Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S Sana Enterprises

DRT22 Jan 2025TA/180/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of Rs. 16.11 lakhs along with interest and costs against M/s Sana Enterprises. The defendant was absent, and the tribunal proceeded ex-parte after the bank proved its case through documents. The court directed payment and issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Directed defendant to pay Rs. 16,11,555 with interest and costs within 30 days; directed issuance of recovery certificate.

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

¶1

T.A. No.180 of 2022

¶2

Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi 4th floor, Jeevan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi

¶3

Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sharma

¶4

T.A. No. 180 of 2022

¶5

State Bank of India (e-State Bank of Patiala) Stressed Assets Recovery Branch-II SBI House, 18/4, 4th Floor Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005

¶6

Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s Sana Enterprises through Proprietor Sh.Naveen Mishra Regd.Office: G-19, 2nd Floor Sector 11, Noida, UP-201301

¶9

Also at:

¶10

R-9/215, Flat No.52, 2nd Floor Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP

¶11

Also at:

¶12

250/4A, Mahendra Enclave Ghaziabad, UP Defendant

¶13

Present: Ms Madhumeet Kapoor, Counsel for applicant bank Date of Institution: 11.06.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 22.01.2025

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 11.06.2019 through Mr.Satish Kumar Kohli, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Sectior. 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.16,11,555/- (Rupees

¶16

T.A. No.180 of 2022

¶17

Sixteen Lacs Eleven Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Five only) as on 30.04.2019 along with pendentelite and future interest @12.85% per annum plus 2% penal interest per annum with monthly rest from the date of filing of this application till its realization and costs.

¶18

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant through its proprietor, the applicant bank sanctioned Cash Credit facility of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs only) on 30.12.2013 which was enhanced to Rs.10.00 lacs on 15.10.2014 and again to Rs.15.00 lacs on 12.06.2015 @12.75% interest against hypothecation of stock and book debts covered under CGTMSE cover. The applicant bank renewed the limits vide letter dated 03.03.2017 in favour of defendant. The defendant agreed to pay penal interest @2% per annum in case of default in repayment of interest.

¶19

That in order to avail the said loan facility, the defendant submitted loan application dated 05.12.2013 and executed Arrangement letter, Agreement for Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement, Access Letter, Consent for Disclosure of Information & DP Note Delivery-cum-Continuity Letter on 30.12.2013, 16.10.2014 12.06.2015 and lastly on 03.03.2017.

¶20

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facility, the defendant failed to comply with the terms and conditions of loan agreement despite several requests / visits for regularization of the account and diverted the funds. The applicant bank classified the account as Non Performing Asset on 28.05.2018 and issued various letters to adjust the dues but defendant failed to comply with the notice. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶21

54-

¶22

T.A. No.180 of 2022

¶23

The defendant executed revival letter dated 05.06.2018 and also as and when defendant committed default in repayment to confirm the debt towards the applicant bank.

¶24

Notices of this O.A. were issued and despite proper service, the defendant chose to absent from the proceedings and none appeared on behalf of defendant. As per order dated 18.03.2024, the defendant has been proceeded ex-parte due to non filing of written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets before this Tribunal.

¶25

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Satish Kumar Kohl', authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as Gazette Notifications Exhibit PW-1/1 (colly)and PW-1/2, Loan Application Exhibit PW-1/3, Arrangement Letter Exhibit PW-1/4, PW-1/6, PW-1/8 & PW1/10, Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement Exhibit PW-1/5, PW-1/7 & PW-1/9, Revival Letter PW-1/11, Balance Confirmation PW-1/12, DP Note Delivery-cum-Continuity Letter PW-1/13, Certified Ledger under Bankers' Books Evidence Act PW-1/14, Statement of Account PW-1/15 & Certificate of Interest PW-1/16.

¶26

The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments made in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the applicant bank is based on the documents and the same have been duly proved.

¶27

The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and there is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant bank and applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts.

¶28

5d1-

¶29

T.A. No.180 of 2022

¶30

In the light of the above discussions and documents on record, the Original Application deserves to be allowed.

¶31

ORDER

¶32

I, allow this OA and direct the defendant to pay to the applicant bank within 30 days, a sum of Rs.16,11,555/(Rupees Sixteen Lacs Eleven Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Five only) along with pendentelite and future interest @12.85% per annum with monthly rest and costs from the date of filing of this application, failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from sale of hypothecated stock and book debts etc. In case of shortfall / default the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable assets of the defendant.

¶33

(II) The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi.

¶34

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 24.03.2025.

¶35

(IV) Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be sent to all concerned free of cost.

¶36

(GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶37

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 22.01.2025

State Bank of India v. M/S Sana Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S Sana Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hdfc Bank versus Saraj Singh

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S Ishtiyaq Ahmad Kasana

Ashok Kumar versus Punjab National Bank

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Janaki Traders and Ors.

Bank of Baroda versus M/S S G India Auto Dealer

The South Indian Bank Limited versus M/S Als Satellite Education Private Limited