boardresolutionof 1^stDefendantfor Term Loan III	A29
20.03.2014	1^stDefendant letter to 1^stapplicant bank wrt submitting NOC from other Banks	A30
	General Term loan - III Agreement	A31

¶112

¶113

	Term Loan – III Agreement (Hypothecation of Movables)	A32
22.03.2014	Hypothecation (Book Debts) Agreement – Term Loan III	A33
	Agreement on rate of interest (For Base Rate) – Term Loan III	A34
	DPN for Term Loan III	A35
	Undertaking letter for disclosure to CIBIL – Term Loan III	A36
22.03.2014	Debit Balance Confirmation and Acknowledgement	A37
24.03.2014	Scrutiny of Documents byAdvocate	A38
	Board Resolution of 1^stDefendant for Term Loan IV	A39
	General Term Loan – IV Agreement	A40
29.06.2015	Term Loan – IV Agreement (Hypothecation of Movables)	A41
	Hypothecation (Book Debts) Agreement – Term Loan IV	A42
	Agreement on rate of interest (For Base of Rate) – IV Term Loan	A43
	DPN for Term Loan IV	A44
	Undertaking letter of disclosure to CIBIL – Term Loan IV	A45
29.06.2015	1^stDefendantletterto1^st applicant bank	A46
	DebitBalance confirmationand acknowledgement	A47
30.06.2015	Scrutiny of Documents byAdvocate	A48
30.09.2016	Central Bank of India – Letter ceding pari passu charge	A49
04.10.2016	Inter office letter of 1^stapplicant bank recommendation letter	A50
04.01.2017	1^stapplicant bank letter to central bank of India ceding ofparipassu charge	A51
04.01.2017	Inter office letter of 1^stapplicant bank recommendation letter	A52
06.04.2017	1^stapplicant bank letter of ceding pari passu charge to banks	A53
15.06.2017	Inter office letter of 1^stapplicant bank recommendation letter	A54
30.06.2017	Inter office letter of 1^stapplicant bank issued by Chief Manager, OverseasBranch	A55
30.06.2017	Interofficeletterof 1^st applicant bank	A56
30.06.2017	Sanction letter for Term loan V	A57
	BoardResolutionof 1^st defendantfor Term Loan V	A58
	General Term Loan - V Agreement	A59
	Term Loan – V Agreement (Hypothecation of movables)	A60
30.06.2017	Hypothecation (Book Debts) Agreement - Term Loan V	A61

¶114

¶115

	Letterofconfirmationof MCLR Loans	A62
	Agreement on rate of interest (For MCLR Loans) – Term Loan V	A63
	Letterofconsent of 1^st defendant stamped	A64
	DPN for Term loan V	A65
	Undertaking letter for disclosure to CIBIL – Term Loan V	A66
30.06.2017	1^stDefendant letter to 1^stapplicant bank wrt submitting NOCfromotherbanks	A67
30.06.2017	1^stDefendant letter to 1^stapplicant bank undertaking for creating escrowaccount	A68
30.06.2017	1^stdefendant letter to 1^stapplicant bank for transferofsums toDSRAa/Counsel	A69
30.06.2017	1^stdefendant letter to 1^stapplicant bank for disbursement of loan	A70
01.07.2017	Letter of 1^stapplicant bank ceding paripassu charge to banks	A71
10.07.2017	Scrutiny ofdocuments byAdvocate	A72
07.09.2018	BoardResolutionof 1^st defendant	A73
07.09.2018	Letter of 1^stdefendant to chief GM of Telecom, TN Circle	A74
09.10.2018	Debit balance confirmation and acknowledgement formterm loansI - VI	A75
09.10.2018	Sanction letter for Term Loan VI	A76
10.10.2018	BoardResolutionof 1^st defendantforterm Loan VI	A77
	General Term Loan–VI Agreement	A78
	Term Loan – VI Agreement (Hypothecation of Movables)	A79
	Hypothecation (Book Debts) Agreement – Term Loan VI	A80
	Agreement on rate of interest (For MCLR Loans) – Term Loan VI	A81
	DPN for Term Loan VI	A82
	Letterofcontinuityfor DPN Term Loan VI	A83
	Letter of undertaking not to alienate hypothecated goods	A84
	Undertaking letter for disclosure to CIBIL – Term Loan VI	A85
	Letterof Lien(Deposits)	A86
10.10.2018	1^stdefendant letter to 1^stapplicant bank undertaking	A87
11.10.2018	Scrutiny ofdocuments byAdvocate	A88
12.10.2018	Letter of 1^stapplicant bank to chief GM of Telecom TNCircle	A89
15.10.2018	1^stDefendant letter to 1^stapplicant wrt remittance to escrowa/Counsel	A90

