Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S Radhe Radhe Enterprises

DRT5 Mar 2025OA/389/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of a loan amount along with interest against a proprietorship firm and its proprietor who were proceeded ex parte. A recovery certificate was issued. , directing sale of hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 52,73,112.74 with interest and costs allowed, recovery certificate issued. Joint and several liability of defendants decided. Hypothecated assets directed to be sold.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 389/2023 Date of Institution: 13.02.2023 Date of Decision: 05.03.2025

¶4

SBI, having its branches all over India and a branch at Main Market, Nagrota Bagwan, Tehsil Nagrota Bagwan, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh.

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

M/s Radhe Radhe Enterprises, a proprietorship firm, at Village and Post Office Matour, Opposite Renault Showroom, Gaggal Road, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, through its proprietor Smt. Sonali Gupta w/o Sh. Satish Chander Gupta.

¶8

Smt. Sonali Gupta w/o Sh. Satish Chander Gupta, proprietor of M/s Radhe Radhe Enterprises, r/o Village and Post Office Dari, Tehsil Dharamshala, Jhikli Dhar, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh.

¶9

……….Defendants

¶10

Advocates

¶11

Mr. Vivek Verma, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants - ex parte .

¶12

OA for the Recovery of Rs.52,73,112.74p with interest @11.55% per annum with monthly rests from 13.02.2023.

¶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.52,73,112.74p with interest against M/s Radhe Radhe Enterprises and another (defendants).

¶15

Bank’s case is that defendant No.1 is proprietorship firm and defendant No.2 is its proprietor. On 14.05.2020, it had granted a C.C Limit of Rs.10.00 Lacs and Term loan of Rs.35.00 Lacs on 22.03.2021, to defendant No. 1 through defendant No.2 for business purpose. Further,

¶16

¶17

on 27.09.2021, at the request of defendant No.1 through defendant No.2 bank had granted FITL of Rs.2.13 Lacs. To secure the loan, Defendant No.2 had hypothecated stocks, plant and machinery (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). The loans were chargeable to different rates of interest. On 09.02.2023, a sum of Rs.52,73,112.74p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶18

On 09.03.2023, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 29.02.2024, they were proceeded ex parte .

¶19

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Vinay Kumar, Branch Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-13. 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 loans under various schemes and on 09.02.2023, a sum of Rs.52,73,112.74p was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.52,73,112.74p (Rupees Fifty Two Lacs Seventy Three Thousand One Hundred Twelve and Seventy Four Paise Only) with interest @11.55% per annum with monthly rests from 13.02.2023, 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 stocks, plant and machinery fully detailed in para No.3A of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants.

¶20

¶21

7.	Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.
8.	Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.
9.	Parties are directed to appear before	Recovery Officer on
04.0	4.2025,who is directed to distribute the	sale proceeds of the
hypo	thecated Stocks/assets 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 R	ecovery Officer as well as the parties.
Pron Date	ounced in the open Court. d: 05.03.2025	(A S Narang) Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh

State Bank of India v. M/S Radhe Radhe Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S Radhe Radhe 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

Union Bank of India versus Smt Ranjit Kaur

Hdfc Bank versus Messers. Concept Enterprises

South Indian Bank versus Ms J and J Granites and Marbles

Ms Northern Combines versus Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited

Dps Screw Factory and Another versus Punjab and Sind Bank

Archana Kumari and Others versus Can Fin Homes Ltd.