Allowed

Uco Bank v. M/S Choudhary Jamshed Enterprises

DRT7 Feb 2026TA/382/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's original application for recovery of dues from defaulting borrowers who failed to repay sanctioned loan facilities, proceeding ex parte due to the respondents' absence.

What did the court decide?

Direct the defendants to pay Rs.61,91,066/- with interest and costs within 30 days, recoverable from sale of hypothecated stocks, book debts, and mortgaged properties.

Uco Bank versus M/S Choudhary Jamshed Enterprises — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

T.A. No.382 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. 382 of 2022

¶5

UCO Bank

¶6

Ayodhya Chowk, F-26/13, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi-110085

¶7

Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s Choudhary Jamshed Enterprises C-12/160, Yamuna Vihar

¶10

Illaqa Shandara, Delhi-110053

¶11

Also at:

¶12

M/s Choudhary Jamshed Enterprises C-12/336, 1st Floor,

¶13

Ghonda Residential Scheme Colony, Yamuna Vihar, Illaqa Shandara, Delhi-110053

¶14

Also at:

¶15

M/s Choudhary Jamshed Enterprises

¶16

Plot No.B-75, 3rd Floor,

¶17

New Jafrabad (Gorakh Park Extn.) Shandara, Delhi-110032

¶18

Sh.Jamshed Alam s/o Kashim Ali R/o C-12/160, Yamuna Vihar Illaqa Shandara, Delhi-110053

¶19

Also at:

¶20

Sh.Jamshed Alam s/o Kashim Ali C-12/336, 1St, Floor, Ghonda Residential Scheme Colony, Yamuna Vihar, Illaqa Shandara, Delhi-110053

¶21

Also at:

¶22

Sh.Jamshed Alam s/o Kashim Ali

¶23

Plot No.B-75, 3rd Floor, New Jafrabad (Gorakh Park Extn.) Shandara, Delhi-110032 Defendants

¶24

Present: Shri Nisha Chauhan, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶25

¶26

T.A. No.382 of 2022

¶27

Date of Reserve: 20.01.2026

¶28

Date of Pronouncement: 07.02.2026

¶29

FINAL ORDER

¶30

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 15.06.2022 before DRT-III Delhi & DRT-I Delhi under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of Rs.61,91,066/- (Rupees Sixty One Lacs Ninety One Thousand Sixty Six only) as on 30.06.2022 along with pendentelite and future interest @10.00% per annum with monthly rest from filing of this application till the date of realization and costs.

¶31

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant no.1 through its proprietor being defendant no.2, the applicant bank sanctioned Cash Credit limit of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lacs only) for trading business wheat, pulses and milk products etc. against hypothecation of stocks, book debts and mortgage of property on 23.04.2020. In addition, the applicant bank sanctioned GECL limit for Rs.5.00 lacs on 12.06.2020 @7.50% interest to be repayable in 48 EMIs of Rs.15,553/- and Adhoc limit of Rs.2.50 lacs on 30.06.2021 @7.50% interest due to Covid 19 pandemic. The applicant bank further sanctioned FITL of Rs.2.70 lacs on 30.06.2021 to be repayable in 12 EMIs of Rs.23,449/- in favour of defendant no.1.

¶32

That in order to avail the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendant no.1 through its proprietor being defendant no.2 submitted loan applications and executed Demand Promissory Notes, Letters of Waiver, Letters of Continuity, Hypothecation sal

¶33

T.A. No.382 of 2022

¶34

of Book Debts, Rescheduling of Loan etc. on 23.04.2020, 16.06.2020 and 30.06.2021 in favour of applicant bank.

¶35

That in order to secure the loan facilities, the defendant no.1 through its proprietor hypothecated the stocks and book debts in favour of applicant bank and created equitable mortgage by depositing original title deeds of properties bearing:

¶36

i) No.C-12/336, Block No.C-12, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi measuring 70 sq.metres and;

¶37

ii) B-75, 3rd Floor, New Jafrabad (Gorakh Park Extn.), Shandara, Delhi-32 measuring 140 sq.metres.

¶38

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the credit facilities, the defendants failed to maintain financial discipline as per terms and conditions of sanction and to pay the interest / installments as per terms. The applicant bank issued various notices to defendants for regularization of the account but neglected by defendants, thus applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 31.03.2022 as per RBI guidelines and issued recall notice on 05.04.2022 but defendants failed to clear the dues, hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues. The defendants acknowledged their liability from time towards applicant bank.

¶39

Notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 dated 17.05.2022 was issued on the defendants but no efforts made by defendants to clear the dues. 5d-

¶40

5d-

¶41

T.A. No.382 of 2022

¶42

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 03.09.2025, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared before the Tribunal nor written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have been filed.

¶43

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Ms. Abha Jolly, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents such as Common Board Resolution, Loan Applications, Demand Promissory Notes A-1, Letters of Waiver, Letters of Continuity, Hypothecations of Goods, Hypothecations of Book Debts, Sanction Letters, Sale Deed no.1978 & 455 of Mortgaged Properties, Valuation Reports, Rescheduling of Loan, Recall Notices, Demand Notice u/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, Statement of Accounts, Interest Certificate, Certificate by Manager in Charge of Computer System marked as Ex.AW1/1 to Ex.AW1/24.

¶44

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.

¶45

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.

¶46

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

T.A. No.382 of 2022

ORDER

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.61,91,066/- (Rupees Sixty One Lacs Ninety One Thousand Sixty Six only) as on 30.06.2022 together with pendentelite and future interest @10.00% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing of this application till the date of realization with costs, failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stocks and book debts and sale of mortgaged property bearing:

¶51