Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/s. Core Auto Components Pvt. Ltd.

DRT26 Nov 2025TA/1005/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application for recovery under Section 19 of the RDB Act. The court held the bank proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, directed payment of Rs. 97,03,530 plus interest and costs within 30 days, and issued a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to jointly and severally pay Rs. 97,03,530 plus interest and costs within 30 days and issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

State Bank of India versus M/s. Core Auto… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

Beforc SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI,^{Presiding Officer} Debts RecoverY Tribunal-Il, Delhi

¶2

TA No.l005 OF 2023

¶3

STATE BANK OF II{DIAVS^{M/S CORE AUTO} COMPONENTS PvT LTD^{& ORS}

¶4

Reserved on : 1O.1O.2O25 Pronounced on : 26.11.2O25

State Bank of India

-Applicant bank

Vs.

M/s Core Auto ComPonents^{Pvt Ltd}

¶9

Smt. Sarita Jain

¶10

Shri Rakesh lain

¶11

Defendants

¶12

Present: Mr. Puneet^{Pankaj, Counsel appears for} apPlicant bank. Defendants are exparte^{dated 08.07.2025}

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

This original application^{has been filed by the} applicant bank, on^{01.08.2016 through Shri.Mithilesh} Kumar, Branch^{Manager and Principal Officer of the} applicant bank, under^{Section19 of the Recoveryof} Debts and Bankruptcy Ad,^{1993 againstthe} defendants for^{recovery of a sum of Rs.97,03,530/-} together with cost,^{charges and pendentelliteand} future interest @17.80o/o^{from date of filing of this O'A.} till the realization^{in full.}

¶15

The brief^{facts of the caseare that at the request} of the defendants,^{the applicantbank a Cash Credit} (Hypothecation & Book-Debts)^{Limit Facilityunder} C.G.T.M.S.E Scheme^{of Rs.95.00 Lacs on 27.07.2013} for smooth running business of the defendant^no.1. sJ.

¶16

¶17

TANO. 1005 of 2023

¶18

The defendants executed all necessary loaning documents on 01.08.2013. The defendant no.1 hypothecated and created first charge on its entire current assets including stocks of finished goods, bookdebts, fixed assets, receivable, book-debts, etc., with the applicant bank. The defendant nos.2 and 3 stood as guarantors in their personal capacity by executing the guarantee agreements agreeing inter-alia to pay all the outstanding amounts with interest etc.

¶19

It is further submitted that the defendants enjoyed and utilized the Loan facility, but failed to maintain the financial discipline and failed to repay the due amounts. The applicant bank requested the defendants to regularize the loan account by visits and letters, but there was no response from the defendants, hence the account was classified as NPA in 29.04.20t6. Therefore, the applicant bank served a legal notice datd 27.07.2016 to the defendants but failed to recover the same. Thus, the present O.A.ff.A. is preferred by the applicant bank to recover its dues.

¶20

On notice by this Tribunal, defendants^put appearance through counsel and filed written statement but failed to file evidence and the right to file evidence of defendants was closed on 15.04.2019. Thereafter, the defendants failed to^put appearance in the matter, despite issuance of default notice. Accordingly, the defendants were^proceeded against exparte on 08.07.2025.

¶21

TANO. 1005of2023 3

¶22

The applicant bank has filed evidence by way of affidavit of Ms. Preeti Khanduri, Chief Manager and Principal Manger of the applicant bank as Paper No.1 to Paper No.99 which have gone unchallenged and unrebutted. Hence, the case ofthe applicant bank stands fully established against the defendants with respect to nonpayment of outstanding amount.

¶23

After^perusing the records, this Tribunal is of the view that the applicant bank has^proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. The evidence^and documents filed by the applicant bank not rebutted^by the defendants by not^placing any evidence^{and there} is no question of disbelieving the evidence^and documents filed by the applicant bank^{based upon the} written/printed documents.

¶24

In the light of the above discussions, the^presentT.A. deserves to be allowed.

¶25

ORDER

¶26

I hereby allow this T.A. of the^{ApplicantBank and} direct the defendant nos. 1 to 3 to^{pay jointly and} severally to the applicant bank within 30^{days from} today, a sum of Rs.97,03,530/- along^{with cost,} expenses and interest @ L2.70o/o^{from the date of filing} of this O.A. which has become^{T.A till the date of} realization.

¶27

In case of failure to deposit the above^amount within the stipulated^period, the same^{shall be} recovered from the sale hypothecated^{assets.In case} of short fall, the same shall be^{recovered from the sale} €A\

¶28

¶29

TA NO. 1005 of 2023

¶30

of personal movable and immovable assets of the defendant nos. 1to 3.

¶31

Recovery Certificate be issued fofthwith and be sent to Recovery fficer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi.

¶32

The registry of this Tribunal is hereby directed to issue free copy of the order and send the same to both the parties.

¶33

Parties are directed to appear before the Ld. Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhion 27.01.2026. Pending LAs, if any, stand disposed of.

¶34

File be consigned to records. _

¶35

(g<br>

¶36

Date : 26.11.2025

¶37

(susHrl rufrnn nn$rocr PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

¶38

This^judgement has been signed, dated and pronounced in open court.

¶39

.--.__a- '-' q,\

¶40

'-'

¶41

Date : 26.11.2025^(SUSHIL KUMIR nnStobt) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

State Bank of India v. M/s. Core Auto Components Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/s. Core Auto Components Pvt. Ltd.

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