Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S. D. Gupta and Company

DRT27 Feb 2025TA/909/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application for recovery of dues. The Tribunal fixed interest at 12% per annum and directed the defendants to pay the principal and interest or face recovery from mortgaged and hypothecated properties.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.95,81,219.40 with pendentlite and future interest at 12% per annum with monthly rest from 01.12.2020; issuance of recovery certificate.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. D. Gupta and Company — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No.909 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. 909 of 2022

¶5

nion Bank of India

¶6

4-A, Kamla Nagar, Subzi Mandi

elhi-110007

Applicant

ersus

M/s. D. Gupta & Company

¶11

hrough its proprietor

¶12

hri Deepak Gupta

¶13

-08-1108, 11th Floor

¶14

DITL Tower, Netaji Subhash Place, itampura, Delhi-110034

¶15

Sh. Deepak Gupta s/o Sh. Om Prakash Gupta roprietor of M/s. D. Gupta & Company

¶16

/o E-4/11, First Floor

¶17

odel Town, Delhi-110009 Defendants

¶18

resent: Sh.Anil Kumar Singh, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶19

Date of Institution: 24.02.2021

¶20

Date of Pronouncement: 27.02.2025

¶21

FINAL ORDER

¶22

This original application has been filed by the applicant ank on 24.02.2021 through Shri Manoj Kumar, authorized epresentative of the applicant bank under Section 19(7) of ecovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of s.95,81,219.40 (Rupees Ninety Five Lacs Eighty One housand Two Hundred Nineteen and paisa Forty only) as on

¶23

¶24

T.A. No.909 of 2022

¶25

0.11.2020 along with pendentelite and future interest @15% er annum from 01.12.2020 till the date of realization and osts.

¶26

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of efendants, the applicant bank sanctioned Cash Credit Hypothecation) facility of Rs.40.00 lacs (Rupees Forty Lacs nly) @12.50% rate of interest per annum against ypothecation of stock of gold / silver jewellery and mortgage f property owned by defendant no.2 on 02.12.2009, disbursed n 03.12.2009. The loan facility was further renewed on 2.12.2011 by the applicant bank.

¶27

That in order to avail the loan facility, the defendant no.2 n behalf of defendant no.1 executed D.P Note, Letter of ndertaking, Letter of Continuity, Hypothecation Agreement of oods and Debts, Letter of Guarantee, Composite ypothecation on 02.12.2009 and 28.02.2012 in favour of the pplicant bank.

¶28

That in order to secure the loan facility, the defendant o.2 created equitable mortgage of property bearing Number -4/111^{First Floor, Model Town, Delhi-110009 area measuring} 72.1 sq. yds. by depositing the original title deeds of the roperty with the applicant bank on 02.12.2009.

¶29

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after vailing the aforesaid loan facility, the defendants failed to aintain financial discipline and neglected to pay the interest per terms of sanction despite repeated requests and eminders. The applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 0.09.2012 due to non-adherence to financial discipline by the

¶30

sc/-

¶31

T.A. No.909 of 2022

¶32

ctl^{efendants and now approached this Tribunal for recovery of} eir dues.

¶33

Notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and econstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security nterest Act 2002 dated 21.11.2012 was issued by the applicant ank and further issued notice under Section 13(4) dated 2.02.2013 for taking physical possession on 18.02.2013 but 0 ossession could not be taken.

¶34

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and 0 espite of proper service the defendants have chosen to absent rom the proceedings. As per order dated 29.08.2024, the •^{efendants have been proceeded ex-parte as they have not} ppeared before the Tribunal nor written statement, evidence nd affidavit of assets have been filed.

¶35

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its vidence by way of affidavit of Shri Manoj Kumar, authorized epresentative of the applicant bank who has filed its evidence •^{y filing the original documents such as Power of Attorney of} uthorized representative, D.P. Notes, Letters of Undertaking of to alienate the hypothecated goods, Letters of Continuity, ypothecation Agreements of Goods and Debts, Composite ypothecation, Copy of Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed AD-13), Statement of Account, Notices under Section 13(2) nd 13(4) of SARFAESI Act with postal receipts, N.P.A ertificate, Certificate under Banker's Books Evidence Act 1881 arked as Page No.1 to 118.

¶36

The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments made in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the sd

¶37

T.A. No.909 of 2022

¶38

pplicant bank is based on the documents and the same have een duly proved.

¶39

The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and t ere is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant I ank and the applicant bank has proved its case beyond asonable doubts.

¶40

As per the provision of Section 19(20) of the Recovery of ebts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 which i. analogous to Section 34 of CPC, on filing of the suit/claim, •he contract between the parties comes to an end and the 4 ourt/Tribunal has a discretion to award the same depending pon the circumstances of each case. Same principle I^{-bas been} I id down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bank

¶41

f India Vs. Ravindra & Others. Taking stock of all the circumstances and keeping in view that there is a drastic fall in ates of interest globally and domestically, I am of the opinion •^{hat interest of justice will be served if the interest at the rate} f 12% p.a. is awarded.

¶42

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

¶43

ORDER

¶44

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pa‘f to the pplicant bank, jointly and severally, within a period of 30 days, sum of Rs.95,81,219.40 (Rupees Ninety Five Lacs Eighty One housand Two Hundred Nineteen and paisa Forty only) ogether with pendentelite and future interest @12.00% per 5d -

¶45

T.A. No.909 of 2022

¶46

nnum with monthly rest from the 01.12.2020 till the date of -alization with costs, failing which the aforesaid amount shall e recovered from the sale of the hypothecated stock, book I ebts and mortgaged property bearing No. E-4/11, First Floor, odel Town, Delhi-110009, area measuring 272.1 sq. yds. wned by the defendant no.1. In case of shortfall, the same hall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable 0 roperties of the defendants.

¶47

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

¶48

III)^{Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer,} RT I, Delhi on 28.04.2025.

¶49

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

¶50

L---

¶51

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

¶52

Dictated and pronounced in open court) • ated: 27.02.2025

Union Bank of India v. M/S. D. Gupta and Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S. D. Gupta and Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ziaul Hoeue versus Bangiya Gramin Vikas Bank

Icici Bank versus Uma Shankar Mandal and Anr.

Liladhar S/O Shrawanji Dhakate versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus Parvathamma

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus B Manjanna

Idfc First Bank Ltd. versus Bhoruka Classic Finance Pvt. Ltd.