Dismissed

Varun Roshan Kohli v. State Bank of India

DRT18 Jun 2025SA/221/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act. The Tribunal held that the Respondent Bank's transfer of funds and subsequent SARFAESI actions were lawful and consistent with a Letter of Arrangement signed by the Applicant who had admitted defaults.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act dismissed; pending interim applications disposed of.

Varun Roshan Kohli versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – 1, KOLKATA JEEVANSUDHA BLDG. 9^TH FLOOR, 42/C, J.L.NEHRU ROAD, KOLKATA – 700071

¶3

BEFORE SHRI AMBUJA MOHAN DAS, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SA No. 221 of 2022

¶5

VARUN ROSHAN KOHLI,

¶6

son of Naresh Kohli, residing at Flat Bo. 602, Moore Heights, 93, Manik Bandopaddhay Sarani, P.O.- Regent Park, Kolkata – 700040.

¶7

....................Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Bank of India, a Public Sector Bank under the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, having its office at Samridhi Bhawan, B Block, P.S.- Hare Street, No. 1 Strand Road, Kolkata – 700001.

¶10

Mrs. Reema Dey, Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Samridhi Bhawan, B Block, P.S.- Hare Street, No. 1 Strand Road, Kolkata – 700001.

¶11

Mr. Anil Kumar, General Manager, State Bank of India, Samridhi Bhawan, B Block, P.S.- Hare Street, No. 1 Strand Road, Kolkata – 700001.

¶12

Mr. S S Dash, Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, SBI Kolkata Zonal Office, Samridhi Bhawan, B Block, P.S.- Hare Street, No. 1 Strand Road, Kolkata – 700001.

¶13

Mr. Debajyoti Banerjee, Branch Manager, SME Park Street Branch, 2^nd Floor, 195 M G Road, Opposite Burra Bazar Police Station, P.S.Burrabazar, Kolkata – 700007 and also carrying on business at Samridhi Bhawan, B Block, P.S.- Hare Street, No. 1 Strand Road, Kolkata – 700001.

¶14

Mr. Apurva Biswas, Chief Manager, previously Relationship Manager SME Park Street Branch, having its office at 2^nd Floor, 195 M G Road, Opposite Burra Bazar Police Station, P.S.- Burrabazar, Kolkata – 700007 and also carrying on business at Samridhi Bhawan, B Block, P.S.- Hare Street, No. 1 Strand Road, Kolkata – 700001.

¶15

¶16

Assistant General Manager, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, State Bank of India, having its office at Kankaria Centre, 2/1, Russell Street, P.S.- Park Street, Kolkata – 700071.

¶17

.......................Respondents

¶18

Present:

¶19

For Applicant: Mr. Naresh Kohli (representative of Mr. Varun Roshan Kohli, Applicant)

¶20

For Respondents: Mr. Shiv Mangal Singh Ld. Counsel

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

(Delivered on 18^th June, 2025)

¶23

The Sarfaesi Applicant has filed application u/s 17(1) of the Sarfaesi Act against the Respondent Bank(SBI) and other officers of the respondent no. 1 Bank challenging action of the Respondent no. 1 Bank and their officers with prayer for refund of Rs. 92.56 lakhs alongwith interest to the Applicant which the Respondents transferred from Cash Credit account to Term loan account without consent or communication to the Applicant, to set aside the Demand Notice dated 07/04/2022, possession notice dated 05/07/2022 and declare steps taken by the Respondent Bank and their officers as bad in law and void.

¶24

It is also stated by the Applicant that the applicant carries business of Sales and Service of Wireless Communication Products and Systems under the name and style of "M/S Kohlbros Wireless Solutions". The said business of the applicant is classified as a Medium and Small Enterprise business, duly registered under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSME Act). The Applicant filed Registration Certificate issued by Government Of India Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises as a micro manufacturing concern vide annexure ‘A’.

