Allowed

Aryavart Bank v. M/S Singh Mini Rice Mill

DRT10 Dec 2025OA/1002/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CrRB adjudicated an ex-parte recovery application filed by Aryavart Bank against five borrowers and guarantors. The bank claimed Rs. 24 Lakh+ outstanding under a 2017 credit facility secured by deeds and guarantees. Finding the claim supported by documents and within limitation, the Tribunal held the defendants jointly and severally liable, allowed the application in toto, and ordered issuance of

What did the court decide?

Order for Recovery Certificate of Rs. 24,87,277.61 plus 12% p.a. interest from filing date with costs; sale of secured and personal assets directed.

Aryavart Bank versus M/S Singh Mini Rice Mill — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW

¶3

e er with signature of court Office action
taken with
proceeding
date
O. A. No. 1002/2024
10.12.2025 The Judgment is signed and
pronounced on separate sheets. Separately
attached in 07 sheets.
Order be uploaded on the Tribunal’s
website.
(Dictated)
(
(Pravas Kuma __ngh)
Presiding Officer
(Mugish)

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT LUCKNOW

¶5

Present: Pravas Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

¶6

Case No. Original Application No.1002 of 2024

¶7

Dated: 10.12.2025

¶8

Aryavart Bank (Gramin Bank of Aryavart), having Branch at A-2/46, Vijay I<hand, Gomati Nagar, Lucknow – 226010 and one of its Branch Office at Kotwa Sara k, P.O. Hataundha, Barabanki, Uttar Pradesh ........Applicant-bank 225405.

¶9

Versus

¶10

M/s Singh Mini Rice Mill (Proprietorship Firm/Borrower) Through its Proprietors. Smt. Ram Lala Singh & Sri Suneel Pratap Singh, Add: Village Tuniha, Post Medua, District Barabanki, Uttar Pradesh – 225405.

¶11

Smt. Ram Lala Singh W/o Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, R/o Village Tuniha, Post Medua, District Barabanki, Uttar Pradesh – 225405.

¶12

Sri Suneel Pratap Singh S/o Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, R/a Village Tuniha, Post Medua, District Barabanki, Uttar Pradesh -225405.

¶13

Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh S/o Sri Surya Bux Singh, R/o Village Tuniha, Post Medua, District Barabanki, Uttar Pradesh – 225405.

¶14

Sri Vishvanath Singh S/o Sri Pashupati Singh, ......Defendants R/o Village & Post Medua, District Barabanki, Uttar Pradesh – 225405.

¶15

Ld. Counsel for Applicant-bank: Shri Rama Kant Dubey, Advocate Ld. Counsel for the Defendants: None.

¶16

JUDGEMENT

¶17

¶18

O.A. No. 1002 of 2024

¶19

¶20

This Original Application has been filed by the Applicant-bank under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendants for the recovery of Rs.24,87,277.61/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs, Eighty Seven Thousand, Two Hundred Seventy Seven and Paisa Sixty One Only) together with pendent-lite and future interest, costs and other reliefs etc

¶21

The brief facts of case are that the defendants No.1 is a proprietorship firm of which defendant no.2 & 3 are the proprietors and the defendant Nos.4 & 5 are the guarantors. The defendant No.2 & 3 on behalf of the defendant No.1 had approached the applicant bank for grant of Cash Credit Facility of Rs.12.00 lacs vide its sanction letter dated 31.03.2017 on certain terms and conditions (Exhibit No. A-3 & Exhibit No. A-4) to this Original Application.

¶22

In order to further secure the repayment of the bank dues, the defendant No.2 & 4 created equitable mortgage in respect of property i.e. . Residential Plot situated at Village – Nawazpur, Tehsil – Rudauli, District Barabanko, U.P. having area of 1 11.52 square meters registered in the name of Smt. Rama Lala Singh W/o Sri. Rajesh Singh. (2) Khasra No.106 area 0.478 hectare, Me 106 min area 0.080 hectare, Village Meduwa Pargana Suryapur, Tehsil Ram Sanehi (}hat, District Barabanki in favour of the bank by deposit of title deed (Exhibit No. A-5 to Exhibit No. A-7) to this Original Application.

¶23

To secure aforesaid credit facility, defendants had executed and signed various security documents in favour of the Applicant-bank. The

¶24

¶25

O.A. No. 1002 of 2024

¶26

defendant No.4 & S signed and executed Guarantee Agreement dated 31.03.2017 (Exhibit No.A-8 to Exhibit No.A-9) to this Original Application.

¶27

To avail the aforesaid credit facility, the Applicant-bank had opened loan accounts in the name of defendant No.1 in order to maintain the credit facilities.

¶28

After availing the aforesaid credit facility, the defendants failed to maintain financial discipline and also failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, consequently, the loan account of the defendant no.1/firm was classified as NPA on 28.02.2018 by the bank as per RBI guidelines, thereafter the Applicant-bank issued Demand Notice dated 16.07.2018 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to the defendants (Exhibit No. A-13). Finally, the applicant bank issued possession notice dated 17.11.2018 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (Exhibit No.A14). That the applicant bank has served recall notice dated 20.08.2024 to the defendants, (Exhibit No. A-15 to Exhibit No.A-16) but, the defendants stated no-response and they failed to repay the same and the loan accounts of the defendants are still un-liquidated, hence, this Original Application has been instituted.