¶116

¶117

16.10.2018	Letter of 2^nddefendant to 1^stapplicant bank	A91
22.10.2018	Legal AuditReport byAdvocate	A92
26.06.2019	1^stapplicant letter to account officer, HCM payroll TN Telecomcircle	A93
17.10.2019	Letter of undertaking / fresh promise in cases of time barred debts– Term Loan I	A94
17.10.2019	Fresh DPN(MCLR Linked)Term Loan I	A95
17.10.2019	Letter of undertaking / fresh promise in cases of time barred debts– Term Loan II	A96
17.10.2019	Fresh DPN(MCLR Linked)Term Loan II	A97
17.10.2019	Letter of undertaking / fresh promise in cases of time barred debts– Term Loan III	A98
17.10.2019	Fresh DPN(MCLR Linked)Term Loan III	A99
17.10.2019	Letter of undertaking / fresh promise in cases of time barred debts– Term Loan IV	A100
17.10.2019	Fresh DPN(MCLR Linked)Term Loan IV	A101
	Letterofcontinuity	A102
17.10.2019	Letter of confirmation (For MCLR Loans) – Term Loan I&II	A103
17.10.2019	Interest Agreement (For MCLR Loans) Term loan I & II	A104
17.10.2019	Interest Agreement (For MCLR Loans) Term loan III&IV	A105
17.10.2019	Letter of confirmation (For MCLR Loans) – Term Loan III&IV	A 106
18.10.2019	BoardResolutionof 1^st defendant	A107
13.11.2019	Scrutiny ofdocuments byAdvocate	A108
02.12.2019	Recall letterto1^st defendant	A109
18.12.2019	Demand notice of 1^stapplicant bank issued under S.13(2) to1^st defendant	A110
	Statement ofaccounts– TL-I	A111
	Statement ofaccounts– TL-II	A112
	Statement of accounts–TL-III	A113
	Statement ofaccounts– TL-IV	A 114
	Statement ofaccounts– TL-V	A115
	Statement ofaccounts– TL- VI	A116
	Certificate issued u/s 2A of the Bankers Book of EvidenceAct	A117

¶118

Sd/- (A.S.JAYACHANDRA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, CHENNAI

¶119

¶120

SCHEDULE – A

¶121

(Book Debts and receivables)

¶122

As per receivables statement dt 11.03.2020 submitted as of December 2019, the Receivable / advances is Rs. 534.75 Crore under paripassu charge with member banks under multiple banking arrangement.

¶123

SCHEDULE – B

¶124

All the current assets of the 1^st Defendant.

¶125

Sd/- (A.S.JAYACHANDRA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, CHENNAI

¶126

Union Bank of India v. Government Tele Communication Employees Co. Operative Society Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Government Tele Communication Employees Co. Operative Society Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Naseer Ahmed versus Canara Bank

Lily Realty Pvt. Ltd. versus J.C. Flowers Asset Reconstruction Private Limited

Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited versus M/S Easun Products of India Private Limited

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Essel Walajahpent Poonamallee Toll Roads Pvt. Ltd.

Canara Bank versus M/S Rajesh Exports Ltd.

Propcare Developers Pvt. Ltd. versus Indian Bank