UNION BANK OF INDIA vs MS THE BEIJING CHINA on 3 November 2026

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant ban( on 23.05.2018 through Mr. Rambir Singh, Branch Manager of the applicant ban( under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993 against the sole defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.10,38,001.30 together with cost, charges and pendentellite and future interest @10'30o/o p.a. from 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 sole defendant, the applicant bank sanctioned a Cash Credit Limit Facility of Rs.10,00,000/-, vide sanction letter dated 19.04.2016 for running the restaurant & catering. It is submitted that Bithika Das Guptb is the proprietor of M/s the Be'rjing China is the borrower which had availed $)\.

TANO.366of 2022

assistance inter-alia from corporation bank in OA and has hypothecated the stocks and assets. The sole defendant executed all necessary loaning documents on 1 8. 03. 20 1 6, L9.04.20 16, 1 2. 05. 20 1 8 a nd 30. 04. 20 18.

3. It is fufther submitted that the sole defendant 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 sole defendant to regularize the loan account by visits and letters, but there was no response from the sole defendant. Hence, the account was classified as NPA. The applicant bank served a legal notice dated 12.05.2018 to the sole defendant 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, sole defendant failed to put appearance at all. Accordingly, the sole defendant was proceeded against exparte on 15.05.2024.

6. After perusing the records, this Tribunal is of the view that the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. The doc_uments filed by the applicant t\'.

5. The applicant bank has filed documents along with O.A as Paper No.16 to Paper No.74, which have gone unchallenged and un-rebutted. Hence, the case of the applicant stands fully established against the sole defendant with respect to nonpayment of outstanding amount.

TANO. 366 of 2022

bank not rebufted by the sole defendant by not placing any evidence and there is no question of disbelieving the 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 sole defendant to pay to the applicant bank within 30 days from today, a sum of Rs.10,38,001.30 along with cost, expenses and interest @12.50% 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 of hypothecated assets. In case of short fall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of personal movable and immovable assets of the sole defendant.

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

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

TANO.366of 2022

5) Parties are directed to appear before the Ld. Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi on 04.0t.2027. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. File be consigned to records. This judgement has been signed, dated and pronounced in open court. Ic^ (susHrL KUMAR -riAbrocr) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi Date : 03.11.2026 1d. (SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFRCER DRT-II, Delhi Date : 03.11.2026 t