UNION BANK OF INDIA vs MS NIRMAL INDUSTRIES AND ANOTHER on 12 October 2026

Before SUSHIL KUIIIAR R']ASTOGI' PresidinS Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il' Delhi TA No'17 Ot 2024

ut{roN BAi{K oF rilorivs llli ruR}lAL TNDUSTRIES &oRs Reserved on : 24'O8'2O26

Pronounced on : 12'10'2O26

Union Bank of India

Vs.

1. M/s Nirmal Industries

2. Mrs. Geeta Nagpal

-Applicant bank

Present:

Mr. Ravi Kumar, Counsel aPpears for

applicant bank.

oEF"na.ns are exparte, since' 21'11'2025'

FII{AL ORDER

- Defendants

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 2O'OZ'20L7 through Shri' Radhey Shyam Yadav, Senior Manager al of the applicant bank'

under Section t9 of the RDB Act' 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs'14'95'75L'94

together with cost, charges and pendentellite and future interest @14.55o/o 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 ofdefendantno.2beingthesoleproprietorofdefendant no.l, the applicant bank sanctioned a Cash Credit (Hypothecation) & Book Debts Facility of Rs'15'00'000/-'

vide sanction letter dated 19'07'2013 under CGTMSE

Scheme, secured Or-!ryOon of stocks & book 9?

debts arising from genuine trade and guaranteed under CGTMSE Scheme' The defendants executed all necessary loaning documents on 19'07'2013'

TANO. r7 of2024

)

amount.

6. After Perusing

view that the aPPlica

re@ver its dues'

4. On notice by this Tribunal' defendants put appearance through counsel and filed written statement but failed to filed evidence' Thereafter' the defendants failed to put appearance in the rnatter' despite issuance of default notice' Accordingly' the defendants were proceeded against exparte on 21'11'2025'

3. It is further submitted that the defendants enjoyed andutilizedtheLoanfacilities,butfailedtomaintainthe financialdisciplineandfailedtorepaythedueamounts'

The applicant bank requested the defendants to regularize the loan account by visiB and letters' but there was no response from the defendants' Helce' the account was classified as NPA dated 31'10'2016' The present O.A.fl-'A' is preferred by the applicant bank to

5. The applicant bank has flled evidence by way of affidavit of Ms' Vandana Anand' Senior Manager of the applicant bank as Paper No'1 to Paper No'57' which have gone unchallenged and un-rebutted' Hence' the case of in" applicant stands fully established against the defendantswithrespecttononpaymentofoutstanding the records, this Tribunal is of the nt bank has Proved its case beYond SD

*,1--*--+4',

TANO. 17 of 2024

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 abof/e discussions, the present T.A.

deseres to be allowed'