The Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application for recovery of dues against defaulting respondents involved in an e-payment contract. The court fixed interest at 14% p.a. and directed recovery from assets.
Directed defendants to pay Rs. 5,75,36,696/- with future interest @14% p.a. from 20.06.2020 plus costs within 30 days.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
T.A. No. 1361 of 2022
Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi 4 t" floor, Jeevan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi
Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sharma
T.A. No.1361 of 2022
Union Bank of India
(E-Corporation bank)
2223, Hardhiyan Singh Road
arol Bagh, New Delhi-110005
Applicant
Versus
Also at:
23, Masoodpur, Vasant Kunj New Delhi-110070
rgan of Govt. of NCT Delhi
runalaya Building-II
rol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 Defendants
P esent: Sh.Samarendra Kumar, Counsel for applicant bank
Date of Reserve: 09.12.2025
Date of Pronouncement: 30.01.2026
FINAL ORDER
This original application has been filed by the applicant b nk on 08.02.2021 before DRT-III, Delhi and then transferred t DRT-1 under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and B nkruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of
1
T.A. No. 1361 of 2022
Rs.5,75,36,696/- (Rupees Five Crores Seventy Five Lacs Thirty ix Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Six only) as on 19.06.2020 long with pendentelite and future interest @16.85% from 0.06.2020 till the date of realization along with costs.
tp execute the work of setting up automotive bill payment collection machines at different locations of Delhi Jal Board C_ffice for facilitating DJB consumers in bill payment through Cheque and Cash modes. The applicant bank in turn entered into a contract dated 11.07.2012 with defendant no.1 who is gistered as Other Service Provider (OSP) acting as 'Payment cilitator'. It was agreed that the Freshpay will make
arrangements to deposit the cash in the e-Corporation bank's account for any number of times in a day as per the exigencies at Kiosks without any charge.
2
T.A. No. 1361 of 2022
y the defendant and the applicant bank difference of s.14,41,92,105/- arrived as on 31.03.2020.
It has further been submitted that the applicant bank ade several attempts to persuade the defendant no.1 to ake good the difference who replied that an amount of s.5.69 Cr is pending by way of remuneration from defendant 0.2 and Rs.1.90 Cr is pending from defendant no.2 by way of muneration in respect of spot billing. The defendant no.1 bmitted payment schedule on 19.06.2020 promising to clear t e dues of Rs.6.88 crore in 5 months' time and applicant bank i formed defendant no.2 on 18.06.2020 but defendant no.1 f iled to adhere the payment schedule.
It has also been submitted that the applicant bank had c osed the FDR and credited the proceeds of Rs.88,41,407/- to c•Ilection account of defendant no.2. Hence, the total amount a•justed towards the collection difference is Rs.1,12,76,877/a•ainst the total of Rs.6,88,13,573/-. Further, the applicant nk issued legal demand notice dated 23.11.2020 but d fendants neglected to clear the dues and hence the applicant b. nk has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.
3
T.A. No. 1361 of 2022
The defendant no.2 filed IA No.1223/2024 for setting side ex-parte order dated 14.09.2022 which was dismissed ide order dated 09.07.2025 in view of the fact that defendant o.2 was served properly and were aware of the present roceedings and received certified copy of order dated 6.06.2023.
1 2. The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and t ere is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant ank and the applicant bank has proved its case beyond r asonable doubts.
4
T.A. No. 1361 of 2022
ORDER
l
5C/ (GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI
5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the original application for recovery of dues against the defendants deserves to be allowed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Central Bank India Vs. Ravindra & OthersReferred¶47
Central Bank India Vs. Ravindra & Others
Union Bank of India
M/s Freshpay IT Solutions P Ltd
The Authorized Officer, Delhi Jal Board
Govind Ballabh Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