¶25

3.Applicant got a contract from Kerala Police in respect of DMR Radio Trunking System for the implementation on a Turnkey basis for entire Thrissur district for total expenditure of Rs. 14.72Crore. Applicant

¶26

¶27

approached the Respondent Bank and in August 2019, the Respondent Bank extended business credit facilities to the applicant which had an overall limit of Rs. 3.5 Crores, of which the Cash Credit limit was Rs. 75 Lakhs and the remaining Rs. 2 Crores and Rs 75 Lakhs were the limits in respect of Letters of Credits (LC) and Bank Guarantees (BG) respectively. Applicant furnishes security in respect of loan as the Credit Facility to the tune of Rs. 1.57 Core and Rs. 18 lakhs from the residual value of Rs. 94 lakhs home loan totaling Rs. 1.75 Crores. Other facilities of Rs. 3.5 Crores sanctioned to the Applicant against such security. Applicant annexed Letter of Arrangement dated 06/08/2019 as Annexure ‘B’ made with the Respondent no. 1 Bank. As per Letter of Arrangement as Annexure ‘B’ Respondent Bank has given Cash Credit loan of Rs. 0.75 Crore. Cash Credit was fund based limit and non-fund based limit i.e. letter of credit of Rs. 2 Crore (Usance 90 days) and BG(performance) of Rs. 0.75 Crores total limit Rs. 3.5 Crore.

¶28

It is further submitted by the Applicant that due to Covid 19 lock down they are unable to complete the project. It is submitted by the Applicant that Applicant paid all the dues of letter of credit and not defaulted even one. After four months lock down five completed sites out of nine were entirely damaged and the towers were all disintegrated for which work had to be restarted and installations were required to be done from the scratch and the process of rebuilding started around 2020.

¶29

The Applicant submits that reconstruction of five damaged sites out of the entire nine sites after Lockdown of Covid -19 need a fixed expenditure of Rs. 8.5 lakhs per months towards maintenance of the site. But due to huge cost of reconstruction during the second lockdown the applicant run out of money and failed to pay Letter of Credit(LC) on

¶30

¶31

time. The Applicant has annexed payment statement towards Letter of Credit vide Annexure ‘C’.

¶32

The Applicant approached Kerala Police to release some funds to complete the projects. The Government of Kerala released Rs. 2.94 Crore to complete the balance 20% of the Project.

¶33

It is submitted by the Applicant that on August 18^th 2021 he received information from the Kerala Police and fund has been released and the Applicant would get Rs. 2.94 Crore in three lots in the first lot Applicant would receive Rs. 28.32 lakh on August 2021, in second lot an amount of Rs. 1.99 on 27^th August 2021 and Rs.1.41 crores on September for third and final lot.

¶34

Applicant informed this to the Branch and Relationship Manager of Respondent no. 5 who is Respondent no. 5 & 6 in this case intimation received from Kerala Police and Respondent nos. 5 and 6 requested to send e-mail on August 19^th 2021 and Applicant annexed the said mail as annexure “E”.

¶35

19/08/2021 and 27/08/2021 when the Applicant received Rs. 28.32 and Rs. 1.19 Crore from Kerala Police into the account of the Associates entity of the applicant "M/S. Kohlbros Wireless Solutions". LLP. Respondent no. 5 put a hold to the entire transaction and without the consent or knowledge of the Applicant or the associate entity instructed Respondent no. 6 to transfer the entire amount received by the Applicant. The said amount was given by Government of Kerala for completion of the project. Respondent no. 6 on instruction of Respondent no. 5 transferred Rs. 1.4732 Crores to the Applicant’s, A/c in SME Park Street Branch. For entire transactions of 30 installments each installment is Rs. 5 lac, Applicant made quarries with the

¶36

¶37

Respondents but they have not given proper reply till date as to the reasons for deduction of Rs. 1,4732 Crores which were transferred from Applicant’s Cash Credit account to SME Park Street Branch without consent of the applicant. Transfer of Rs. 1,4732 Crores is illegal. The Applicant has annexed the Bank’s statement vide Annexure ‘F’.

