UNION BANK OF INDIA vs RAJ TRADERS & ORS. on 26 February 2026

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant ank before DRT-II, Delhi on 11.10.2018 & ther —^ erred to b RT-I, Delhi under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and ankruptcy Act 1993 read with Rule 8 of the Debt Recovery ribunal (Procedure) Rules 1993 against the defendants for r covery of a sum of Rs.18,81,738.42 (Rupees Eighteen Lacs ighty One Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty Eight and Paisa orty Two only) as on 31.03.2018 along with pendentelite and f ture interest @13.35% per annum with monthly rest from 1.04.2018 till the date of realization and costs. Further, the ame of Mr. Kumar Vivek was substituted as authorized -presentative in place of Sh. Ratnesh Kumar Sinha, erstwhile R of the applicant bank. The brief facts of the case are that at the request of efendant no.1 through its proprietor Sh.Rajendra Singh, the pplicant bank sanctioned Overdraft facility for a sum of s.20.00 Lacs (Rupees Twenty lacs only) for working capital -quirement on 13.03.2014 @11.35% per annum with monthly -sts aganst prime security of mortgage of property and ollateral security of hypothecation of stocks and book debts. he defendant no.2 and 3 stood as guarantors for the credit cility sanctioned in favour of defendant no.1 by the applicant an k. That in order to avail the overdraft loan facility, the efendant no.1 & 2 submitted loan application and executed etter of Proprietorship, Request for Overdraft Facilities, remand Promissory Note, Take Delivery Letter to D.P.N., uarantee Agreements, Common Deed of Hypothecation of ovables/Assets/Debts, Letter of Undertaking/Declaration, eneral Power of Attorney for Book Debts & Supply Bills on 3.03.2014 in favour of the applicant bank. sd-

That in order to secure the loan facility, the Sh.Rajendra ingh being proprietor of defendant no.1 and defendant no.3 reated equitable mortgage of residential property bearing 0.217/47, Mahalaxmi Garden, Gali no.1, Rajendra Park, urugram, Haryana-122001 on 13.03.2014 by executed emorandum of Deposit of Title deeds. It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after vailing the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply with e terms and conditions of sanction despite several requests nd defendants failed to pay the outstanding dues and monthly terest / installments in time. The applicant bank classified the ccount as NPA on 31.03.2018 as per RBI guidelines and issued gal demand notice dated 30.04.2018 to adjust the utstanding amount along with interest but defendants failed

• comply with the notice. Hence, the applicant bank has pproached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues. Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and espite proper service through publication in newspapers, the efendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings. As er order dated 18.12.2019, the defendants have been roceeded ex-parte as not appeared before the Tribunal and yen no written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets ave been filed by the defendants. In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its vidence by way of affidavit of Sh.Ratnesh Kumar Sinha, uthorized representative of the applicant bank who has roved the documents as Power of Attorney, CSI dated 3.03.2014, Letter of Proprietorship, Request for overdraft acility, Demand Promissory Note, Take Delivery Letter to DPN, SG,- U

uarantee Agreement, Common Deed of Hypothecation, Letter f Undertaking cum Declaration, General Power of Attorney for ook Debts, Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds, Title eeds, Demand Notice, Certificate for Rate of Interest marked s Ex.AW-1/1 to Ex.AW-1/15. The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments ade in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the pplicant bank is based on the documents and the same have een duly proved. The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and ere is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant ank and the applicant bank has proved its case beyond asonable doubts.

0. In the light of the above discussions and documents on -cord, the Original Application deserves to be allowed.

ORDER

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the pplicant bank within a period of 30 days, jointly or severally, sum of Rs.18,81,738.42 (Rupees Eighteen Lacs Eighty One housand Seven Hundred Thirty Eight and Paisa Forty Two nly) as on 31.03.2018 along with pendentelite and future i terest @13.35% per annum with monthly rest from 1.04.2018 till the date of realization and costs failing which •he aforesaid amount shall be recovered from sale of ypothecated book debts, stocks and mortgaged property earing No.217/47, Mahalaxmi Garden, Gali no.1, Rajendra ark, Gurugram, Haryana-122001. In case of shortfall the same I.

hall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable ssets of the defendants. II) The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent o the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi. III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery fficer, DRT I, Delhi on 27.04.2026. IV) Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be ent to all concerned free of cost. t

(GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI Dictated and pronounced in open court) ated: 26.02.2026