Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Jaks International

DRT27 Apr 2026TA/2038/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993, for recovery of outstanding dues. Being parties were absent, the bank's evidence stood unrebutted. The Tribunal directed payment of principal, interest, and costs, and directed issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

The application was allowed. Defendants directed to pay Rs. 1,15,80,754.22 with interest @10% and costs within 30 days. Recovery Certificate to be issued.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Jaks International — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

Before SUSHIL KUMAR^{RASTOGI, Presiding} Officer

¶2

Debts RecovelY Tribunal-Il,^Delhi

¶3

TA No.2038 OF 2022

¶4

UNION BANK^{OF rNDrA VS M/S JAKS} INTERNATIONAL^{& ORS}

¶5

Reserued on : 23.O3.2026

¶6

Pronounced on =^27.04'2026

Union Bank^of India

-Applicant bank

Vs.

M/s laks^{International}

¶11

Shri PradeeP^Kakkar

¶12

Sh. Arjun^Mehra

¶13

Sh. Arbab^{Sikanderlafri}

¶14

Sh. SarrjaY Kohli

¶15

Defendants

¶16

Present:^{Mr. Rajeev Sagar, Counselappears for} aPPlicant^bank. Defendants^{are exparte since 2l'tt'2025}

¶17

FINAL ORDER

¶18

This oliginal^{application has been filed by the} applicant^{bank, on OL.O7.}OZLthrough Shri Sanjay} Bhargava,BranchManageroftheapplicantbank' under Section^{t9 of the RDB Act, 1993 against the} defendants^{for recovery of a sum of Rs' L,L5,80,754'22} togetherwithcost,chargesandpendentelliteand future interest @L4o/ofrom^{date of filing of this O'A' till} the reallzation^{in full.}

¶19

2.The brief^{facts of the case are that the defendant} no.l is a^{partnershipfirm of defendant nos. 2 to 5, who} have been^{maintaining its cash credit limit with the} applicant^{bank since last 5 years, initially approached} the applicant^{bank, the said cash credit limit facility of} Rs.1,00,00,000/-^{was grantqtand renewedfrom time} d\

¶20

TA NO. 2038 of 2022

¶21

¶22

to time and it was renewed &^{sanctioned by the} applicant bank vide its^{sanction letter dated} 23.05.2020. The defendants^{have executedall} necessary toaning documents^{on 14.08.2020.The} defendant nos.^{2 to 5 stood as guarantor. Again, at the} request of defendants,^{the applicantbank sanctioneda} Term Loan Facility^{of Rs.19,85,000/-.The defendants} have executed all^{necessryloaning documents on} 27.08.2020. The^{defendantnos.2 to 5 stoodas} guarantor. The applicant^{bank has first charge over the} entire stock in^{trade, goods,debts receivable of the} defendants, as^{mentioned into the hypothecation} agreement dated^{14.08.2020in respect to cash credit} limit as well^{as hypothecation agreement 27.08.2020in} respect to term^{loan account.}

¶23

It is^{further submitted that the defendants} enjoyed and^{utilizedthe Loan facilities, but failed to} maintain^{the financial discipline and failed to repay the} due amounts.^{The applicantbank requested the} defendants^{to regularize the loan accountby visits and} letters, but^{there was no response from the} defendants.^{The applicant bank serued a demand} notice dated^{16.06.2021 to the defendants but failed to} recover the^{same. Thus, the present O'A'[I'A' is} preferred by the^{applicant bank to recover its dues.}

¶24

on notice^{by this Tribunal, defendantsfailed to} appearance^{at all, despite publication. Accordingly,the} defendants^were proceeded against^exPafteon 2L.tL.2025. E,\

¶25

TA NO. 2038 of 2022 3

¶26

The applicant bank has filed evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Sanjay Bhargava, Branch Manager of the applicant bank as Annexure A- 1 to Annexure A-38, which have gone unchallenged and un-rebutted. Hence, the case of the applicant stands fully established against the defendants with respect to nonpayment of outstanding amount.

¶27

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^rebuttedby 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/pri nted docu ments.

¶28

In the light of the above discussions,^{the presentT.A.} deserues to be allowed against defendants.

¶29

ORDER

¶30

I hereby allow this T.A. of^{the applicant bank and} direct the defendant nos.l to 5^{to pay jointlyand} severatly to the applicant bank^{within 30 days from} today, a sum of Rs.L,L5,80,754.22^{along with cost,} expenses and interest @10o/o^{from the date of filing of} this O.A. which has become^{T.A till the date of} realization.

¶31

In case of failure to^{depositthe above amount} within the stipulated^{period, the same shall be} recovered from the sale of^{hypothecatedassets. In case} of short fall, the same^{shall be recover from the sale of}

tI^r.

TANO.2038of 2022

personal movable and immovable assets of the

¶36

nos.l 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 directedto} issue free copy of the order and^{send the same to both} the^parties.

¶39

Parties are directed to appear^{before the Ld.} Remvery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi on^{29.06.2026.Pending} IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

¶40

Fib be consigned to records.

¶41

d..

¶42

Date : 27.04.2026^{(SUSHILKUIUAR-RASTOGI)}

¶43

PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

¶44

This^{judgement has} been signed,

¶45

pronounced in oPen court.

¶46

¶47

Date:27.04.2026

¶48

(susHrL KUMA(RASfOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Jaks International

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Jaks International

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