Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S Level One India Packaging

DRT11 Mar 2026OA/896/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application to recover ₹67,83,471.15 along with interest against the sole proprietor and his company. The court found evidence of the loan advanced and directed the issuance of a recovery certificate and appearance of parties before the Recovery Officer.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of ₹67,83,471.15 p with interest @12.05% per annum with monthly rests from 27.04.2023 until the date of payment.

Union Bank of India versus M/S Level One India… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 896/2023

¶4

Date of Institution: 27.04.2023 Date of Decision: 11.03.2026

¶5

Union Bank of India having its branches all over India and a branch at Model Town, Jalandhar, Punjab.

¶6

……..Applicant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

M/S Level One India Packaging, at D-173, Focal Point Extension, Jalandhar, Punjab, through its sole proprietor Sh. Abhinav Handa s/o Sh. Deepak Handa.

¶9

Sh. Abhinav Handa s/o Sh. Deepak Handa, sole proprietor, M/S Level One India Packaging, r/o H.No.3, U-Colony, New GTB Nagar, Jalandhar, Punjab.

¶10

……….Defendants

¶11

Advocates

¶12

Ms. Parmeet Kaur proxy counsel for Sh. I.S. Bhatia, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants - ex parte vide order dated 29.08.2025 .

¶13

OA for the Recovery of ₹67,83,471.15p with interest @12.05% per annum with monthly rests from 27.04.2023.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Union Bank of India has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of ₹67,83,471.15p with interest against M/S Level One India Packaging and others (defendants).

¶16

Bank’s case is that on 26.08.2021, it had granted Term Loan of ₹10.00Lacs and C.C Limit of ₹65.00Lacs under CGTMSE Scheme to defendant No.1 through its proprietor i.e. defendant No.2 for Business purpose. Both the loan facilities were chargeable at different rated of interest. On 31.03.2023, a sum of ₹67,83,471.15p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶17

¶18

On 02.06.2023, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 29.08.2025, they were proceeded ex parte .

¶19

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Sh. Vishal Sharma, Branch Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-24. 5. I have perused the evidence on the record. I am of the considered view that the Bank has proved its case that it had advanced the loan of ₹75.00 Lacs (Term Loan of ₹10.00Lacs and C.C Limit of ₹65.00Lacs) and on 31.03.2023, a sum of ₹67,83,471.15p was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of ₹67,83,471.15p (Rupees Sixty Seven Lacs Eighty Three Thousand Four Hundred Seventy One and Paise Fifteen Only) with interest @12.05% per annum with monthly rests from 27.04.2023, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of both the defendants would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants. 7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 18.04.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) of the Act . 10. A Copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to the Recovery Officer as well as the parties. Pronounced in the open Court. (A S Narang) Dated: 11.03.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

Union Bank of India v. M/S Level One India Packaging

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S Level One India Packaging

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

Union Bank of India versus Berar Trading Co.

Canara Bank versus Smt.Rohini. S. Kunder

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Marina Janet Gonsalves

Punjab National Bank versus Parminder Pal Singh

Ms Modern Foods and others versus State Bank of India

Govind Ram Sharma versus Uco Bank