¶38

It is further stated by the Applicant that after transfer of Rs.1.4732 Crore to applicant’s Account SME Park Street Branch as per instruction of the Respondent no. 6. Respondent no. 6 transferred Rs. 18 lakh, 70 Lakh mentioned as WCTL and Rs. 4 lakh to another fund interest term loan (FITL). The said amount received by the Applicant from Kerala Police after completion of project on adhoc basis.

¶39

On enquiry from Respondent no. 5 and 6, the Applicant verbally informed Working Capital Term Loan like a suspense account where the fund of the Applicant would be kept till the devolved letter of Credit (LC) amount of Rs. 1.62 Crore would be cleared and after that only original limit letter of credit would be restored. It is pleaded by the Applicant that respondent transferred the money illegally and arbitrarily and in complete dereliction of their duties and act beyond their jurisdiction.

¶40

On the above facts in order to settle the issue with the applicant, Respondent authority held a meeting and in the said meeting the Respondent produced two letters dated 02/04/2021 and 28/06/2021 regarding proposal of sanction. The applicant was made to learn his account has been debited without any approval or sanction.

¶41

On enquiry from the Relationship Manager, Respondent no. 7 the Applicant was informed that Respondent no. 1 debited without approval or permission of the applicant from Applicant’s loan account. It was held that the said amount was debited to protect the loan account turning

¶42

¶43

into NPA and the Applicant requested the Respondents by e mail and also verbally that Rs. 92.56 lakh debited wrongly transferred to the WCTL and the request of the Applicant was rejected.

¶44

Applicant wrote a letter to Chief General Manager of the Respondent on 11/11/2021 and 03/02/2022 through e mail but there was no response from the respondent Bank. Copy of letters dated 11/11/2021 and 03/02/2022 have been annexed by Applicant as Annexure ’G’. The Applicant approached Managing Director and Chief Managing Director about the illegalities made by the officer, SME Branch,Park street but there was no response. The Applicant sent e mail dated 12/02/2022 which is annexed vide Annexure ‘H’.

¶45

Relation Manager of the Respondent no. 1 informed the Applicant that Respondent no. 1 transferred Rs. 92.56 lack from Cash Credit Account on the basis of Applicant’s mail on 19/08/2021. The Applicant lodged criminal cases against SME Branch under section 406 and 420 of the IPA. It is pleaded by the Applicant that Applicant has not given consent for transfer of Rs. 92.56 lac from CC account to WCTL account. It is also alleged by the Applicant that such amount was not due or not payable on 27/08/2021 in 60 monthly installments. The Applicant annexed the letters and mail communicated between applicant and respondents vide Annexure ‘J’.

¶46

On 25/03/2022 SME Park Street Branch migrated the account of the Applicant to Respondent no. 7(Stressed Assets Recovery Branch). Respondent no. 7 served notice u/s 13(2) on 07/04/2022 which is illegal. Thereafter the Respondent no. 7 served notice u/s 13(4) on 05/07/2022. It is contended by the applicant that the said position is also incorrect. The Applicant annexed the Demand Notice dated

¶47

¶48

07/04/2022 vide Annexure ‘K’.and Possession Notice dated 05/07/2022 vide Annexure ‘L’.

¶49

In this SA Applicant has challenged Demand notice as well as possession notice and also prayed for refund of Rs. 92.56 lakhs with interest and for setting aside the Demand Notice dated 07/04/2022 and Possession Notice dated 05/07/2022.

¶50

18.The Respondent Bank has filed affidavit in opposition to the SA contending that the Applicant admitted disbursement of loan facilities in favour of the Applicant on agreed terms and conditions secured by the immoveable properties. Applicant also admitted Letter of Credit of Rs.1.98 Crore.

¶51

The Respondent Bank further contended that Applicant also admits issuance of Demand Notice and Possession Notice and the SA is not maintainable and ought to be dismissed with huge cost. The Respondent Bank also contended that Applicant availed various credit facilities being Home Loan, Car Loan, Cash Credit, Letter of Credit, Bank Guarantee, WCTL and FITL from time to time on agreed terms and conditions.

