UNION BANK OF INDIA vs M/S BANSAL INTERIO on 28 September 2026

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 30.05.2022 through Mr. Devneel Pandey, Branch Head ofthe applicant bank, under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,03,90,7561- (Rs.87,62,9661- outstanding as on 30.04.2022 along with expenses, pendentlite and future interest @10.90o/o per annum with monthly rests in Cash Credit Account no.502205010929153 and Rs.16,27,7901- outstanding as on 30.04.2022 along with expenses, pendentlite and future interest @7.50% per annum with monthly rests in Term Loan Account No.502206990000070) from date of filing of this O.A. till the realization in full. e\-

2. The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant no.1 through its proprietor, the applicant bank sanctioned a Cdsh Credit (Hypothecation) Limit Facility of Rs.75,00,000/- under CTMSE Scheme of for being smooth functioning of its business, vide sanction letter dated 14.01.2019. The defendants executed all necessary loaning documents on 14.01.2019. Again, at the request of defendant no.2, the applicant bank sanctioned a Working Capital Term Loan Facility under UGFCL Scheme of Rs.15 Lakhs, vide sanction letter dated 22.06.2020. The defendants executed all necessary loaning documents on 25.06.2020.

3. It is further submitted that the defendants enjoyed and utilized the Loan facilities, 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 visits and letters, but there was no response from the defendants. Hence, the account was classified as NPA dated 31.03.2021. Thus, the present O.A.ff.A. is preferred by the applicant bank to recover its dues.

4. On notice by this Tribunal, defendants failed to put appearance at all, despite service. Accordingly, the defendants were proceeded against exparte on 06.10.202s.

5. The applicant bank has flled evidence by way of affidavit of Shri. Devneel Pandey, Assistant General Manager of the applicant bank as Annexure A-1 to Annexure A-24, which have gone unchallenged and un- rebutted. Hence, the case of the applicant stands fully s4

established against the defendants with respect to nonpayment of outstanding amount.

6. 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 defendants by not placing any evidence and there is no question of disbelieving the evidence and documents filed by the applicant bank based upon the written/printed documents. In the light of the above discussions, the present T.A. deserves to be allowed.

ORDER

1) I hereby allow this T.A. of the applicant bank and direct the defendant nos.l and 2 to pay joinily and severally to the applicant bank within 30 days from today, a sum of Rs.1,03,90,756l- along with cost, expenses and interest @8.70% from the date of filing of this O.A. which has become T.A till the date of realization.

2) In case of failure to deposit the above amount within the stipulated period, the same shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated assets. In case of shoft fall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of personal movable and immovable^aslets of the defendant nos.l and 2.

9. \

3) Recovery Certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi.

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

5) Parties are directed to appear before the Ld. Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi on 30.11.2026. pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. File be consigned to records. _ _- -,/--- ST (susHrL KUMAtrl\ASrOGr) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi This judgement has been signed, dated and pronounced in open court. Date : 28.09.2026 Date : 28.09.2026 -. .' /---.',-- EI _{ (susHrl KUMAR ne#bCr) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi