Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Niraj Nanda

DRT17 Feb 2026TA/633/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Matters Bank initiated recovery by OA under Section 19 of the RDB Act citing failure of defendants to repay a sanctioned vehicle loan. The Tribunal allowed the OA, directing joint and several payment and sale of hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Direct defendants to pay Rs. 27,49,794.05 plus interest within 30 days; authorize sale of hypothecated car and recover short fall from personal assets; direct issue of Recovery Certificate.

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Niraj Nanda — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

orricer Berore'ts"X*[.r;]]ffi |fjilffi'i,'ff

¶2

'ill8'3i: NANDA^& UNION^BANKOFIND: ANR

"11'-'-'

Reserved^on

:2O.01.2026

Pronounced^{on z t7'O2'2O26}

¶7

-^{APPlicantbank} Union^{Bankof India} Vs. 1. Sh.^{Niraj NandaNanda} 2. Mrs.^{Aarti Nanda} - Defendants

¶8

Union^{Bankof India} Vs.

¶9

Sh.^{Niraj NandaNanda}

¶10

Dr'^{Chand Narain Kuchroo}

¶11

Shri^{Navin Kumar,Counselappears for} Present: since^{1 2.06.2025'} f"IrXffi::f^:[ ",-0.o"

¶12

FINAL^ORDER

¶13

This original^{application has been flled by the} applicant^{ban& on 06'07'2019throughShri Samir} Kumar,^{Chief Managerof the applicant bank' under} SectionlgoftheRDBAct,lgg3againstthedefendant no.1 to^{3 for recoveryof a sum of Rs'27'49'794'05} together^{with cost, charges and pendentelliteand} future^{interest @ 10.25olo p'a' from date of fiting of} this O.A.^{titt the realization in full'}

¶14

The^{brief facts of the Gtse are that the} defendant^{no. 1 approached the applicant bank' for} sanction of^{a Vehicle Loan for sum of Rs'48'00'000/-} for^{purchase of Vehicle namely AUDI A6 2'0 from M/s} Regent Garage^{hlt. Ltd'and the aPPlicantbank} of sanctioned^{and disbursed the Loan} Rs.48,00,000/-^{vide sanction letter dated} 24.09.2014 to the^{defendant no' 1' The defendant} s9

¶15

TANO.633|2022 2

¶16

no.l through defendant no. 2 availed the credit facility through account no.502205520000605 duly maintained with the applicant bank. The defendants executed/delivered various loaning/security documents on 01.10.2014. Defendant no.2 and 3 executed the letter of undertaking as guarantors dated 01.10.2014. Defendant no.1 purchased a car i.e. LMV AUDI 46 2.0 from M/s Regent Garage M. Ltd. and payment of Rs.48 lacs were duly received by M/s Regent Garage M. Ltd. and the vehicle was registered vide registration no.HR-51-BB-0062 in the name of the defendant no. 1 and the vehicle was duly hypothecated in favour of the applicant bank. In order to secure the loan amount of the above said credit facility, defendants further executed the documents on 20.01.2017.

¶17

It is further submitted that the defendants enjoyed and utilized the Loan facility, but failed to maintain the financial discipline and failed to repay the due amounts. The applicant bank requested the defendants to regularize the loan account by visib and letters, but there was no response from the defendants, hence the account was classified as NPA on 31.05.2018. Therefore, the applicant bank serued a recall notice dated 01.07.2019 to the defendants, demanding the amount due as on that date, but failed to recover the same. Thus, the present O.A.fF.A. is preferred by the applicant bank to recover its dues.

¶18

On notice by this Tribunal, defendants failed to put appearance at all, despite publication and accordingly defendants were proceeded against expafte on t2.06.2025. 9?

¶19

TANO. 633/2022

¶20

¶21

The applicant bank filed its evidence by way of the affidavit Shri Samir Kumar, Chief Manager of the applicant bank as paper no.01 to paper no.92.

¶22

The documentary evidence filed by applicant bank has gone unchallenged and un-rebutted. Hence, the case of the applicant bank stands fully established against the defendants with respect to non payment of EMI/ outstanding amount.

¶23

After perusing the records, this Tribunal is of the view that the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. The documentary evidence filed by the applicant bank not rebutted by the defendants and there is no question of disbelieving the documentary evidence filed by the applicant bank based upon the written/printed documents.

¶24

In the light of the above discussions, the Transfer Application deserves to be allowed against the defendant no.1 to 3.

¶25

ORDER

¶26

I hereby allow this O.A. of the Applicant Bank and direct the defendant nos. 1 to 3 to pay joinfly and severally to the applicant bank within 30 days from today, a sum of Rs.27,49,794.05 along with cost, expenses and interest @ t0.7o/o from the date of filing of this O.A. which has become T.A. till the date of realizaUon.

¶27

In case of failure to deposit the above amount within the stipulated .peLq4, the same shall be

TANO.63312022 4

recovered from the sale of the hypothecated asseVvehicle bearing no. Audi A6 2.0 TDI P Plus bearing Registration no.HR-5188-0062, Chassis no.WAUZAEGXEY001302 & Engine no.CMG019166. In case of shoft fall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of^personal movable and immovable assets of the defendant nos. 1 to 3.

¶32

Recovery Ceftiflcate be issued forthwith and be sent to Recovery fficer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi.

¶33

The registry of this Tribunal is hereby directed to issue free copy ofthe order and send the same to both the parties.

¶34

Parties are directed to appear before the Ld. Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi on L7.04.2026. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

¶35

File be consigned to records.

¶36

I
eo *
(
?
Datel.17.02.2026 (SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI)
PRESIDING OFFICER
DRT-II, Delhi

¶37

This^judgement has been signed, dated and pronounced in open couft.

¶38

Date:. t7.02.2026

¶39

I I )^il4 (SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

¶40

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Niraj Nanda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Niraj Nanda

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