Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S Gokul Foods Products

DRT9 Sept 2025OA/123/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this debts recovery application, the State Bank of India sought recovery of Rs. 48,84,383/- plus interest from M/s. Gokul Food Products. The defendant appeared ex-parte. The Presiding Officer found the bank's evidence unrebutted, adjusted future interest to 7% p.a. simple, allowed the application, directed payment, and authorized sale of hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

The defendant ordered to pay Rs. 48,84,383/- plus 7% simple interest from 17.12.2022; defendant directed to liquidate hypothecated assets to recover dues.

State Bank of India versus M/S Gokul Foods Products — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on: 17.12.2022 Registered on: 04.10.2023 Decided on: 09.09.2025 Duration: Y M D 01 11 05

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Shri Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.123/2023

¶3

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 48,84,383/-

¶4

STATE BANK OF INDIA

¶5

A body corporate constituted under the State

¶6

Bank of India Act, 1955, having its Local Head

¶7

Office at, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai and

¶8

one of its branch At Stressed Assets Recovery Branch Aurangabad, through one of its officer … Applicant

¶9

i.e. City Case Officer, Shri. Abhay S/o Shridhar Boradkar, Age: 47 Years, Occupation: Service as City Case Officer, State Bank of India,

(OA No.123-2023)

Page 1 of 8

[Ambadas]

Branch at Stress Assets Recovery,

¶14

Aurangabad and having Authority to file the Application which includes the authority to

¶15

sign and verify the application.

¶16

Versus

¶17

M/s. Gokul Food Products

¶18

… Defendant

¶19

Through its Proprietor,

¶20

Shri. Vinaykumar Ashokkumar Maliwal,

¶21

Age: Years, Occupation: Business,

¶22

R/o: Shop No. 4, APMC Market, New Mondha, Nanded, Taluka and District Nanded- Pin Code- 431602, Mob No: 9823169201.

¶23

And

¶24

R/o: Sanman Garden, Borban Factory Area,

¶25

Nanded, Tal & Dist Nanded- Pin Code-

¶26

431602, Mob No: 9823167201.

(OA No.123-2023)

Page 2 of 8

[Ambadas]

APPEARANCES For the Applicant Mr. Arun Rakh – Advocate. For Defendant Ex-parte

¶31

J U D G M E N T Delivered on (09.09.2025)

¶32

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs. 48,84,383/- (Rs. Forty Eight Lacs, Eighty Four Thousand, Three Hundred and Eighty Three Only) together with interest @7.45% per annum with monthly rests upon from 04.12.2022 till the full realization of the entire dues and costs from the Defendant.

¶33

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶34

That the Defendant approached the Applicant Bank and requested the sanction of a Working Capital Demand Loan- WHR loan facilities of an amount of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- (Rs. Three Crores Only) as working capital for purchase of goods vide Letter of Arrangement dated 29.11.2019 and GECL (Guaranteed Emergency Credit Line) Term Loan Facility of Rs. 51,00,000/-

(OA No.123-2023)

Page 3 of 8

[Ambadas]

(Rs. Fifty One Lacs Only) vide Arrangement Letter dated 01.06.2020 on certain terms & conditions.

¶39

The agreed rate of interest for the Cash Credit and Term Loan @09.25% per annum with monthly rests.

¶40

In order to secure the aforesaid Cash Credit and Term Loan, the Defendant executed loan documents in favour of the applicant bank namely sanction letter, demand promissory note, request letter, hypothecation agreement, letter of undertaking, equitable mortgage etc.

¶41

The applicant bank contended that to secure the Cash Credit and Term Loan, the Defendant executed Agreement of loan Cum Hypothecation dated 01.06.2020 of the following property hypothecated in favour of the applicant bank:

¶42

Description of Hypothecated Asset:

¶43

Hypothecation of stock of finished goods (As per CAD kept at Ware House), raw materials, stock in process, consumables,

(OA No.123-2023)

Page 4 of 8

[Ambadas]

stores and spares, packing materials of the unit at the site or at some other places including goods in transit, outstanding moneys, book debts, receivables.

¶48

The applicant Bank further contended that the Defendant has failed to keep his promises and commitments agreed by him with regard to due repayment of the loan amount. The Defendant failed to operate the loan account properly and failed to pay the agreed rate of interest as per terms and conditions of the sanction letter. Thereafter the applicant bank repeatedly made demand of loan amount and called upon the Defendant to pay with the agreed rate of interest thereon, but the Defendant failed and neglected to pay the same. The loan account of the Defendant became irregular and classified as NPA on 31.01.2022. Therefore on 06.06.2022, the applicant Bank issued legal notice to the Defendant through their Advocate. Despite service of Notice, the Defendant failed and neglected to repay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank. Hence, this application is filed.

(OA No.123-2023)

Page 5 of 8

[Ambadas]

Despite service of summons, the defendant did not choose to enter appearance either personally or through their Advocate. Hence, the defendant was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 13.12.2023.

¶53

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence Exh.4 of Mr. Abhay S/o Shridhar Boradkar, City Case Officer of the applicant bank and has produced on record, the original loan transaction documents as Annexure A-I to A-VII along with list of documents Exh.5 which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶54

I have heard arguments of the learned Advocate for the applicant Bank.

¶55

Since the Defendant failed to contest the application, I find no reason to disbelieve the unrebutted evidence of the applicant Bank. Therefore, the applicant Bank is entitled for the reliefs as claimed.

¶56

The Applicant Bank has claimed future interest at @7.45% per annum with monthly rests besides @2% penal interest from

(OA No.123-2023)

Page 6 of 8

[Ambadas]

04.12.2022 till the full realization of the entire dues and costs from the Defendant. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that awarding future interest at @7% per annum (simple), it would be just and reasonable.

¶61

Hence, I pass the following order.

¶62

ORDER

¶63

(A) Original Application No.123/2023 is allowed with costs.

¶64

(B) The Defendant shall pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 48,84,383/- (Rs. Forty Eight Lakhs, Eighty Four Thousand, Three Hundred and Eighty Three only), along with future interest at @7% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the Original Application, i.e., 17.12.2022, till full payment/ realization of the said amount.

(OA No.123-2023)

Page 7 of 8

[Ambadas]

Applicant Bank vide document Annexure- A-III in list of documents Exh.5. The movable properties hypothecated to the applicant bank are described in Agreement of Loan Cum Hypothecation dated 01.06.2020 (Annexure A-III Page Nos. 70 to 76) in list of documents Exh.5.

¶70

(D) The applicant Bank is entitled to sell the hypothecated articles/goods etc., to recover its dues.

¶71

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶72

(F) The Registrar is directed to send the copy of the Judgment and Recovery Certificate to the applicant and Defendant.

¶73

(G) File be consigned to the record room.

¶74

Sd/-

¶75

(Dr. J. R. Chauhan) Place : Aurangabad Presiding Officer Date : 09.09.2025 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶76

(OA No.123-2023)

¶77

Page 8 of 8

¶78

[Ambadas]

State Bank of India v. M/S Gokul Foods Products

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S Gokul Foods Products

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Anand Govindrao Tipperse

Hdfc Bank versus Bramhadev Ankush Veer

Sunita Kailas Shelke versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Union Bank of India versus New Yash Enterprises

Maharashtra Gramin Bank versus Katneshwar Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd.

Union Bank of India versus Sanjay Namdev Gaikwad