¶52

It is further contended that in the month of June 2019, the Sarfaesi Applicant approached the concern branch of the applicant bank thereby representing himself as the Sole Proprietor of M/S Kohlbros Wireless Solutions with the request for sanction of the various credit facilities for the purpose of his business. The concern branch of the applicant bank duly considered request of the SARFAESI Applicants and vide its Letter of Arrangement dated 28.08.2019 which duly sanctioned the following credit facilities on agreed terms and conditions and also upon execution of series of Loan documents in favour of the concern branch of the applicant which are as follows:

¶53

Facility Limit

¶54

¶55

Cash credit	Rs. 75,00,000.00p
LC (Usance 90 days)	Rs. 2,00,00,000.00p
BG (Performance)	Rs. 75,00,000.00p
Total Limits	Rs. 3,50,00,000.00p

¶56

After the disbursement of aforesaid credit facilities, the Sarfaesi Applicant has duly used and utilized the same but out of the aforesaid sanctioned limit, the credit facility being Letter of Credit for an amount of Rs. 1.98 Crore was devolved due to non payment by the SARFAESI Applicant and the facts regarding such default in repayment of the devolved Letter of Credit within the period of 90 days to the defendant bank has been categorically admitted by the SARFAESI Applicant. 22.Due to such default in repayment of the letter of Credit, the loan account of the Sarfaesi Applicant was running irregular and overdrawn as a result of which the Sarfaesi Applicant made a request with the concern branch of the applicant bank in the month of May 2021 with request to allow him some time to repay the dues of the applicant bank arising out of the loan accounts of the SARFAESI Applicant and for that the SARFAESI Applicant had duly made a request for restructuring of the loan accounts in respect of his aforesaid proprietorship concern.

¶57

23.The authorities of defendant bank duly considered the request of the Sarfaesi Applicant and vide its letter of Arrangement dated 28.06.2021 duly restructured the aforesaid loan accounts of the proprietorship concern of the SARFAESI Applicant thereby sanctioned/restructure the following credit facilities on agreed terms and conditions as mentioned in the letter of Arrangement dated 28.06.2021 duly accepted by the SARFAESI Applicant thereby putting his

¶58

¶59

respective seal and signatures thereon. After restructuring of the Credit facilities which is as per following table:

¶60

Facility	Existing Limit	Revised Limit
Cash Credit	Rs. 75,00,000.00	Rs. 75,00,000.00
WCTL	---------------------	Rs. 1,58 00,000.00
FITL	---------------------	Rs. 4,00,000.00
LC	Rs. 2,00,00,000.00	NIL
BG	Rs. 75,00,000.00	Rs.67 00,000.00
Total Limits	Rs. 3,50,00,000.00	Rs. 3,04,00,000.00

¶61

But despite of the restructure of the aforesaid credit facility, the Sarfaesi Applicant has failed and neglected to comply with the agreed terms and conditions of the same and created several financial irregularities and violated agreed terms and conditions of Letter of Arrangement dated 28.06.2021.

¶62

The Sarfaesi Applicant vide his email dated 19.08.2021 duly acknowledged the overdue outstanding of Rs. 1.64 Crore arising out of their aforesaid loan account with the request to adjust the repayment of Rs. 92 Lac towards the overdue outstanding in respect of his loan account as stated therein.

¶63

On request of the SARFAESI Applicant, the defendant bank has duly adjusted an amount of Rs. 70,00,000/- (Rupee Seventy Lac only) in the WCTL Account of the SARFAESI Applicant. But despite of the adjustment of Rs. 70,00,000/-, the outstanding in respect of WCTL has not been fully recovered.

¶64

Subsequently on 27.08.2021, the SARFAESI Applicant has made various transactions in the Cash Credit Account thereby transferring the

¶65

¶66

substantial amount through Net Banking and NEFT from Cash Credit Account to LLP Account, Personal Account and also in the Account of Rashmi Kohli in deviation and violation of the agreed terms and conditions of the agreed terms and conditions of Letter of Arrangement dated 28.06.2021.

