Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S Bandana Manufacturers

DRT30 Jan 2025OA/1921/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of Rs. 25,04,669/- with interest under the RDB Act. The court found the bank's case proved via affidavit and evidence, directing recovery from security or personal assets and issuing a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; Recovery Certificate issued; recovery to be effected from hypothecated assets and personal property with interest.

State Bank of India versus M/S Bandana Manufacturers — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 1921 of 2022

¶4

Date of Institution: 19.09.2022 Date of Decision: 30.01.2025

¶5

SBI, having branches all over India having a branch at RDB, RACC, Reasi, Udhampur, Jammu & Kashmir.

¶6

……..Applicant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

M/s Bandana Manufacturers, a proprietorship Firm at Main Bazar Pouni, Udhampur, Jammu & Kashmir through its proprietor Ms. Bandhana Sharma s/o Shri Surinder Sharma.

¶9

Ms. Bandhana Sharma d/o Shri Surinder Sharma, Proprietor of M/s Bandana Manufacturers, r/o Main Bazar Pouni, Udhampur, Jammu & Kashmir.

¶10

……….Defendants

¶11

Advocates

¶12

Sh.Vivek Verma & Sanjay Sagar, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants – ex parte

¶13

OA for the Recovery of Rs. 25,04,669/- with interest @ 11.05% per annum with monthly rests from 19.09.2022.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

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. 25,04,669/- with interest against M/s Bandana Manufacturers and another (Defendants).

¶16

Bank’s case is that on 12.04.2021, it had granted a loan of Rs. 9.50 Lacs in the form of CC Limit and a loan Rs. 14.25 Lacs in the form of Term Loan Facility to the Defendant nos. 1 and 2, for business purposes. To secure the loan, Defendant nos. 1 and 2 had hypothecated assets (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). The said credit

¶17

¶18

facilities were secured by primary security of hypothecation of machineries and stocks, under CGTMSE scheme. The loan was chargeable to interest @11.05% per annum with monthly rests. On 17.09.2022, a sum of Rs. 25,04,669/- was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶19

On 07.10.2022, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 28.04.2023, they were proceeded ex parte .

¶20

4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the
affidavit of Mr. Sourabh Bakshi, Manager along with the loan and
security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-12.
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 the loan of
Rs.23.75 Lacs and on 17.09.2022, a sum of Rs. 25,04,669/- was due.
6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.
25,04,669/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Four Thousand Six Hundred
Sixty Nine Only) with interest @11.05% per annum with monthly rests
from 19.09.2022, 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 hypothecated assets as well as from the
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
04.03.2025, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the

¶21

¶22

hypothecated assets 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: 30.01.2025 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh

State Bank of India v. M/S Bandana Manufacturers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S Bandana Manufacturers

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

Mani versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

Punjab National Bank versus Shree Ganpati Logistics and Transport

Hdfc Bank Limited versus by Enterprises

ravinder kaur srivastava versus Icici Bank Limited

Shine P Jacob versus South Indian Bank

Canara Bank versus Ayam Studios Private Limited, Rep. by its Directors