Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S Benipal Trading Company

DRT25 Feb 2025OA/1070/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the SBI applicant to recover Rs. 39,25,100/- along with interest against the defendants, who failed to repay loans granted by the bank, proceeding with the application ex parte and directing issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Allowed recovery of Rs. 39,25,100/- with interest; issued Recovery Certificate; directed sale of mortgaged properties and hypothecated stocks.

State Bank of India versus M/S Benipal Trading… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 1070 of 2022 Date of Institution: 11.05.2022 Date of Decision: 25.02.2025

¶4

SBI, having its branches all over India and a branch at Amloh District Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab.

¶5

……..Applicant Vs.

¶6

M/s Benipal Trading Company having business place at Shop no. 15, New Grain Market Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab.

¶7

Sukhvir Singh s/o Charan Singh r/o Baba Deep Singh Enclave Village Majri Kisnewali, Khanna Road, Amloh, Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab.

¶8

Harwinder Singh s/o Sukhvir Singh r/o Baba Deep Singh Enclave Village Majri Kisnewali, Khanna Road, Amloh, Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab.

¶9

……….Defendants

¶10

Advocates

¶11

Sh. SK Garg, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants - ex parte .

¶12

OA for the Recovery of Rs. 39,25,100/- with interest @7.80% per annum with monthly rests from 11.05.2022.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

SBI (Bank) has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of Rs. 39,25,100/- with interest against M/s Benipal Trading Company and others (defendants).

¶15

Bank’s case is that on 09.11.2015, it had granted a loan of Rs.30.00 Lacs to Defendant no. 1 and 2 in the form of C.C Limit and on 30.06.2020, it had granted a loan of Rs. 6.04 Lacs in the form of GECL Limit, for business purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant no. 3 had

¶16

¶17

mortgaged his property (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). Defendant no. 3 also stood as the guarantor. The loan was chargeable to interest @7.80% per annum with monthly rests. On 22.04.2022, a sum of Rs.39,25,100/- was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶18

On 16.06.2022, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 25.09.2023, they were proceeded ex parte .

¶19

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Sanjeev Parkash Verma, Authorized Officer along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A- 18.

¶20

I have perused the evidence on the record. I am of the considered view that the Bank has proved its case that it had advanced the loans under different schemes and on 22.04.2022, a sum of Rs. 39,25,100/was due.

¶21

Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.39,25,100/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lacs Twenty Five Thousand One Hundred Only) with interest @7.80% per annum with monthly rests from 11.05.2022, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of all the defendants would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged property fully detailed in para No.3A) of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants.

¶22

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

¶23

Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.

¶24

¶25

Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 26.03.2025, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgaged property(ies) and hypothecated stocks as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) of the Act . 10. A Copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to the Recovery Officer as well as the parties. Pronounced in the open Court. (A S Narang) Dated: 25.02.2025 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh

State Bank of India v. M/S Benipal Trading Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S Benipal Trading Company

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

Pratheesh Krishna versus Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited

M/s. Sanjeevani Life Care Village versus The Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd. represented by its Branch Manager

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Anurag Jain

Mrs Lata Gajanan Khandare and one versus Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited

1.Smt Manpreet Walia versus Punjab National Bank

M/S Toplon Industries Private Limited versus Punjab National Bank