Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S Move and Talk

DRT19 Feb 2026TA/1079/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of dues. It directed the defendants to pay the outstanding principal, interest, and costs within 30 days or face recovery from mortgaged and personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs. 2,16,96,858.01 plus interest and costs within 30 days; Recovery Certificate to be issued; Recovery from mortgaged and personal assets if payment fails.

Union Bank of India versus M/S Move and Talk — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

Before SUSHIL KUIIIAR RASTOGI, Prcsiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi

¶2

TA No.1079 OF 2023

¶3

UNION BANK OF INDIA^{(E.CORPORATION} BANK) VS M/S HOVE AND TALK & ORS

¶4

Reserved on : 28.01.2O26

¶5

Pronounced on : 19.02.2026

¶6

Union Bank of India

¶7

(E-Corporation Bank)

¶8

-Applicant bank

¶9

Vs.

¶10

M/s Move and Talk

¶11

Shri Gurdeep Singh

¶12

Mr. Jaswinder Singh

¶13

Ms. Kamaljeet Kaur

¶14

Ms. Jasbir Kaur - Defendants

¶15

Present: Mr. Vishnu Jaysaval, Counsel appears for applicant bank. Defendant nos.l,2,4 and 5 are expafte, since, 19.12.2019. Defendant no.3 is exparte, since, 01.04.2025.

¶16

FINAT ORDER

¶17

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 15.06.2018 through Mr. Dwarika Prasad, Chief Manager of the applicant ban( under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,16,96,858.01 together with cost, charges and pendentellite and future interest @13.10olo from date of filing of this O.A. till the realization in full.

¶18

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of the defendant no.l along with defendant nos.2 to 5, the applicant bank sanctioned a Cash Credit Facility of Rs.200 lacs to meet the working capital requirement and Bank Guarantee Facility of Rs.100 lacs, vide sanction letter dated 14.12.2013.

¶19

g-t^'

¶20

TANO. 1079of2023 2

¶21

The defendants executed all necessary loaning documents on 19.12.2013. The aforesaid credit facilities were secured by mortgage of^propefties i.e., (i). House No. WZl33, built on Plot No.141, built on land measuring 161 Sq. Yds, situated in the area of Village- Chaukhandi, in the abadi of Mukherjee Par( lilak Nagar, New Delhi owned by defendant no.5 and (ii). Flat No.C-603, Sixth Floor, Meera Bai CGHS, Plot No.10, Sector-S, Dwarka, New Delhi owned by defendant no.2 and hypothecation of book debts and stocks.

¶22

It is further submitted that the defendants enjoyed and utilized the Loan facility, but failed to maintain the financial diripline and failed to repay the due amounts. The applicant bank requested the defendants to regularize the loan account by visits and letters, but there was no response from the defendants, hence the account was classified as NPA in 31.12.2017. Therefore, the applicant bank served a demand notice dated 30.01.2018 to the defendants but failed to recover the same. Thus, the present O.A.ff.A. is preferred by the applicant bank to recover its dues.

¶23

On notice by this Tribunal, defendant nos.3,4 & 5 put appearance through counsel but failed to file written statement. The defendant nos.1 & 2 failed to put appearance at all. Thereafter, defendant nos.3 to 5 failed to appear in the matter. Accordingly, the case was proceeded ex-parte against the defendant nos.L,Z,4 and 5 on 19.12.2019 and the case was proceeded ex-parte against lbe defendant no.3 on 0t.04.202s. Ea

TANO. 1079 of 2023

I i l 1 I I I I I

The applicant bank filed its evidence by way of the affidavit of Shri Dwarika Prasad, Chief Manager of the applicant bank as^page no.22 to^page no.708.

¶28

The documentary evidence filed by applicant bank has gone unchallenged and un-rebutted. Hence, the case of the applicant bank stands fully established against the defendants with respect to non^payment of EMI/ outstanding amount.

¶29

After^perusing the records, this Tribunal is of the view that the applicant bank has^proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. The evidence and documents filed by the applicant bank not rebutted by the defendants by not^placing any evidence and there is no question of disbelieving the evidence and documents filed by the applicant bank based upon the written/printed documents.

¶30

In the light of the above discussions, the^present T.A. deserves to be allowed against the defendant no.1 to 5.

¶31

ORDER

¶32

I hereby allow this T.A. of the Applicant Bank and direct the defendant nos. 1 to 5 to^{pay jointly} and severally to the applicant bank within 30 days from today, a sum of Rs.2,16,96,858.01 along with cost expenses and interest @ 11.10o/o from the date of filing of this O.A. which has become T.A till the date of realization.

¶33

In case of failure to deposit the above amount within the stipulated period, the same shall be recovered from the sale hypo-thecated assets and the 9

¶34

¶35

TANO. 1079 of 2023

¶36

sale of the mortgaged property i.e., (i). House No. WZl33, built on Plot No.141, built on land measuring 161 Sq. Yds, situated in the area of VillageChaukhandi, in the abadi of Mukherjee Park, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi and (ii). Flat No.C-603, Sixth Floor, Meera Bai CGHS, Plot No.10, Sector-S, Dwarka, New Delhi. In case of short fall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of personal movable and immovable assets of the defendant nos. I to 5.

¶37

Recovery Certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi.

¶38

The registry of this Tribunal is hereby directed to issue free copy of the order and send the same to both the^parties.

¶39

Parties are directed to appear before the Ld. Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi on 21.04.2026. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

¶40

File be consigned to records.

¶41

Date : 19.02.2026

¶42

sA (susHIL KUMAR RASTr.x,r] PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

¶43

This judgement has been signed, dated and pronounced in open coult.

¶44

1s1

¶45

Date : 19.02.2026

¶46

(SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

¶47

Union Bank of India v. M/S Move and Talk

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S Move and Talk

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