Allowed

State Bank of India v. Siya Traders

DRT22 Jul 2025OA/844/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application for recovery of Rs. 40,88,148 and ordered the issuance of a Recovery Certificate under Section 19 of the RDB Act. Interest was granted pendent lite at 11.95% and 9.90% on cash credit and working capital term loan accounts respectively.

What did the court decide?

Dues of Rs. 40,88,148 with interest granted; Recovery Certificate issued u/s 19 of RDB Act; Injunction against sale of properties.

State Bank of India versus Siya Traders — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

CONTD. ORDER^. SHEET

PAGE NO

CASE NO

DATE	DESCRIPTION OFTHEORDER	REMARK
OA 22t07/25	Judgment pronouncedintheOpenCourtCamp at Raipur.CopyofJudgment beissuedtothePartiesas perrutes.Recordbeconsignedto theRecordRoom. s Pate[) Pres gofficer DRT:Jabatpur CampCourt:Raipur	$.61-..x^....-,-- 'ffFr[.,Hp -^r:-.y+\r-r) l0\filt,.lLr..^

¶5

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL : JABALPUR

¶6

(for the States of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh)

¶7

cAttP couRT AT RAIPUR (C.G.)

¶8

(Presiding Officer - Hon'bte Shri Ram Niwas Patet)

¶9

Originol Application No. - 844/23

¶10

State Bank of lndia, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Btock B-1, Pujari Chamber, Pachpedi Naka, Tikrapara, Raipur^(C.G.)

¶11

..... Applicant

¶12

Versus

¶13

01 ) M/s Siya Traders, Proprietor-5hri Anant Kumar Singh

¶14

Shri Anant Kumar Singh, S/o Shri Sanjay Singh

¶15

(1 & 2 Main Road, Jainagar, Bishrampur, District-Surajpur, C.G. 497226\

¶16

Shri Ajay Kumar singh, 5/o Shri Ram Nihora^Singh

¶17

Shri Sanjay Kumar^Singh, S/o Shri Ram Nihora^Singh

¶18

(3 & 4 at Ward No.-1, BajarPara,

¶19

Jainagar, BishramPur,

¶20

District-Suraj Pur, C.G.^497226)

¶21

Defendants

¶22

Counsel for the Appticant :^{Shri AbinavKherdikar,Advocate}

¶23

Defendants : Ex-Parte

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

(Dated : z/d JutY, 2025)

¶26

l.TheAppticant-BankhasfitedthepresentOrigina[Apptication u/s1gofRecoveryofDebtsandBankruptcyActonlg/07/23againstthe Defendants for^{recovery of Rs. 40,88,148.00 (Rupees Fourty Lakh, Eighty} Eight Thousand,^{One Hundred and Fourty Eight onty)atong with interestand} other retiefs as^stated.

¶27

Z. The brief facts^{of the case are that on the request of} Defendant^{No.'1 through its Proprietor DefendantNo"2' the Appticant Bank} sanctioned^{Cash Credit Limit of Rs' 30 Lakh on 73107/19' renewedCash} credit Limit^{and atsosanctioned GECL'Workingcapitat Term Loan of Rs'}

¶28

¶29

oA844t23

¶30

6,03,500/- on 23/06/20, ln consideration of the sanction of credit facitities the Defendant No.-'l & 2 as borrower and Defendant No.-3 & 4 as guarantors in addition to execution of loan documents, have also created equitabte mortgage over the immovabte property, i.e., Khasra No.-33/2, vitlageJainagar, Bishrampur, District-Suraj pur (C.G.), area'1000 sq.mtr.; betonging to Defendant No.-3. The Defendant No.-1 & 2 avaited the credit facilities and atso executed Revival Letter on 14/07/22 but did not adhere to the terms and conditions of sanction letters. The accounts were ctassified as NPA and the Defendants failed to liquidate the outstanding dues despite issuance of Legat Notice on 24/04/23 by the Appt.icant Bank. The AppticantBank has relied upon the documents at Ex. A-1 to A-14 which were proved by Shri Shantanu Dasgupta, Chief Manager.

¶31

Despite service of notice, the Defendants neither appeared nor filed written statement. They were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 30/07 /74. There is therefore, no reason to disbetieve the contentions of the Bank. Considering the facts of the case, I opine that the Defendants are jointty and severatly liabte to pay the ctaim amount together with interest and costs. The Appticant-Bank in its apptication has ctaimed interest @11.95% p,a. with monthly rests in cash credit account and interest @g.goy" p.a. with monthty rests in WCTL account. However, I feet it fair and reasonabte to grant interest @11,95% p.a. simpte in cash credit account and interest @9.90% p.a. simpte in wcrl account pendentetite and future titt reatization of the dues. The mortgaged property is tiabte to be sotd for recovery of amount due atong with the personal properties and assets of the Defendants.

¶32

The Originat Application is attowed and it is ordered as under_

¶33

i) The Defendants do pay jointty and severatly Rs. 40,gg,14g.00 (Rupees Fourty Lakh, Eighty Eight Thousand, One Hundred and Fourty Eight only) together with pendentetite and future interest @11.95% p.a. simpte in cash credit account and interest @9.90% p.a. simple in wcrL account from the date of fiting of the oA, i.e., 1g / 07 / 23, with costs titt its reatization.

¶34

ii) The Appticant Bank is entitted to sett the mortgaged as wetl as persona[ properties and assets of the Defendants for realization of its dues. fhe Defendants are hereby restrained b means of injunction from

¶35

¶36

oA844123

¶37

depteting, transferring, encumbering, atienating or^{in anyway deating with} their properties / assets without first^paying the ctaim^{of the Applicant Bank.}

¶38

iii) A Recovery Certificate be issued u/s 19(72) of^Recoveryof Debts and Bankruptcy Act. The appticant bank^{may fite} a^{memo of cost} within 7 days for^preparing Recovery Certificate.

¶39

Judgment pronounced in the open court^{on this Day of 22nd Juty, 2025 at} Camp Court Raipur.

¶40

o'7^' =/ .> (Ra m Niwas Pate[) Presidine Offrcer

State Bank of India v. Siya Traders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Siya Traders

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

Central Bank of India versus Shri Madhusudan Singh

State Bank of India versus Kishor Shopping Mall Private Ltd.

Central Bank of India versus M/s Pitamber Filing Station, through Its Proprietor- Shri Anil Kumar Singh

Central Bank of India versus M/S Polytech India through Its Partners Sonam Agrawal , Yashvardhan Agrawal

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Shambhavi Agencies through Its Propreitor Praveen Padmaker

Uco Bank versus Pusha Rajesh Jha