¶29

As per books .of the bank maintained in the usual and ordinary course of banking business, an outstanding of Rs.24,87,277.61/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs, Eighty Seven Thousand, Two Hundred Seventy Seven and Paisa Sixty One Only) including interest upto 04.09.2024, were lying due for payment, for which the defendants are jointly and severally liable to repay the same, which they did not pay despite repeated requests and demand.

¶30

¶31

4 O.A. No. 1002 of 2024

¶32

The Applicant-bank filed the Statement of loan Accounts. (Exhibit No.A-18) to this Original Application.

¶33

The cause of action for filing the present application arose firstly on 31.03.2017 when the aforesaid credit facility were sanctioned by the Applicant-bank and the same were availed by the defendants and necessary documents were executed by the defendants. The cause of action further arose on when Recall Notice dated 20.08.2024 was sent to the defendants, recalling the entire outstanding dues and they failed to pay the same.

¶34

The summons were served upon the defendants through registered post, but the defendants did not appear before the Tribunal to contest their case, hence the matter proceeded ex- parte against the defendants.

¶35

From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the defendants were provided with fair opportunities to contest the claim of the bank. As the defendants opted not to contest the case, so only point of consideration before this Tribunal is as to whether bank is legally entitled to the amount as claimed in Original Application on the basis of documents and pleading submitted by it.

¶36

In support of the case Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Regional Manager of the Applicant-bank has filed an affidavit.

¶37

On a careful scrutiny of the evidence on affidavit and Exhibits marked as Exhibit No.A-1 to Exhibit No.A-20, it is proved that defendants had availed the credit facilities from the Applicant-bank by executing loan and security documents detailed as above in favour of the Applicant-bank. A perusal of the application, evidence and documents relied upon clearly

¶38

¶39

5 O.A. No. 1002 of 2024

¶40

show that defendant had utilized the above loan facilities as granted to them. The Applicant-bank had maintained the Books of account in the ordinary course of banking business showing disbursal of the loan amount. The Bank had also charged interest from time to time and the entries are relevant u/s 4 of the Banker Books of Evidence Act. It is also proved that the Applicant-bank’s claim is within limitation against defendants, therefore, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the dues.

¶41

Accordingly, the defendants are directed to pay the balance dues to the Applicant-bank within a period of 2 months from the date of judgement failing which the Applicant-bank will be entitled to sell the mortgaged property, and personal assets/ properties of the defendants.

¶42

The Applicant-bank has claimed [email protected]% per annum with monthly rest w.e.f. 04.09.2024 till the date of realization and costs. On the basis of foregoing discussion, I find that cause for interest of justice will be served if pendent- lite and future interest is granted @12% per annum with monthly rest reducing balance from the date of filing of the O.A. till the date of realization with costs.

¶43

1 find that the bank has proved the execution of loan documents and creation of mortgage in its favour. In the result, the Original Application succeeds as ex-parte against the defendants with costs. The bank has proved the loan execution of loan documents in favour of the bank and availment of credit facility. The liability of the defendant Nos.1 to 5 are joint and several and mortgaged property, as well as the personal properties are to be sold

¶44

¶45

O.A. No. 1002 of 2024

¶46

It is, therefore , ordered

¶47

(i) That the Original Application No.1002 of 2024 of the Applicant bank for issuance of Recovery Certificate to the tune of Rs.24,87,277.61/(Rupees Twenty Four Lacs, Eighty Seven Thousand, Two Hundred Seventy Seven and Paisa Sixty One Only) along with the interest @12% per annum with monthly rest from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 12.09.2024 till the loan is fully liquidated and costs succeeds ex-parte against the defendants.

¶48

(ii) The defendants are directed to pay the dues within a period of two months from the date of judgement, failihg which the Applicant-bank will be entitled to recover the same from the secured assets, personal movables and immovable assets of the defendants.

¶49

(iii) The Applicant–bank is entitled to recover aforesaid amount by sale of mortgage property (if not sold earlier under the provision of the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act 2002). The amount, if any already recovered by sale or otherwise shall be recoverable, if the dues of the Applicantbank still remain unsatisfied, the same shall be recovered by attachment and sale of the personal movable assets of the defendant jointly and severally.

¶50

(iV) The defendants are hereby restrained by means of injunction from depleting, transferring, encumbering, alienating or in any way dealing with their properties/estates without first paying the claim of the Applicant-bank.

¶51

O.A. No. 1002 of 2024

¶52

¶53

(V) Let Recovery Certificate be issued immediately u/s 19(22) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 by fixing 10.02.2026 before R.O., DRT, Lucknow.

¶54

(vi) The Applicant-bank is directed to file a memo of cost for preparing Recovery Certificate u/s 19(22) of the Recovery of Debts Bankruptcy Act, 1993 .

¶55

Judgment is pronounced in the open court.

¶56

Dated: 10.12.2025

¶57

(Pravas I<um. Singh) Presiding Officer

¶58

(MK)

Aryavart Bank v. M/S Singh Mini Rice Mill

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aryavart Bank v. M/S Singh Mini Rice Mill

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Axis Bank versus Manish Kumar

M s Chandan Health Care and Others versus Punjab and Sind Bank

Harshit Oberoi versus State Bank of India

Ujjivan Small Finance Bank Limited versus Aman Kansal

Axis Bank versus Shailesh Kumar Singh

Canara Bank versus Sh.Jitesh Kumar