UCO BANK vs VISHAL SRIVASTAV on 28 October 2026

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant ban( on 05.09.2018 through R.K. Meena, Branch Head of the applicant banlg under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993 against the defendants for remvery of a sum of Rs.13,10,062- together with cost, charges and pendentellite and future interest @12olo from date of filing of this O.A. till the realization in fuil.

2. The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendants, the applicant bank sanctioned a Term Loan Facility of Rs.13.83 lakhs. The defendants executed all necessary loaning documents on 31.03.2017. It is submitted that for security due repayment of the aforesaid term loan, in the form of prima s0 ry security, the

TANO. 1670 of 2022

defendants hypothecated with the applicant bank Car Make: Mahindra, Model: XUV 500 W6 White along with accessories.

3. It is further submitted that the defendants enjoyed and utilized the Loan hcilities, but failed to maintain the financial discipline and failed to repay the due amounts. The applicant bank requested the defendants to regularize the loan account by visits and letters, but there was no response from the defendants. Hence the account was classified as NpA dated 31.05.201g. The applicant bank served a demand notice dated 19.0g.201g to the defendants but failed to recover the same Thus, the present O.A.ff.A. is preferred by the applicant bank to recover ib dues.

4. On notice by this Tribunal, defendants failed to put appearance at all, despite publication. Accordingly, the defendants were 05.09.2023. proceeded against expafte on 5, The applicant bank has filed evidence by way of affidavit of Mr. R.K Meena, Branch Head of the applicant bank as Paper No.3 to paper No.64, which have gone unchatlenged and un-rebutted. Hence, the case of the applicant stands fully established against the defendants with respect to nonpayment of outstanding amount.

6. After perusing the records, this Tribunal is of the view that the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. The evidence and documents filed by the applicant bank not rebutted by the defendants by not t'*,*-*,,!"a-. 9e

TANO. 1670of2022 3 placing any evidence and there is no question of disbelieving the evidence and documents fited by the applicant bank based upon the written/printed documents. In the light of the above discussions, the present T.A. deserves to be allowed.

ORDER

1) I hereby allow this T.A. of the applicant bank and direct the defendant nos.1 to 3 to payjoinfly and severaily to the applicant bank within 30 days from today, a sum of Rs.13,10,067/- along with mst, expenses and interest @72o/o from the date of filing of this O.A. which has become T.A till the date of realization.

2) In case of failure to deposit the above amount within the stipurated period, the same shail be recovered from the sale of hypothecated vehicle i.e., Mahindra, Model: XUV S00 W6 White. In case of short fatt, the same shall be recovered from the sale of personal movable and immovable assets of the defendant nos.l to 3.

3) Recovery Certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal_Il, Delhi.

4) The registry issue free copy of the parties. of this Tribunal is hereby directed to the order and send the same to both a-f.*+: ;90

TANO. 1670of2022

5) Pafties are directed to appear before the Ld. Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi on 2g.12.2026. pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. File be consigned to records. (SUSHIL Date : 28.10.2026 PRESIDING OFEICER DRT-II, Delhi This judgement has been signed, dated and pronounced in open court. Date : 28.10.2026 1,0 fldu (SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi ) 1L )