Allowed

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) v. Shri Ajay Tarika

DRT29 Jun 2026TA/216/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this money-bail application, the applicant bank sought recovery of outstanding dues from the respondent under Section 19 of the RDB Act. The respondent failed to appear or file a written statement, proceeds ex parte. The Tribunal allowed the application, directing the respondent to pay the principal amount, interest, and costs.

What did the court decide?

Allowed; Respondent directed to pay Rs. 12,80,740.77 plus cost, expenses and interest @11.25% from the date of filing of the application till realization within 30 days. Recovery certificate issued for execution against assets on failure to deposit.

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) versus Shri Ajay Tarika — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

Before SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI, Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi

¶2

TA No.216 OF 2023

¶3

uNroN BANK OF rNDIA (CORPORATTON BANK) VS SH. A'AY TARIKA

¶4

Reserved on =^22.05.2026

¶5

Pronounced on : 29.06.2026

¶6

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) Vs.

¶7

Shri. Ajay Tarika

¶8

-Applicant bank

¶9

Sole defendant

¶10

Present Ms. Sunita Sharma along with Ms. Radha Singh Dhauni, Counsel appears for applicant bank. Sole defendant is exparte, since, 08.01.2019.

¶11

FINAL ORDER

¶12

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 31 .0L.20L7 through Ms. Meenakshi, Branch Manager and Principal Officer of the applicant bank, under Section 19 of the RDB Act,¹⁹⁹³ against the sole defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.12,80,740.77 together with interest @10.90olo^p.a. in respect of cash credit account and interest @13.00 p.a. in respect of term Ioan a/c compounded monthly from date of filing of this O.A. till the realization^{in ful!.}

¶13

The brief facts of the case are that at the^request of sole defendant, the applicant bank^sanctioneda Cash Credit Limit Facitity of Rs.10.00^Lacs,vide sanction letter dated 27.08.20L2.^{The sole defendant} executed all necessary loaning^{documents on} 28.08.2012. In order to secure the amount^{due from}

€\

TA NO. 216 of 2023

defendant in abovesaid cash credit account, he hypothecated stock, book debts and entire current assets of the said proprietorship from in favour of the applicant bank. No other security was obtained as the credit facility was granted under CGTMSE Scheme. Again, at the request of sole defendant, the applicant bank sanction a Term Loan Facility of Rs.3.00 Lacs for purchase of Roll to Roll four colour printing machine. The sole defendant executed all necessary loaning documents on 16.02.2015. The defendant gave his personal guarantee.

¶18

It is further submitted that the sole defendant enjoyed and utilized the Loan facilities, but failed to maintain the financial discipline and failed to repay the due amounts. The applicant bank requested the sole defendant to regularize the loan account by visits and letters, but there was no response from the sole defendant, hence the account was classified as NPA on 30.06.2016. The^present O.A.ff.A. is^preferred by the applicant bank to recover its dues.

¶19

On notlce by this Tribunal, sole defendant^put appearance through counsel but failed to file written statement. Thereafter, the sole defendant failed to^put appearance in the matter. Accordingly, the^sole defendant was^proceeded against expafte^on 08.01.2019.

¶20

The applicant bank has filed evidence^{by way of} affidavit of Ms. Ragini Gautam, Branch^Manager of^the applicant bank as Paper No. 1 to^{Paper No. 195, which} have gone unchallenged and u1-rebutted.^{Hence, the} g"\

¶21

TA NO. 216 of 2023

¶22

¶23

case of the applicant stands fully established against the sole defendant with respect to nonpayment of outstanding amount.

¶24

After perusing the records, this Tribunal is of the vlew that the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. The evidence and documents filed by the applicant bank not rebutted by the sole defendant 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.

¶25

In the light of the above discussions, the present T.A. deserues to be allowed.

¶26

ORDER

¶27

I hereby allow this T.A. of the applicant bank and direct the sole defendant to^pay to the applicant bank within 30 days from today, a sum of Rs.L2,80,740.77 along with cost, expenses and interest @11.25o/o from the date of filing of this O.A. which has become T.A till the date of realization.

¶28

In case of failure to deposit the above amount within the stipulated period, the same shall be recovered from the sale of personal movable and immovable assets of the sole defendant.

¶29

Recovery Certificate be issued forthwlth and be sent to Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi. -r\

-r\

TA NO. 216 of 2023

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

¶34

Parties are directed to appear^{before the Ld.} Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi on^{28.08 .2026- Pending} IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

¶35

File be consigned to records.

¶36

s).

¶37

Date :29.06.2026

¶38

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

¶39

This^judgement has been^{signed, datedand} pronounced in open court.

¶40

e).

¶41

Date :29.06.2026

¶42

(susHrL KUMAR RAStroG[) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) v. Shri Ajay Tarika

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) v. Shri Ajay Tarika

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