Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
UCO BANK vs M/S VIRGIN INTERIORS on 23 June 2026
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH
BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER
TA No: 254/2023
Date of Institution: 30.04.2022
Date of Decision: 23.06.2026
UCO Bank having its branches all over the India and a branch at Badshah Chowk, Srinagar, Kashmir.
……..Applicant
Vs.
1. M/s Virgin Interiors Prop. Raj Mohammad Wani s/o Mohammad Ibrahim Wani, r/o Opposite UCO Bank, Badshah Chowk, Srinagar, Kashmir.
2. Mohammad Ibrahim Wani s/o Ashoor Wani, r/o Merad Uttarpura Puchhal, Pulwama, Kashmir.
3. Mohammad Shafi Wani s/o Mohammad Ibrahim Wani, r/o Merad Uttarpura Puchhal, Pulwama, Kashmir.
……….Defendants
Advocates
Mr. Lovish Kukkar proxy counsel for Sh. Nonish Kumar, Counsel for the applicant bank.
Defendants-ex parte vide order dated 28.04.2025.
TA for the Recovery of ₹25,54,269/- with interest @10.70% per annum with monthly rests from 30.04.2022.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
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…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
1. On 30.04.2022, UCO Bank, filed the suit for the recovery of ₹25,54,269/- with interest against M/s Virgin Interiors and others (defendants) in the Court of Principal District Judge, Srinagar. However, vide order dated 31.12.2022, this suit was transferred by the Court of Additional District Judge, (Bank Cases), Srinagar, to DRT-I, Chandigarh.
2. Bank’s case is that on 26.05.2014, it had granted C.C. Limit of ₹9.50 Lacs to defendant No.1 through its proprietor defendant No.2 for business purpose. On 14.01.2016, at the request of the defendants, bank enhanced the existing limit from ₹9.50Lacs to ₹25.00Lacs. To secure the loan, Defendant No.1 had hypothecated assets and mortgaged property (fully detailed in para No. 6 of the application). Defendant no.3 stood as the guarantor. The loan was chargeable to interest @10.70% per annum with monthly rests. On 27.04.2022, a sum of ₹25,54,269/- was due from the defendants. Defendants had duly acknowledged their liability towards debt on 27.09.2019, 11.06.2021 and 23.11.2021. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, the suit.
3. After transfer of this suit, summonses were sent to the defendants which were duly served. However, they did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 28.04.2025, they were proceeded ex parte.
4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Sh. Davinder Singh, Senior Manager, along with the original loan and security documents.
5. I have perused the evidence on the record. I am of the considered view that the Bank has proved its case that it had advanced the loan of ₹25.00 Lacs and on 27.04.2022, a sum of ₹25,54,269/- was due.
6. Accordingly, the case of the bank for the recovery of ₹25,54,269/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Fifty Four Thousand Two Hundred Sixty Nine Only) with interest @10.70% per annum with monthly rests from 30.04.2022, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of the defendants would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged land fully detailed in para No.6 of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants.
7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.
8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.
9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 24.07.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgaged land and hypothecated assets as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) of the Act.
10. A Copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to the Recovery Officer as well as the parties.
Pronounced in the open court.
(A S Narang) Dated: 23.06.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA