Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals

UNION BANK OF INDIA vs M/S NEW CELL POINT AND ORS on 7 August 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi

4th floor, Jeevan Tara Building,

Parliament Street, New Delhi

Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sharma T.A. No.2776 of 2022

Union Bank of India (e-Andhra Bank)

Plot No.1, Auchandi Road

Village Bawana, Delhi-110039

Versus

1.

M/s New Cell Point

Through its proprietor

Sh.Rakesh Gupta

Ground Floor, House No.2109,

Bawana Road, Narela, Delhi-110039

2.

Sh.Rakesh Gupta s/o Prakash Chand

r/o House No.R-792, Gali No.1A,

Swatantra Nagar, Narela Kureni, Delhi-110040

Applicant

3.

Mrs.Ramkali w/o Prakash Chand

r/o House No.R-792, Gali No.1A,

Swatantra Nagar, Narela Kureni, Delhi-110040

Defendants

Present: Sh.Rakesh Gupta, Counsel for the applicant bank Date of Reserve: 30.07.2026

Date of Pronouncement: 07.08.2026

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

0

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

0

Decisions referred to

In this index

0

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

0

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 29.08.2022 before DRT-III, Delhi and then transferred to DRT-I Delhi under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.42,39,335.21 (Rupees Forty Two Lacs Thirty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Five & paisa Twenty One only) as on 30.06.2022 along with pendentelite and future interest @11.25%, @8% and 7.5% respectively per annum from 30.06.2022 till the date of realization along with costs.

2. The brief facts of the case that on the request of defendant no.1 through its sole proprietor being defendant no.2 engaged in trading business of mobile set submitted loan application dated 28.02.2018 along with all relevant documents, the applicant bank sanctioned Cash Credit facility of Rs.10.00 lacs (Rupees Ten lacs only) for working capital requirements on 06.03.2018 @11.10% rate of interest per annum with monthly rests against hypothecation of stock covered under Prime Mantri Mudra Yojana scheme. On the request of defendant no.1 dated 01.10.2018, the applicant bank enhanced the Cash Credit facility to Rs.32.00 lacs (Rupees Thirty Two lacs only) on 18.02.2019. Further, the applicant bank sanctioned Covid Emergency Line of Credit limit of Rs.3.00 lacs on 19.05.2020 and UGECL Term Loan of Rs.6.00 lacs on 04.07.2020 to meet liquidity crunch and cash flow mismatch to be repaid in 36 EMIs of Rs.16,666/-. The defendant no.3 stood as guarantor for the credit facilities sanctioned in favour of defendantno.1.

3. In order to avail the loan facility, the defendant no.1 submitted Loan Application Form along with relevant documents for Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojna and defendants executed Sanction Letter with Terms and Conditions, Consent for Disclosure of Information to CIBIL and Composite Agreement on 06.03.2018. In addition, the defendants executed Demand Promissory Notes, Consent for Disclosure of Information to CIBIL, Composite Agreement, Undertaking Letter, Interest Agreement, Term Loan Agreement, Simple sp reement, Letter of Continuity and Letter of Guarantee by d fendant no.3 and General form of Guarantee.

4. That in order to secure the credit facility, the defendant n•.3 offered her property situated at R-792, Gali No.1A, S atantra Nagar, Narela, Delhi and executed Form No.RF256R a ong with Sale Deed dated 08.11.2012 on 18.02.2019 in f your of applicant bank.

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after a ailing the credit facilities, the defendants failed to comply ith the terms and conditions of sanction and failed to gularize the account with the applicant bank. The applicant issued letter for renewal of credit limits and adjustment of o erdue on 20.11.2021 and also issued recall notice on 1 .12.2021 but no response. Ultimately, the applicant bank c assified the account as NPA on 19.12.2021 as per guidelines and issued legal notice dated 20.12.2021 but defendants n-glected. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this ribunal for recovery of their dues. Notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and econstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security I terest Act 2002 dated 06.01.2022 was issued to the defendant and took symbolic possession of the property on 21.04.2022 duly •ublished in two leading newspapers on 28.04.2022. Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and espite of proper service, the defendants have chosen to bsent from the proceedings. As per order dated 25.03.2026, t e defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as they have not ppeared before the Tribunal and even written statement, sp •

evidence and affidavit of assets have not been filed by the defendants.

8. In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Naveen Kumar, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents such as Power of Attorney, Loan Application, Sanction Letter, Consent Letters for Disclosure to CIBIL, Composite Hypothecation Agreement, Enhancement Request, Sanction/Renewal/Enhancement, Demand Promissory Note, Composite Agreement, Offer of Property as Security, General form of Guarantee, Sanction of ECL, Undertakings, UGECL Request Letter, Sanction of UGECL, Interest Agreement, Term Loan Agreement, Simple Agreement, Letter of Continuity, Letter of Guarantee, Letter for Overdue, Renewal Letter, Adjustment of Overdue Letter, Recall Notice, Legal Notice, Demand Notice u/s 13(2), Symbolic Possession Notice, Certified Statement of Account including Certificate of Accrued but Undebited Interest marked as Ex.AW-1/1 to ex.AW- 1/34(Colly).

9. The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments made in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the applicant bank is based on the documents and the same have been duly approved.

10. The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and there is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant bank and the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. saf

11. In the light of the above discussions, the Original Application deserves to be allowed.

ORDER

I, allow this OA and direct the defendant to pay to the applicant bank within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.42,39,335.21 (Rupees Forty Two Lacs Thirty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Five & paisa Twenty One only) as on 30.06.2022 together with pendentelite and future interest @11.25% per annum from 01.07.2022 till the date of realization and costs; failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stocks and mortgaged property situated at R-792, Gali No.1A, Swatantra Nagar, Narela , Delhi. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendant. (II) The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi. (III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 06.10.2026. (IV) Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be sent to all concerned free of cost. (GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI (Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 07.08.2026

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead