Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S Ppc Logistics and Car Services

DRT21 May 2026TA/924/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an origin application filed by Union Bank of India against M/s. PCC Logistics & Cab Services for recovery of a loan amount of Rs. 12,63,113 along with interest under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993, as the respondent did not appear or place evidence.

What did the court decide?

Direct the respondent to pay Rs. 12,63,113 along with interest at 17.10% p.a. and costs within 30 days, with a recovery certificate to be issued in case of default.

Union Bank of India versus M/S Ppc Logistics and Car Services — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

Before susHrl KUMAR RAsroGr, presiding officer Debts Recovery Tribunal_Il, Dethi

¶2

TA No.924 OF ZOZ4

¶3

uNroN BANK OI rl{DrA (E-CORPORATTON) VS M/S. pCC LOGTSTTCS & CAB SERVTCES (Opc) p r.10 & oRs

¶4

Reserued on z 29.04.2026

¶5

Pronounced on : 21.05.2026

¶6

Union Bank of India (E- Corporation Bank) _Applicant bank Vs.

¶7

M/s. PCC Logistics & Cab Seruices (oPC) P Ltd

¶8

Sole defendant

¶9

Present: Shri. Samarendra Kumar, Counsel appears for applicant bank. Sole defendants is expafte, since, 12.11.2025.

¶10

FINAL ORDER

¶11

This originar apprication has been fired by the applicant bank, on2L.t2.2018 through Mr. Amit Kumar sinha, chief Manager of the applicant bank, under section 19 of the RDB Act, 1gg3 against the sote defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs. Lz,63,gl3ltogether with cost, charges and pendentellite and future interest @19. Llo/o from date of fillng of this O.A. till the realization in full.

¶12

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of the sole defendant, the applicant bank sanctioned a Temporary overdraft Facility of Rs.10.00 Lacs. The sote defendant has also executed all necessary loaning documents on 03. 1 1.2016.

¶13

It is further submitted that the sole defendant enjoyed and utilized the Loan facilities, but failed to maintain the financial discip_line and failed to repay the s),,

¶14

¶15

TA NO. 924 of Z0Z4

¶16

due amounts. The applicant bank requested the sole defendant to regurarize the loan account by visits and letters, but there was no response from the sole defendant. Therefore, the applicant bank serued a demand notice dated 08.12.2018 to the sole defendant but failed to recover the same. Thus, the present o.a.rr.a. is preferred by the applicant bank to recover its dues.

¶17

on notice by this Tribunar, the sote defendant failed to put appearance at ail, despite pubrication. Accordingly, the sole defendant was proceeded against exparte on 12.tt.ZlZS.

¶18

The applicant bank has fired evidence by way of affidavit of sh. Amit Kumar, chief Manager and Sh. N K sablania, chief Manager of the applicant bank as Paper No.16 to^paper No. 75 along with the oA, which have gone unchallenged and un-rebutted. Hence, the case of the applicant bank stands fully established against the sole defendant with respect to nonpayment of outstanding amount.

¶19

After perusing the records, this Tribunal is of the view 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 documenb filed by the applicant bank based upon the written/printed documents.

¶20

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

ORDER

€A

TA NO. 924 of 2024

I hereby ailow this T.A. of the appricant bank and direct the sote defendant to pay to the appricant within 30 days from today, a sum of Rs. LZ,63,IL3/along with cost, expenses and interest @ 17.lilo/ofrom the date of filing of this o.A. which has become T.A till the date of reatization.

¶26

In case of fairure to deposit the above amount within the stipurated period, the same shail be recovered from the sate of personal movable and immovable assets of the sole defendant.

¶27

Recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to Recovery officer, Debb Recovery Tribunar-Il, Delhi.

¶28

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

¶29

Parties are directed to appear before the Ld. Recovery officer, DRT-II, Derhi on 2L.07.2026. pending IAs, if dfry, stand disposed of.

¶30

Date :2L.05.2026

¶31

(susHrL ruunn nnstocr ) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT.II, De|hi

¶32

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

¶33

¶34

Date :21.05.2026

¶35

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

Union Bank of India v. M/S Ppc Logistics and Car Services

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S Ppc Logistics and Car Services

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