Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S Era Enterprises

DRT20 Nov 2025OA/179/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of dues comprising principal and interest with monthly rests from the due date, noting the defendants' ex parte absence and directing sale of property for recovery.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.50,68,944.20 with interest @9.05% p.a. from 21.01.2022 allowed; Recovery Certificate to be issued; property sale proceedings directed.

State Bank of India versus M/S Era Enterprises — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 179/2022 Date of Institution: 21.01.2022 Date of Decision: 20.11.2025

¶4

SBI having its branches all over India and a branch at Recovery Cell at SARB, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

M/s Era Enterprises, proprietorship firm, at Plot No.80, Ground Floor, Sector-1, Parwanoo, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, through its proprietor.

¶8

Ms. Shaefali Sood d/o Sh. Sanjeev Sood, Proprietor M/s Era Enterprises, r/o H.No.369, Sector-20 A, Chandigarh. 2^nd Address: Ms. Shaefali Sood d/o Sh. Sanjeev Sood, r/o H.No.181, Spangle Heights, H Block, Fourth Floor, Dhakoli, Zirakpur, District Mohali, Punjab.

¶9

……….Defendants

¶10

Advocates

¶11

Sh. P.S. Arora, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants - ex parte vide order dated 12.08.2024 .

¶12

OA for the Recovery of Rs.50,68,944.20p with interest @9.05% per annum with monthly rests from 21.01.2022. ORDER

¶13

SBI has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of Rs.50,68,944.20p with interest against M/s Era Enterprises and another (defendants).

¶14

Bank’s case is that on 27.06.2019, it had granted C.C. Limit-I of Rs.50.00Lacs and C.C. Limit-II for Rs.37.00Lacs to defendant No.1 through its proprietor i.e. defendant No.2 for Business purpose. Both the loans were chargeable to interest @9.05% per annum with monthly rests. On 16.01.2022, a sum of Rs.50,68,944.20p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶15

¶16

On 31.03.2022, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 12.08.2024, they were proceeded ex parte . 4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Sh. D. T. Kinner, Assistant General Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-9. 5. 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 total loan of Rs.87.00Lacs and on 16.01.2022, a sum of Rs.50,68,944.20p was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.50,68,944.20p (Rupees Fifty Lacs Sixty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Four and Paise Twenty Only) with interest @9.05% per annum with monthly rests from 21.01.2022, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of both the defendants would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants. 7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 26.12.2025, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds 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: 20.11.2025 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

State Bank of India v. M/S Era Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S Era Enterprises

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

Idfc First Bank Ltd. versus Rajji Narang

Punjab National Bank versus M/S S M Agro Products

Icici Bank Limited versus V.D. Concrete Flooring Pvt. Ltd.

Sumitra Singha versus Uco Bank

Bank of India versus Sh. Padam Singh @ Padam Singh Bisht

Bank of Baroda versus Ram Singh