Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S v Logistics and Anr.

DRT24 Aug 2026TA/3332/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi allowed the bank's original application for recovery of dues of approx Rs. 78.59 lacs. The tribunal proceeded ex-parte against absent defendants and directed payment of principal, interest, and costs within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents to pay Rs. 78,59,463.15 plus interest and costs within 30 days; direction to sue on security and sale of properties in case of shortfall; issuance of recovery certificate.

Union Bank of India versus M/S v Logistics and Anr. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

T.A. No.3332 of 2022

¶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. 3332 of 2022

¶5

Union Bank of India 26/28, DDA Market, BQ Block Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi-110088

¶6

Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s V.Logistics

¶9

Through its proprietor

¶10

Sh.Gaurav Bareja s/o Tilak Raj Bareja R/o BM-80, West Shalimar Bagh

¶11

Delhi-110088

¶12

Also at:

¶13

104, DSIIDC Scheme-I, Phase II Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi-110020

¶14

Also at:

¶15

Flat No.BH-22, Poorvi Shalimar Bagh Delhi-110088

¶16

Smt.Priti Bareja w/o Sh.Gaurav Bareja R/o BM-80, West Shalimar Bagh Delhi-110088 Defendants

¶17

Present: Shri Pankaj Singh, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶18

Date of Reserve: 12.08.2026

¶19

Date of Pronouncement: 24.08.2026

¶20

FINAL ORDER

¶21

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 09.07.2020 before DRT-III, Delhi & then transferred to DRT-I, Delhi under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to

T.A. No.3332 of 2022

Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.78,59,463.15 (Rupees Seventy Eight Lacs Fifty Nine Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Three & paisa Fifteen only) as on 30.062020 along with pendentelite and future interest @14.50% till its realization in full together with costs. Further, the name of Sh. Gurmeet Singh was substituted as new authorized representative in place of erstwhile ARs of the applicant bank.

¶26

The brief facts of the case are that the on the request of defendant no.1 through its proprietor Sh.Gaurav Bareja, engaged in business of transportation and plying of trucks etc. was sanctioned Cash Credit Hypothecation facility of Rs.48.00 lacs on 24.08.2011, which was enhanced from Rs.70.00 lacs to Rs.87.00 lacs along with BG limit of Rs.10.00 lacs on 13.03.2014 against hypothecation of book debts, pledge of FDR as prime security and equitable mortgage of residential flat bearing no.BH-22, GF, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi and Three LIC policies in the name of defendant no.1. The applicant bank renewed the Cash Credit limit of Rs.87.00 lac on 13.10.2017 @1 year MCLR+4.15%-0.75% interest per annum. The defendant no.2 stood as guarantor for the credit facilities availed by the defendant no.1 from the applicant bank.

¶27

That in order to avail the credit facilities, the defendants executed D.P.Note, Hypothecation Agreement of Goods & Debts, Interest Agreement, Letter of Confirmation, Letter of Continuity, Letter of Undertaking not to alien Hypothecated Goods, Undertaking, Consent Clause and Letters of Guarantee on 13.10.2017 towards the applicant bank.

¶28

¶29

T.A. No.3332 of 2022

¶30

In order to secure the credit facility, the defendant No.1 created equitable mortgage of freehold LIG Flat no.BH-22, Ground Floor, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi measuring 48 sq.meters by depositing title deeds registered as document No.5250, Addl. Book No.11 Volume No.3439 on pages 150 to 153 dated 05.05.2011 registered with SR-VIA, Pitampura, Delhi on 03.09.2011 and further extended vide Memorandum of Entry dated 14.03.2014.

¶31

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the credit facility, the defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions despite of several requests and defaulted in payment of interest as per terms of sanction and neglected to clear the outstanding. The account of defendants became irregular and applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 31.03.2019 but defendants neglected to clear the dues, hence the applicant bank has approached this tribunal for recovery of its dues.

¶32

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite of proper service, the defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 04.05.2026, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as they have not appeared before the Tribunal nor filed written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets.

¶33

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri P.L.Meena, authorized representative of the, applicant bank who has proved the documents such as Power of Attorney, Sanction Letters, D.P.Note, Hypothecation Agreement of Goods & Debts, Interest Agreement, Letter of Confirmation, Letter of Continuity, Letter of Undertaking not to alien Hypothecated

sd-

T.A. No.3332 of 2022

Goods, Letters of Guarantee and Consent Clause, Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds, Extension vide Memorandum of Entry, Sale Deed, Certificate of NPA, Statement of Account, Certificate under Bankers Book Evidence Act marked as Ex.AW-1/1 to Ex.AW-1/20.

¶38

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 proved.

¶39

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.

¶40

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

¶41

ORDER

¶42

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank within a period of 30 days, jointly or severally, a sum of Rs.78,59,463.15 (Rupees Seventy Eight Lacs Fifty Nine Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Three & paisa Fifteen only) as on 30.06.2020 along with pendentelite and future interest @14.50% per annum with monthly rests from 01.07.2020 with costs, failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated book debt, LIC policy, pledged FDR (if not adjusted) and mortgaged freehold LIG Flat no.BH22, Ground Floor, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi measuring 48 sq.meters. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered

¶43

¶44

T.A. No.3332 of 2022

¶45

from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶46

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

¶47

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT-I, Delhi on 27.10.2026.

¶48

(IV) Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be

¶49

sent to all concerned free of cost.

¶50

6n)-6 (GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶51

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 24.08.2026

¶52

Union Bank of India v. M/S v Logistics and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S v Logistics and Anr.

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

Bank of India versus Pavithra E

Mohammad Azeem Shad and another versus Fullerton India housing finance company limited

Mohd Naseemuddin versus Icici Bank Limited

Hdfc Bank versus Karan Vohra

Uco Bank versus Shri Sher Singh

Hdfc Bank versus Gopal Enterprises