UNION BANK OF INDIA vs Sanjay Dogra and Another on 30 October 2026

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 18.09.2017 through Shri. Nilay Kumar, Authorized Officer/ Branch Manager of the applicant bank, under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.22,26,011.50 together with cost, charges and pendentellite and future interest @t2.70o/o fronr date of filing of this O.A. till the realization in full.

2. The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant) the applicant bank sanctioned Working Capital Cash Credit Limit Facility of Rs.20,00,000/- vide sanction dated 11.03.2015 against hypothecation of stocks and bcok debts. The defendant executed all necessary loaning docunlen$ on 11.03.2015. a

TANO.237 of 2023

3. It is further submitted that the defendants enjoyed and utilized the Loan facilities, 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 classifled as NPA dated 31.05.2017. The applicant bank served a legal demand recall notice dated L0.07.20t7 to the defendants but failed to recover the same Thus, the present O.A.ff.A. is preferred by the applicant bank to recover its dues.

4. On notice by this Tribunal, defendants put appearance through counsel and filed written statement but failed to file evidence. Thereafter, the defendants failed to put appearance in the matter, despite issuance of default notice. Accordingly, the defendants were proceeded against expafte on 20.08.202.

5. The applicant bank has filed evidence by way of affidavit of Mrs. Barkha Wadhwa, Senior Manager of the applicant bank as Paper-l to Paper No.40, which have gone unchallenged and un-rebutted. Hence, the case of the applicant stands fully established against the defendants with respeC 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 placing any evidence and_there is no question of . s\'..

TANO.237 of2023

disbelieving the evidence and documents filed by the applicant bank based upon the written/printed documents. In the light of the above discussions, the present T.A. deserues to be allowed.

ORDER

1) I hereby allow this T.A. of the applicant bank and direct the defendant nos.1 and 2 to pay jointly and severally to the applicant bank within 30 days from today, a sum of Ps.22,26,0tt 50 along with cost, expenses and interest @11.75olo 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 stipulated period, the same shall be recovered from the sale hypothecated assets. In case of shoft fall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of personal movable and immovable assets of the defendant nos.1 and 2.

3) Recovery Ceftificate be issued forthwith and be sent to Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi.

4) The registry of this Tribunal is hereby directed to issue free copy of the order and send the same to both the pafties. -ifi

TA NO. 237 of 2023

5) Pafties are directed to appear before the Ld. Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi on 30.12.2026. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. File be consigned to records. ea Date : 30.10.2026 (SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFRCER DRT-II, Delhi This judgement has been signed, dated and pronounced in open court. Date : 30.10.2026 t\ (SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi (