Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Anushka Jain Proprietor Ms Ur Choice

DRT27 Apr 2026TA/5/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by Bank of Baroda for recovery of dues against Mrs. Anushka Jain. The bank proved its case through documents while the defendant remained absent. The defendant was directed to pay the principal amount with interest and penal charges within 30 days or face attachment of assets.

What did the court decide?

Defendant directed to pay Rs.48,90,235.61 with interest within 30 days; Recovery Certificate to be issued for enforcement; Shortfall to be recovered from assets.

Bank of Baroda versus Anushka Jain Proprietor Ms Ur Choice — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

T.A. No. 5 of 2024

¶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.5 of 2024

¶5

Bank of Baroda

¶6

ROSARB, East Delhi, 8718, First Floor, Desh Bandhu Gupta Marg Ram Nagar, Paharganj New Delhi-110055

¶7

Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Mrs. Anushka Jain w/o Sh.Vipin Jain Proprietor of M/s UR Choice X/7511, Gali No.4, Amar Mohalla Raghubarpura 2, Gandhi Nagar Delhi-110031

¶10

Also at:

¶11

Mrs. Anushka Jain w/o Sh.Vipin Jain C-267, Gali No.11 New Usmanpur, Delhi-110053

¶12

Defendant

¶13

Present: Shri Umesh Joshi, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶14

Date of Reserve: 21.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 27.04.2026

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank before DRT-II, Delhi & then transferred to DRT-I Delhi on 09.05.2022 under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.48,90,235.61 (Rupees Forty Eight Lacs Ninety Thousand Two Hundred Thirty Five &

¶17

SS-

¶18

T.A. No. 5 of 2024

¶19

paisa Sixty One only) as on 19.04.2022; out of which Rs.47,88,647.17 in Cash Credit account along with interest @11.55% per annum with quarterly rests and Rs.1,01,588.44 in FITL loan account along with interest @12.40% interest per annum and penal interest @2% per annum from the date of filing of this application till the date of realization with costs.

¶20

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of defendant as proprietor of M/s UR Choice in the business of manufacturing and trading of garments under MSME category vide their loan application dated 15.05.2019, the applicant bank sanctioned Cash Credit facility for a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lacs only) @10.90% interest per annum on 15.06.2019 against hypothecation of stocks covered under CGTMSE scheme. The applicant bank sanctioned FITL facility of Rs.2,73,725/- on 09.09.2020 by converting accumulated interest amount in cash credit account for the moratorium period upto 31.08.2020.

¶21

That in order to avail the credit facilities, the defendant submitted loan application and executed Demand Promissory Note (LDOC-3b), Letter of Continuing Security (LDOC-7), Letter of Sole Proprietorship (LDOC-38), Composite Hypothecation Agreement (LDOC-17B), Letter of Undertaking — Book Debt (LDOC 51), Undertaking(LDOC-64), Undertaking (Annexure-I), Declaration cum Undertaking cum Authority, Power of Attorney etc. with applicant bank on 18.06.2019.

¶22

That in order to secure the credit facilities, the defendant hypothecated the stock of raw materials, stock in process, finished goods and all book debts, movable plant & machinery

¶23

so/-

¶24

T.A. No. 5 of 2024

¶25

and consumable stores and spares etc. towards the applicant bank.

¶26

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the credit facilities, the defendant failed to comply with the terms and conditions of sanction and failed to route their transactions through the account and submit regular stocks statements or financial statements and also failed to regularize the account despite repeated follow up. The applicant bank offered for One Time Restructuring but declined by the defendant vide letter dated 08.02.2021. during inspection at the premises of defendant, it was found that another firm in the name of M/s Aarav Collection qwas running owned by mother in law of defendant and availed loan facility from Shandara Branch against same stocks and machineries of defendant.

¶27

Ultimately, the applicant bank issued recall notice on 24.03.2021 and both the accounts were classified as NPA as per RBI guidelines on 31.03.2021 and issued legal notice dated 09.06.2021 but defendant neglected and did not clear the bank's dues, hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues. The account of defendant was declared as Wilful Defaulter in terms of RBI guidelines.

¶28

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendant and despite of proper service, the defendant has chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 28.01.2026, the defendant has been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared before the Tribunal and even written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have not been filed by the defendant.

¶29

T.A. No. 5 of 2024

¶30

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Pawan Kumar Pandey, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents such as Power of Attorney, Loan Application Form, Form No.135, Stock & Asset Statement, Copy of Aadhar Card, Pan Card, Voter ID, Copy of Udhyog Aadhar Memorandum, Registration Certificate of Firm, Electricity Bill, Rent Deed, Affidavit, ITRs, GST Registration Certificate, PreSanction Inspection Report, Annexure D, Attestation Memo, Demand Promissory Note, Letter of Continuing Security, Letter of Sole proprietorship, Composite Hypothecation Agreement, Letter of Undertaking, Undertaking, Declaration cum Undertaking cum Authority, Power of Attorney, Post Inspection Report, Visit Report, Photograph of Applicant bank's Visit, Letter dated 08.02.2021, 09.02.2021, Email dated 15.02.2021, Letters dated 24.03.2021, Legal Notice, Show Cause Notice, Letter dated 19.04.2022 with Postal Receipts and Upgradation Information & Statement of Accounts marked as Exhibit AW1/31 to Exhibit AW-1/35.

¶31

The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments made in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the applicant bank is based on the documents and the same have been duly approved.

¶32

The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and there is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant bank and the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts.

¶33

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

¶34

T.A. No. 5 of 2024

¶35

ORDER

¶36

I, allow this OA and direct the defendant to pay to the applicant bank within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.48,90,235.61 (Rupees Forty Eight Lacs Ninety Thousand Two Hundred Thirty Five & paisa Sixty One only) as on 19.04.2022; out of which,

¶37

Rs.47,88,647.17 in Cash Credit account along with interest @11.55% per annum with quarterly rests; Rs.1,01,588.44 in FITL loan account along with interest @12.40% interest per annum and penal interest @2% per annum with quarterly rests

¶38

from the date of filing of this application till the date of realization and costs; failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stock, book debts and machineries etc. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendant.

¶39

(II) The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi.

¶40

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 29.06.2026.

¶41

(IV) Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be sent to all concerned free of cost.

¶42

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

¶43

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Date: 27.04.2026

Bank of Baroda v. Anushka Jain Proprietor Ms Ur Choice

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Anushka Jain Proprietor Ms Ur Choice

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 S S T Packaging Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Bank of India versus Ms Box Well Industries

Bank of Maharashtra versus Chandrashekhar Pundlik Jagtap

Canara Bank versus Mr R Markondaiah

State Bank of India versus Kavitha. N

Union Bank of India versus Rajendra Kumar