Allowed

Uco Bank v. Manjeet Singh Lamba

DRT12 Jan 2026TA/848/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's original application for recovery of dues. It reduced the interest rate to 12% p.a. After accounting for auction proceeds, the tribunal directed payment of the balance amount against prejudice, future interest, and costs.

What did the court decide?

Direct payment of Rs.16,59,698.15 with 12% interest and costs; issuance of recovery certificate.

Uco Bank versus Manjeet Singh Lamba — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

T.A. No.848 of 2023

¶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. 848 of 2023

¶5

UCO Bank

¶6

4/2b, Asaf An Road New Delhi-110002

¶7

Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh.Manjeet Singh Lamba Proprietor M/s S & S Enterprises T-4/29, Second Floor,

¶10

Mangol Puri Industrial Area Phase I Near Safal Dairy, New Delhi-110083

¶11

Mrs. Gurpreet Kaur w/o Manjeet Singh Lamba R/o 48 & 49, Sawan Park Extension Ashok Vihar Phase III,

¶12

North West Delhi-110052 Defendants

¶13

Present: Shri Manish Kumar Pratihast, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶14

Date of Reserve: 16.12.2025

¶15

Date of Pronouncement: 12.01.2026

¶16

FINAL ORDER

¶17

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 20.07.2022 through Shri Mohammed Shamshad, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.39,16,233/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lacs Sixteen Thousand Two Hundred Thirty Three only) as on 31.12.2019 along with

¶18

T.A. No.848 of 2023

¶19

pendentelite and future interest @13.70% per annum from the date of filing of O.A. till the date of realization and costs.

¶20

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant No.1 being proprietor of M/s S & S Enterprises, the applicant bank sanctioned Cash Credit facility of Rs.38.00 lacs @13.70% rate of interest subject to change as per RBI/bank guidelines on 30.05.2016 for working capital requirements against hypothecation of stocks, book debts and other current assets. The defendant no.2 stood as guarantor for the credit facilities availed by defendant no.1 from the applicant bank.

¶21

That in order to avail the said loan facility, the defendants executed Memorandum for Sanction / Renewal / Enhancement of Limit, Hypothecation of Goods to Secure a Demand Cash Credit, General Agreements, Hypothecation & Book Debts to Secure Demand Cash Credit, Draft of Letter of Deposit of Title Deed etc. on 30.05.2016 in favour of the applicant bank.

¶22

That in order to secure the loan facility, the defendant no.1 hypothecated the stocks and created equitable mortgage of property bearing no. 48 & 49, Northern Side Portion Upper Ground Floor, (without roof/terrace rights), area measuring 111 sq.yds, Village Wazirpur Colony known as Sawan Park Extension, Delhi-110052 owned by the defendants on 30.05.2016 by depositing the original title deeds of the property with the applicant bank.

¶23

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facility, the defendants failed to maintain financial discipline and failed to pay the interest as per terms of sanction despite repeated requests and reminders to the applicant bank. The applicant bank restructured the

¶24

T.A. No.848 of 2023

¶25

account on 27.12.2019 by converting the outstanding of Rs.38.76 lacs into WCTL of Rs.38.00 lacs and FITL of Rs.0.76 lacs plus unapplied interest in favour of S & S Enterprises. The applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 31.01.2020 due to non-adherence to financial discipline by the defendants and approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶26

Notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 dated 12.02.2021 was issued by the applicant bank and further issued possession notice under Section 13(4) dated 31.07.2021. The applicant bank took physical possession of secured assets on 16.10.2021 and sold the property through E-auction on 25.07.2023 for Rs.43.30 lacs and appropriated in the account after issuance of sale certificate.

¶27

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 21.11.2024, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as they have not appeared before the Tribunal nor written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have been filed.

¶28

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Mohammed Shamshad, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents such as Power of Attorney, Sanction Letter, Memorandum for Sanction, Hypothecation of Goods, General Agreement, Hypothecation of Book Debts, Letter of Deposit of Title Deed, Recall Notices, Agreement relating to Term Loan, Approval for restructuring of Loan, NPA Certificate, Notice u/s 13(2) and 13(4) of SARFAESI Act, Physical Possession Letter, Statement of Account duly certified under

¶29

T.A. No.848 of 2023

¶30

Banker's Book of Evidence Act and Memorandum of Account marked as Ex.AW-1/1 to Ex.AW-1/15. The applicant bank also submitted affidavit of authorized Officer Shri Davneet Singh dated 05.07.2025 along Sale Certificate.

¶31

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.

¶32

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.

¶33

As per the provision of Section 19(20) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 which is analogous to Section 34 of CPC, on filing of the suit/claim, the contract between the parties comes to an end and the Court/Tribunal has a discretion to award the same depending upon the circumstances of each case. Same principle has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra & Others. Taking stock of all the circumstances and keeping in view that there is a drastic fall in rates of interest globally and domestically, I am of the opinion that interest of justice will be served if the interest at the rate of 12% p.a. is awarded.

¶34

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

¶35

T.A. No.848 of 2023

¶36

ORDER

¶37

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank within a period of 30 days, jointly and severally, a sum of Rs.39,16,233/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lacs Sixteen Thousand Two Hundred Thirty Three only) as on 31.01.2020 together with pendentelite and future interest @12% with cost. Out of Rs.39,16,233/-, the applicant bank has already realized an amount of Rs.43,30,000/- thru E-auction of mortgaged property and now Rs.16,59,698.15 is due as on 30.06.2015 against the defendants together with pendentelite and future interest @12% from 01.07.2015 till the date of realization with costs, failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶38

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

¶39

(III) Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 12.03.2026.

¶40

(IV) Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be sent to all concerned free of cost.

¶41

(GOVIND BALLABH SH A R A) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶42

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 12.01.2026

Uco Bank v. Manjeet Singh Lamba

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. Manjeet Singh Lamba

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus Sreelatha

Idbi Bank versus M/S Gandhi Tent House

Smt Nafeesa Sultana versus Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited

State Bank of India versus Gurdas Ram @ Gurdas Chand @ Gurdas Singh (Since Deceased)

State Bank of India versus Sh. Kartar Singh

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Anand Prakash Ajay Kumar