Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
UCO BANK vs Smt Sampa Dutta on 8 May 2026
**ORDER SHEET**
**DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, SILIGURI**
**MA/09/2026**
UCO Bank
Vs
Smt. Sampa Dutta
Applicants
Respondents
<table border="1"><thead><tr><th style="text-align: center;">Date of Order</th><th style="text-align: center;">Order with Signature</th><th style="text-align: center;">Office action with date and dated signature of parties when necessary.</th></tr></thead></table>
Item No.33
08.05.2026
Order No.08
Present :-
Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Rajneesh Tripathi, virtually.
Counsel for the Defendant : None.
Judgment is passed in MA/09/2026 and a copy of the Judgment is kept on record.
Let the judgment be uploaded on website of the Tribunal and the Registry is directed to serve/send copy of this judgment to the parties free of cost.
Record be consigned to the record room along with the judgment.
**(RAKESH PATIL TIWARI)**
DRT-Siliguri
**IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, SILIGURI**
**M.A. No.09/2026**
**arising out of O.A. No. 31/2025**
UCO BANK, Balurghat Branch at Prachya Bharati Road, PO & PS- Balurghat, Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur, Pin: 733101, West Bengal, Branch Code- 000954, IFSC-UCBA0000954, Email- balurg@ucobank.co.in.
.....Misc. Applicant
Vs.
SMT SAMPA DUTTA WIFE OF LATE PINTU DUTTA, Khadimpur (Sandhya Cinema Hall Para), PO & PS- Balurghat, District- Dakshin Dinajpur, PIN: 733101, West Bengal.
.....Opposite Party
Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Rajneesh Tripathi.
Counsel for the opposite parties : Mrs. Jyoti Bhakta.
**PRESIDING OFFICER: RAKESH PATI TIWARI**
**Date of Judgment -08.05.2026**
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.
**J U D G M E N T**
1. The instant M.A. has been filed by the Misc. applicant/bank seeking restoration of O.A. No. 31 of 2025, instituted for recovery of Rs. 91,77,371/- (Rupees Ninety One Lakhs Seventy Seven Thousand Three Hundred Seventy One only) along with interest calculated upto 30.11.2024 and other reliefs against the opposite parties-defendants.
*Handwritten signature* **8.5.2026**
Debts Recovery Tribunal Siliguri
2. Case of the misc. applicant/ bank in short is that during pendency of the O.A., the matter was settled before the National Lok Adalat held on 13.09.2025, wherein the parties entered into a compromise for a total settlement amount of Rs. 46,70,000/-, out of which Rs. 6,70,000/- was paid upfront and the balance amount was agreed to be paid in two installments of Rs. 15,00,000/- and Rs. 25,00,000/- by 17.09.2025 and 27.09.2025 respectively. The Applicant Bank has contended that the defendant failed to pay any of the agreed instalments and thereby violated the terms of the compromise petition, rendering the settlement ineffective. It is further submitted that despite repeated opportunities and reminders, the defendant neglected to honour the settlement terms, causing serious prejudice to the Bank and hindering recovery of public funds. The MA applicant/Bank has further contended that due to such continued default, it was compelled to file the present (contd/...)
application for restoration of the original proceedings. The delay in filing the present M.A. has been explained as procedural and bona fide in nature, without any deliberate negligence or mala fide intention on the part of the Bank and prayer has been made to condone the delay of 57 days for filing the instant MA. Accordingly, the Applicant Bank/MA applicant has prayed for restoration of the Original Application and for proceeding with issuance of Recovery Certificate in accordance with law.
- 3. Service has been effected upon the opposite party and although Ld. Counsel of the opposite party had appeared but did not filed her written objection of the MA nor they have argue in this matter.
- 4. Learned counsel of the applicant has already been heard.
- 5. From perusal of the record it transpires that the Original Application was filed for recovery of the outstanding dues payable by the defendants and during pendency of the proceedings, the matter was amicably settled before the Lok Adalat on 13.09.2025 for an amount of Rs. 46.70 lakhs upon agreed terms and conditions and as per the terms of the settlement, 1<sup>st</sup> installment of Rs. 15.00 lakhs was to be paid by 17.09.2025 and the 2<sup>nd</sup> installment of Rs. 25.00 lakhs was to be paid positively by 27.09.2025. However, the defendants admittedly failed to adhere to the terms of settlement and did not pay the settled amount within the stipulated period, thereby rendering the compromise ineffective and frustrating the very object of settlement arrived at before the Lok Adalat.
*lmo* 8.5.2026
Debts Recovery Tribunal Siliguri
In case of **Navratan Lal Sharma Vs Radha Mohan Sharma &Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14328/2024 @ SLP (CIVIL) NO. 27723 OF 2024** decided on dated **12.12.2024**, the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that in case of non-compliance of the term of settlement, the compromise will be considered void. It is pertinent to mention here that in the aforesaid case also (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court had noticed that in para 4 of the Compromise Deed it was mentioned that in case of non compliance the appeal would be restored.
7. So far the instant matter is concerned there is one clause in the joint compromise petition (para no. 3) that in case of non-payment of the instalment amount on its due date, as per the settlement, the award of the Lok Adalat shall be treated as "Recovery Certificate" and directly recovery proceeding shall be initiated by the applicant bank for the recovery of original claim amount i.e. Rs.91,77,371.00 as on 30.11.2024 along with interest @ 9% per annum with monthly rests from 01.12.2024 without referring the matter before the bench of Debts Recovery Tribunal for adjudication of the claim amount.
(contd/...)
1. 8. This Tribunal finds substance in the submissions advanced on behalf of the Applicant Bank that the default committed by the defendants compelled the Bank to approach this Tribunal by filing the present Miscellaneous Application seeking restoration of the Original Application. The explanation furnished by the Applicant Bank regarding the delay of 57 days in filing the present application appears to be bona fide, reasonable and sufficiently explained. There is nothing on record to suggest that the delay was intentional, deliberate or caused due to negligence on the part of the Applicant Bank. On the contrary, it appears that the Applicant Bank acted diligently after it became evident that the defendants had no intention to honour the settlement terms.
2. 9. It is also pertinent to mention here that the dues involved in the present proceedings pertain to public money advanced by the Applicant Bank in the ordinary course of banking business. Refusal to restore the matter would cause serious prejudice to the Applicant Bank and may result in miscarriage of justice, whereas no irreparable prejudice would be caused to the defendants if the matter is restored and decided on merits.
3. 10. Accordingly, this Tribunal is satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown by the Applicant Bank for restoration of the Original Application. Hence, the prayer for restoration of O.A. No. 31 of 2025 deserves to be allowed in the interest of justice.
4. 11. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, M.A. filed by the applicant is hereby **allowed** by condoning the delay and the O.A. No. 31/2025 is restored in view of para No. 3 of the joint compromise petition.
5. 12. Let a Recovery Certificate be issued in favour of the applicant bank for Rs. 91,77,371.00 along with interest as on 30.11.2024 with further interest thereon @9.00% per annum with monthly rests from 01.12.2024 till realization of the entire dues amount.
6. 13. Registry is directed to send/serve copy of this order to both the parties free of cost.
7. 14. Let the record be consigned to the record room after uploading the order on the website of the Tribunal.
The judgment is signed and pronounced in the open Tribunal on 8<sup>th</sup> day of May, 2026.
*Rakesh Pati Tiwari* (RAKESH PATI TIWARI)
DRT, Siliguri Debt Recovery Tribunal Siliguri 08.5.2026