¶67

At the outset, it would be evident from the materials on record of the instant case that the SARFAESI Applicant has intentionally suppressed the aforesaid facts. As the Sarfaesi Applicant was unable to maintain the loan accounts in respect of his aforesaid proprietorship concern even after the restructure of the same, a joint meeting was held with the Sarfaesi Applicant on 23.09.2021 with the DGM and other officials of the bank at the office of the defendant bank. And in such meeting, the Sarfaesi Applicant has agreed on various terms and conditions and terms and conditions was duly minutised/ recorded in writing in which all the bank officials including the SARFAESI Applicant put their respective signatures thereon. Copy of minutes of the meeting dated 23.09.2021 is annexed herewith and marked with the Letter “A”.

¶68

29.That subsequent to the said meeting and upon submissions of the required documents by the Sarfaesi Applicants with the defendant bank, the concern branch of the defendant bank vide its letter of Arrangement dated 11.11.2021 duly Sanctioned the following credit facilities in favour of Sarfaesi Applicant on agreed terms and conditions as mentioned the said Letter of Arrangement dated 11.11.2021 duly accepted by the SARFAESI Application thereby putting his respective seal and signatures thereon. The Letter of Arrangement dated 11.11.2021 as per following table:

¶69

Facility	Existing Limit	In	Revised	Limit	In
	Crore		Crore
Cash Credit	Rs. 0.75 Crore		Rs. 0.75	Crore

¶70

¶71

WCTL	Rs. 1.58 Crore	0.00**
FITL	Rs. 0.04 Crore	0.00
LC	0.00	Rs. 2.00 Core
BG	Rs. 0.67 Crore	Rs. 0.75 Crore
Total Limits	Rs. 3.04 Crore	Rs. 3.50 Crore

¶72

** The entire outstanding of WCTL will be liquidated by 31.12.2021,

¶73

The SARFAESI Applicant was unable to pay the dues arising out of his aforesaid loan accounts of the proprietorship concern, the concern branch of the defendant bank on being request made by the SARFARSI Applicant and also on his undertaking duly sanctioned the aforesaid credit facilities whereby the defendant bank has duly sanctioned fresh limit of Letter of Credit for an amount of Rs. 2 Crore out of which the SARFAESI Applicant has further availed the credit facility of letter of Credit of Rs. 1.10 Crore. Again Letter of Credit further devolved as a result the loan account of the SARFAESI Applicant was running irregular and overdrawn. But the above facts have been intentionally suppressed by the Sarfaesi Applicant.

¶74

However, since the Home Loan Account of the Sarfaesi Applicant has been classified as Non-Performing Asset on 18.03.2022 in view of the facts as disclosed in paragraph no. 11 of the instant Section 19 Application duly annexed as Annexure ‘B’. As per Assets Classification Norms and Guide Lines of Reserve Bank of India, the aforesaid loan accounts in respect of the proprietorship concern of the Sarfaesi Application have also been classified as Non-Performing Assets on 18.03.2022.

¶75

¶76

Respondent Bank has denied in particular that the amount of Rs. 28.32 Lac and Rs. 1.19 Crore was transferred in cash credit account from the LLP account of the SARFAESI Applicant without the consent of the SARFAESI Applicant at the instructions of the Respondent no.5 or the defendant bank has not replied the reasons for deduction of Rs. 1.4732 Crore OR the amount was transferred from the LLP Account of the SARFAESI Applicant to the Cash Credit Account without the consent of the SARFAESI Applicant OR the actions of the defendant bank are illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, in colorable manner to make deduction from the LLP Account OR the account of the SARFAESI Applicant as untruly alleged by the SARFAESI Applicant.

