UNION BANK OF INDIA vs MS SANDAL WOOD HANDICRAFT ORS on 5 October 2026

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant banK on 22'02'2017 through Mr'santosh Kumar Srivastava, Chief Manager of the applicant under SectionlgoftheRDBAct'lgg3againstthedefendants forrecoveryofasumofRs.1,08,75,467.sooutofwhich Rs.1,05,41,070'50 towards cash credit facility and Rs.3,34,37g1- towards vehicle loan facility with costs' pendentelite and future interest at the rate of 13'50o/o &12.650/ofromdateoffitingofthiso.A.tillthe realization in full'

2. The brief facts of the case are that at the reqUest the aPPlicant bank sanctioned of defendant nos'1 & 2 SD

TANOl527t2o24 2 a Cash Credit Facility of Rs'95 Lacs' vide sanction letter dated 29.05.2014 to meet the working capital requirement. The defendants executed all necessary loaning documenE on 10'07'2014' Again' at the request of defendants, the applicant bank sanctioned a Vehicle Facility of Rs'4 Lacs to prtrchase a Vehicle make MARUTI CELERIO ZKI M BS4 bearing Registration NO' DL-4C- AS- 757L, vide sanction letter dated

27. L0.20t4. The defendants executed all necessary loaning documents on 27 't0'20L4' The aforesaid credit facitities were secured by mortgage of propefi i.e., Property No.169, Sector-9/9A' admeasuring 162 sq. mtrs, Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar' Haryana and Hypothecated of the company including book debts and inventory of the company in present & future which now belong to and may hereafter during the subsistence of borrowers liability belong to borrower' which are already procured/to be procured out of bank loans, and which are shall/ may be brought into or stored and or be in/upon the borrower's premises/unifs and any other addresses and vehicle make MARUTI CELERIO e(I M BS4 bearing Registration NO. DL-4C- As.-757t.

3. 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 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 30'06'2016' The applicant bank served a demand notice dated 06.07.2016 to the defendants but failed to recover the 9P

TANO152712024 J same Thus, the present O'Aff'A' is prefened by the applicant bank to re@ver its dues'

4. On notice by this Tribunal' the defendants put appearance through counsel and filed written statement and evidence'

5. In their written statement the defendants have denied the facts mentioned in the OA' It is submitted that that during the course of business' the defendant no.1 suffered huge loss on account of receipt of goods of inferior quality goods as the customers/clients not agreed to purchase the same' left with no option' the defendant compelled to consume the same in retail marketforlessthanhalfpriceofitspurchase.Itis submitted that the application has not been instituted by a duly authorized and signed and impugned application has not been duly verified by an affidavit as competent person on behalf of the applicant bank' It is submitted that the rate of interest shown in the documents fited with the apptication and the rate of interestaverredinthebodyoftheapplicantwasneither agreed nor is as per presciibed rules and regulations of Reserve Bank of India' It is submitted that while taking signed on the said blank documents from the defendant by the applicant bank, the said documents were not duty filed by the defendant or by the executing bank andwerelaterfiled.ItisprayedthatthisHon,ble Tribunal may dismiss the present O'A'

6. The applicant bank and defendants have filed ence. their respective evid s0

TANOl527l2o24 4

7. Heard the Ld' Counsel of applicant bank andLd.Counselofdefendantsandperusedtherecord. B. The first contention of the defendants is that the defendants suffered a huge loss in business and therefore, they could not make the repayment of the loan. Merely because the defendants suffered huge loss in business cannot be a ground that defendants are not liable to pay the dues of the bank' Therefore' the contention of the defendants has no force'

oAhasnotbeenfitedbythecompetentpersonwhois authorized to veriff and file the present OA' From perusal of the record, it is clear that the officer of the bank has been authorized by the bank to file the present OA and therefore' the contention of the defendants that the OA has not been filed by authorized Person has no force'

10. The next contention of the defendants is that the applicant bank has charged exorbitant rate of interest' On the other hand the Ld' counsel of th9 bank has submitted that the interest has been chargetl as per agreement between the parties' In this regard I have gone through the record' From perusal of the statement of account, it is clear that the applicant bank is charging rate of interest as per agreement' Therefore,itcannotbesaidthattheapplicantbankis charging exorbitant rate of interest'

applicant bank has obtalg|l-g-l3tures on the blank i99

TLNOls27t2024 5 proformas and therefore, the said paper cannot be relied upon' But the contention of the defendants has no force' The defendants are well educated businessman, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have signed the papers without going through the conditions of the sanction lefter' Further' the defendantshaveneverfitedanycomplaintbeforethe competent forum in this regard' t2. From perusal of the entire evidence' it is clear that, the applicant bank has proved his case againstthe defendants and therefore, the defendants are liable to pay the amount claimed by the applicant bank and the O.A of the applicant bank is liable to be allowed' In the tight of the above discussions' the present O.Aff.A. deserues to be allowed'

ORDER

1) I hereby allow this T'A' of the applicant bank and direct the defendant nos' 1 and 2 to pay jointly and severally to the applicant within 30 days from today' a sum of Rs.1,08,75,467'50 along with cost' expenses and interest @11.50o/o 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 recoveredfromthesaleofhypothecatedassetsand sale of vehicle being MARUTI CELERIO m M BS4 bearing Registration No' DL-4C- PS- 7571' In case of short of fall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of personal movable and immovable assets of the defendant nos.1 and 2' 'P

TANOl527t2024 6

3) Recovery Crrtificate 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 direct to appear before the Ld' Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhion 07't2'2026' Pending IAs, if anY, stand disPosed of' File be consig ned to records. Date: 05.10.2026 This judgement has been signed' dated and pronounced in oPen court' -- 51lol2s (SUSHIL KUMAR'RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi q0 Date :05.10.2026 ( --9g \..- susHrL *rffi-*6}d6t) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi ,#*!-'Pr