Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S Sanmati Oil and Spare Parts

DRT17 May 2025TA/2807/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tribunal allowed the original application by the bank for recovery of dues against defaulted defendants proceeding ex-parte. Ordered defendants to pay principal, interest, and costs with direction for recovery sale of assets.

What did the court decide?

Directing defendants to pay Rs.49,12,314.37 plus interest and costs within 30 days; recovery from sale of hypothecated or other properties if not paid.

State Bank of India versus M/S Sanmati Oil and Spare Parts — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 2807 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.2807 of 2022

¶5

State Bank of India Udyog Sadan, Patparganj Industrial area, Delhi-110092 Applicant Versus 1. M/s Sanmati Oil and Spare Parts Through its partners A-449, Main Wazirabad Road Meet Nagar, Delhi-110094 2. Sh.Satyaveer Jain s/o Salek Chand Jain V-549, Gali no.18, Vijay Park Maujpur, Delhi-110053 Also at: B-540, Gali no.2 Meet Nagar, Delhi-110094 3. Sarita Jain w/o Sh.Satyaveer Jain V-549, Gali no.18, Vijay Park Maujur, Delhi-110053 Also at: C-7/105, Yamuna Vihar Delhi-110053 4. Bharat petroleum Corporation Limited 28-A.E.C.E House, Kasturba Gandhi Marg Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Defendants Present: Ms Shalini Upadhyay, Counsel for the applicant bank Date of Institution: 19.112018 Date of Pronouncement: 17.05.2025

¶6

T.A. No. 2807 of 2022

¶7

FINAL ORDER

¶8

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank before DRT-II, Delhi on 19.11.2018 and then transferred to DRT-III Delhi through Mr. Anil Kumar, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of Rs.49,12,314.37 (Rupees Forty Nine Lacs Twelve Thousand Three Hundred Fourteen and paisa Thirty Seven only) along with pendentelite and future interest @9.60% per annum for Cash Credit limit per annum from the date of filing this application till the date of realization along with costs. Further, the name of Sh.Dinesh KaIra was substituted as authorized representative in place of Sh.Anil Kumar, erstwhile ARs for the applicant bank.

¶9

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the defendant no.1 in the business of trading of lubricants through its partners/guarantors being defendant no.2 & 3 vide loan application dated 21.08.2015 along with copies of Pan Card, Election Identity Card and Aadhar Card, the applicant bank sanctioned Cash Credit (Hyp.) facility under e-DFS (Electronic Dealer Finance Scheme) for Rs.65,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Five Lacs only) on 12.11.2015 @9.60% interest per annum with monthly rests subject to change from time to time against hypothecation of stock of finished goods and book debts etc. The defendants also agreed to pay @2% penal interest in case of default in repayment of dues. The defendant no.4 has been made Proforma defendant without claiming any financial relief to provide assistance for recovery of dues from defendant no.1 under e-DFS scheme. 1

¶10

¶11

T.A. No. 2807 of 2022

¶12

That in order to avail the credit facility, the defendants executed Letter of Arrangement for Cash Credit (Hyp.of stocks) facility, Agreement of Loan cum Hypothecation, Guarantee Agreement, Partnership Letter, Agreement by the Dealer under e-DFS in favour of the applicant bank on 23.11.2015.

¶13

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid credit facilities, the defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions of sanction and failed to maintain financial discipline, failed to pay amount due towards interest and installments to regularize the accounts with the applicant bank. Ultimately, the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 31.03.2018 as per RBI guidelines and issued demand notice dated 29.06.2018 which was neglected by the defendants. Hence, the applicant bank approached this tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶14

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendant and despite of proper service, the defendant has chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 17.12.2024, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as they have not appeared before the Tribunal and even written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have not been filed by the defendant.

¶15

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed various documents such as Gazette Notification, Copy of the Partnership deed, Comfort letter, Original loan application form, Letter of Arrangement for Cash Credit, Original Guarantee Agreement, Partnership letter, Agreement by the dealer, Self attested copies of PAN card, Aadhar card, Election Identity card, Passport, Letter of intent, Office copy of legal

¶16

T.A. No. 2807 of 2022

¶17

notices, Statement of Account marked as Annexure A-1 to Annexure A-11 from Page no.4 to 91.

¶18

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 approved.

¶19

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

¶20

In the light of the above discussions, the Original Application deserves to be allowed.

¶21

ORDER

¶22

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank, jointly or severally, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.49,12,314.37 (Rupees Forty Nine Lacs Twelve Thousand Three Hundred Fourteen and Paisa Thirty Seven only) together with pendentelite and future interest @9.60% interest per annum from the date of filing this application till the date of realization and costs failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stocks, book debts etc. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendant.

¶23

T.A. No. 2807 of 2022

¶24

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

¶25

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 16.07.2025.

¶26

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

¶27

S'-

¶28

24 3'S' (GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶29

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 17.05.2025

State Bank of India v. M/S Sanmati Oil and Spare Parts

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S Sanmati Oil and Spare Parts

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

State Bank of India versus Sukhwinder Singh

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S Sheikh Zubair Aslam

Hdfc Bank versus Gurpal Singh

Canara Bank versus M/S Jigyasha Enterprjses Pvt. Ltd.

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Suneesh Kumar

Indian Bank versus V.G. Enterprises