¶77

Letter of Credit amounting to Rs. 1.98 Crore has not been disputed by the SARFAESI Applicant the limit of Letter of Credit was Rs. 2 Crore only out of which the Letter of Credit amounting to Rs.1.98 Crore has been devolved and the defendant bank has no option left but to pay the said amount of Letter of Credit to the beneficiary thereby debit the cash credit account of the defendant with such devolved amount of Letter of Credit resultant the loan account of the Sarfaesi Applicant was running irregular and overdrawn. As per the request of the SARFAESI Applicant, the aforesaid credit facilities in respect of the proprietorship concern of the Sarfaesi

¶78

Applicant has been restructured vide Letter of Arrangement dated 28.06.2021 on agreed terms and conditions thereby opening the WCTL and FITL loan accounts.

¶79

¶80

Subsequent to the restructure of the aforesaid credit facilities, the Sarfaesi Applicant vide his email dated 19.08.2021 duly acknowledged the overdue outstanding of Rs. 1.64 Crore arising out of his aforesaid loan account with the request to adjust the repayment of Rs. 92 Lac towards the overdue outstanding in respect of his loan account as stated therein. Accordingly on such instructions and request of the SARFAESI Applicant, the defendant bank has duly adjusted an amount of Rs. 70,00,000/- (Rupee Seventy Lac only) in the WCTL Account of the SARFAESI Applicant.

¶81

It is specifically denied by the Respondents that alleged facts regarding adjustment of Rs. 70 Lac in the WCTL Account of the Sarfaesi Applicant without the consent of the Sarfaesi Applicant as untruly alleged by the Sarfaesi Applicant. Sarfaesi Applicant vide his email dated 19.08.2021 made a request to the defendant bank for adjustment of the amount towards the overdue outstanding in respect of the loan account as referred to in the said mail.

¶82

Regarding criminal complaint in Hare Street Police Station, said complaint is devoid of merit and Respondent Bank will take appropriate action for dismissal of the complaint and prays for dismissal of the SA as it is not maintainable.

¶83

Applicant has taken several credit facilities for running of the business of Proprietorship Firm Cash Credit loan of Rs.75 lakh and letter of credit of Rs. 2 Crore and Bank guarantee of Rs. 75 lakhs. As per pleadings of the parties Credit Facilities were restructured on the application of the Applicant and revised

¶84

¶85

limits of Rs. Rs. 75,00,000.00, WCTL- Rs. 1,58 00,000.00, FITL-Rs. 4,00,000.00, LC- NIL, BG- Rs.67 00,000.00, total- Rs. 3,04,00,000.00

¶86

Thereafter, there was a meeting with the Applicant and as per the meeting dated Respondent Bank issued fresh letter of arrangement dated 11/11/2021 and sanctioned following credit facilities:

¶87

Facility Existing Limit In	Crore to Revised Limit In Crore
Cash Credit Rs. 0.75 Crore	to Rs. 0.75 Crore
WCTL Rs. 1.58 Crore	to 0.00**
FITL Rs. 0.04 Crore	to 0.00
LC 0.00	to Rs. 2.00 Crore
BG Rs. 0.67 Crore	to Rs. 0.75 Crore
Total Limits Rs. 3.04 Crore	to Rs. 3.50 Crore

¶88

As per letter of arrangement the entire outstanding of WCTL will

¶89

¶90

Liquidated by 31.12.2021.

¶91

After restructure of credit facilities Respondent Bank sanctioned fresh limit LC Rs. 2.00 Crore and out of which applicant availed credit facilities of Rs. 1.10 Crore. The said amount of LC Again devolved as a result the loan account of the Sarfaesi Applicant was running irregular and overdrawn for which Home Loan Account of the Sarfaesi Applicant has been classified as Non-Performing Assets on 18.03.2022. The Respondent Bank has also filed Application Under Section 19 of The Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the Sarfaesi Applicant and his proprietorship concern praying for issuance of Recovery Certificate against the Sarfaesi

¶92

¶93

applicant and his proprietorship concern for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,86,48,883.86p (Rupee One Crore Eighty Six Lac Forty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Three and paisa eighty six only) with further interest and other prayers. Respondent Bank also took Sarfaesi measures against the Applicant which would evident from the pleading of the Applicant i.e. Possession Notice on 05/07/2022.

