UCO BANK vs DINESH KALRA AND ORS on 7 October 2026

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on t7'03'2020 through Sh' Nishant Gupta, Senior Manager of the applicant bank' under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993 against the defendants forrecoveryofasumofRs'70'52'994/-togetherwith cost, charges and pendentellite and future interest @10.70olo from date of filing of this O'A' till the realization in full.

2. The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant, the applicant bank sanctioned Tern Loan Facility of Rs.70,52,9941', vide sanction letter dated T4.OT.2OiTagainstpropertyA-L'A-2'A-3'measuring 650 Sq. Ft, on Upper Ground Floor' H'No'602-E120 in Ward No.3, Mehrauli Delhiand Plot No'602E/20' Flat No' LG-1 and LG'z, Lower Ground Floor' Ward No'3' Mehrauli, Hauz Khas, Delhi' il'. Ms. Priya Sharma, Counsel appears for applicant bank. oLi"nOuntt are expafte, since, 08'11'2024'

TANO.528of2022

3. It is defendants were 08.11.2024. further submifted that the proceeded against exparte on defendants enjoyed and utilized the Loan facilities' but failed to maintain the financial discipline and failed to repay the due amounts' The appticant bank requested the defendants to regularize the loan account by visits and letters, but there was no response from the defendans. The applicant bank serued a demand notice dated 28.01.2020 to the defendants but failed to recover the same 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 publication' Accordingly' the

5. The applicant bank has filed evidence by way of affidavitofMs.RajniKumari,SeniorManagerofthe applicant bank as Annexure -A to Annexure- K' which have gone unchallenged and un-rebutted' Hence' the case of the applicant stands fully established against the defendants with respect to nonpayment of outstanding amount. applicant bank documents. based uPon the written/Printed

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

9) t'

TANO.528of2022 3 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.1 and 2 to pay jointly and severally to the applicant bank within 30 days from today' a sum of Rs.70,52,994/- along with cost, expenses and interest @10.70olo 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 mortgaged property bearing A-1' A-2' A- 3, measuring 650 Sq' Ft, on Upper Ground Floor' H.No.602-El20 in Ward No.3, Mehrauli Delhi and Plot No.602E/20, Flat No. LG-1 and LG-2, Lower Ground Floor' Ward No.3, Mehrauli, Hauz Khas, New Delhi' In case of short fall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of personal movable and immovable assets of the defendant nos.l and 2.

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 pafties. ?^,

TANO. 528 of 2022

5) Parties are directed to appear before the Ld' Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi on 07'L2'2026' Pending IAs, if anY, stand disPosed of. File be consigned to records. <)\ . r,- \ (SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi This judgement has been signed, dated and pronounced in open coutt. ( ^r , l.,n' \ (susHIL KUMAR nnfficl) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi Date : 07.10.2026 Date : 07.10.2026