¶94

The allegation of the Applicant is that Rs. 92.56 lakhs has been transferred by the respondents from Cash Credit account to Term loan account without consent or communication to the Applicant. The defendants filed an e-mail dated 19/08/2021 to adjust Rs. 70 lakhs towards Term Loan A/c but Rs. 72 lakhs due and also allow LC Rs. 50 lakh 20% margin as usual. The Applicant has also annexed the same e mail in the SA in which Applicant request for adjust of Rs. 70 Lakhs in full and final of O/s. It is also stated that Rs. 1.34 Crore will be received on or before 30/09/2021 and after completion of project applicant will get Rs. 7.36 Crores balance outstanding from Kerala Police.

¶95

On the basis of email given by the Applicant , the Respondent Bank issued letter of Arrangement dated 11/11/2021 which was signed by the Applicant and the Branch Manager of the Respondent Bank by which Cash Credit- Rs. 0.75 Crore revised to Rs. 0.75 Crore, WCTL- Rs. 1.58 Crore revised to NIL, FITL- Rs. 0.04 Crore revised to NIL , LC -0.00 revised to Rs. 2.00 Crore, BG -Rs. 0.67 Crore revised to Rs. 0.75 Crore and Total Limits Rs. 3.04 Crore revised to Rs. 3.50 Crore. So, the adjustment made by the Bank as per request of the Applicant by e-mail and transfer of Rs. 92.56

¶96

¶97

lakhs by the Respondents from Cash Credit account to Term loan account as per letter of arrangement made by the Respondent Bank on the request of the Applicant for which Applicant is not entitled for refund of the said amount.

¶98

Applicant has taken plea of MSME concern. The Respondent Bank has restructured loan facilities as the Applicant is a MSME concern several times. Letter of arrangement dated 28/06/2021 has restructured under SME-I , similar letter of arrangement dated 11/11/2021 is also issued under SME-I but Applicant has suppressed facts regarding request for restructure and e mail to the Respondent Bank. There is no merit in the SA. The Sarfaesi actions of the Respondent Bank is in accordance with the Sarfaesi Act as the applicant become defaulter in respect of credit facilities taken from the Bank. Hence the application under section 17 of the Sarfaesi Act is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. It is ordered:

¶99

O R D E R

¶100

SA/221/2022 is dismissed on contest against the Respondents. Consequently, pending I.A.s are also disposed of.

¶101

Copy of the Judgment/Final Order be uploaded in the

¶102

Tribunal’s website.

¶103

File is consigned to the Record Room.

¶104

(Dictated to P.S., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the day 18^th June, 2025.

¶105

(Ambuja Mohan Das)

¶106

¶107

	Order Sheet (continuation)
Case NO. SA/221/2022	Varun Roshan Kohli Vs. State Bank Of India & Ors.
Date of the Order	Order with Signature Office action date and da Signature Parties whe necessary

¶108

¶109

18/06/2025	Present:
	For Applicant: Mr. Naresh Kohli (representative of Mr.Varun Roshan Kohli, Applicant) For Respondents: Mr. Shiv Mangal Singh Ld. Counsel Matter was heard in open Court on 16.04.2025. The detailed order in 16 pages annexed separately. The gist of the order is as follows:
	O R D E R SA/221/2022 is dismissed on contest against the
	Respondents. Consequently, pending I.A.s are also disposed of. Copy of the Judgment/Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s website.
	File is consigned to the Record Room. (Dictated to P.S., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the day 18^thJune, 2025.
	(Ambuja Mohan Das) Presiding Officer

Varun Roshan Kohli v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Varun Roshan Kohli v. State Bank of India

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ms Dutta Builders and Developers versus Punjab National Bank

Shri Mohit Bhukta and Anr. versus Punjab National Bank

Ms Deecon India Pvt. Ltd. versus Canara Bank

Hdfc Bank versus Rasonamoyee Jewellers Pvt. Ltd.

Shri Narayan Dutta and Anr. versus Cholamandalan Investment and Finance Company Limited

Union Bank of India versus Mahua Chatterjee