Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sh. Naveen Kumar Saini

DRT11 Apr 2025TA/2863/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's Original Application against the defendant proprietor. The court directed immediate payment of outstanding dues, interest, and costs, with recovery from hypothecated and mortgaged properties if payment fails.

What did the court decide?

Director respondent to pay ₹80,75,432/- plus interest and costs within 30 days; Recovery Certificate to be issued for recovery from hypothecated/mortgaged properties.

State Bank of India versus Sh. Naveen Kumar Saini — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 2863 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.2863 of 2022

¶5

State Bank of India

¶6

(e-State Bank of Mysore)

¶7

Stressed Assets Recovery Branch-I 23, First floor, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi

¶8

Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

Sh. Naveen Kumar Saini Proprietor of M/s Naveen Constructions C-331, Gali no.10

¶11

New Usmanpur, Shandara New Delhi-110053

¶12

Also at:

¶13

Sh. Naveen Kumar Saini House no.C-360/3, Block-C Gali no.11, Near Nala New Usmanpur Illaka Shandara, Delhi-110053

¶14

Also at:

¶15

Sh. Naveen Kumar Saini House no.C-360/3, Block-C 1st Pushta, New Usmanpur Shandara, Delhi-110053 Defendant

¶16

Present: Ms. Jaya Tomar, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶17

Date of Institution: 04.08.2020 Date of Pronouncement: 11.J4.2025

¶18

T.A. No. 2863 of 2022

¶19

FINAL ORDER

¶20

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank before DRT-II, Delhi on 04.08.2020 and then transferred to DRT-I Delhi through Sh.Digambar Singh Bisht, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.80,75,432/- (Rupees Eighty Lacs Seventy Five Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Two only) along with pendentelite and future interest @9.25% per annum from the date of filing this application till the date of realization along with costs.

¶21

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the defendant being proprietor of M/s Naveen Constructions, the applicant bank sanctioned Cash Credit (Hypothecation) Limit of Rs.70,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Lacs only) under SME Smart Score Scheme on 12.02.2016 @10.90% interest per annum with monthly rests which was renewed on 31.03.2017 and 18.04.2018 with reduction in DP by Rs.20,000/- p.m. for 10 months against hypothecation of stock including RM/SIP/FG and receivable and property owned by defendant no.1.

¶22

In order to avail the loan facility, the defendant submitted loan application and executed Letter of Arrangement, Agreement of Loan cum Hypothecation on 12.02.2016 and further executed Guarantee Agreement, Letter of Confirmation of deposit of Title Deeds, Link Letter, Indemnity Bond and Affidavit in favour of the applicant bank on 31.03.2017 and 18.04.2018.

¶23

T.A. No. 2863 of 2022

¶24

That in order to secure the credit facilities, the defendant created equitable mortgage of his property bearing No.C360/3, measuring 50 sq. yards, Out of Khasra no.839, Village Ghonda, Gujran Khadar, Block-C, Gali No.11, Near Nala, New Usmanpur, Illaka, Shandara, Delhi-110053 on 20.02.2016 by depositing title deed dated 03.12.2014 along with other documents which was extended during the renewal of the account by the defendant in favour of applicant bank.

¶25

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 sanction and not routed their transactions through the account and failed to regularize the account with the applicant bank. Ultimately, the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 28.11.2019 as per RBI guidelines and issued legal demand notice dated 03.03.2020 calling upon the defendant to pay outstanding dues but defendant failed to liquidate the outstanding amount, hence the applicant bank has approached this tribunal for recovery of its dues.

¶26

Notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 dated 02.12.2019 was issued to the defendant by the applicant bank but they failed to pay the outstanding dues.

¶27

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 06.03.2025, the defendant has been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared before the Tribunal and even written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have not been filed by the defendant.

¶28

T.A. No. 2863 of 2022

¶29

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Digambar Singh Bisht, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as Gazette Notification dated 31.08.2005 Ex.AW-1/1, Notification with respect to merger of SBM with SBI Ex.AW-1/2, Sanction Letter Ex.AW-1/3 (Colly), Letter of Arrangement Ex.AW-1/4, Ex.AW-1/10 & Ex.AW-1/14, Agreement of Loan cum Hypothecation Ex.AW-1/5, Guarantee Agreement Ex.AW-1/6, Ex.AW-1/12 & Ex.AW-1/21, Sale Deed Ex.AW-1/7 Colly (OSR), Letter of Confirmation of Deposit of Title Deeds of Mortgaged Property Ex.AW-1/9 (OSR), Agreement of Loan cum Hypothecation Ex.AW-1/11 & AW1/15, Link Letter Ex.AW-1/13 & AW-1/16, Indemnity Bond Ex.AW-1/17, Affidavit Ex.AW-1/18, Undertaking Ex.AW-1/19, Declaration cum Undertaking Ex.AW-1/20, Valuation Report Mark-A, Copy of TIR Mark-B, Notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act Ex.AW-1/22(OSR), Postal Receipts Ex.AW1/23(Colly), Legal Notice Ex.AW-1/24 (Colly), Statement of Account Ex.AW-1/25, Details of Accrued Interest Ex.AW-1/26, Certificate under Banker's Books of Evidence Act Ex.AW-1/27.

¶30

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.

¶31

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.

¶32

5"1—

¶33

T.A. No. 2863 of 2022

¶34

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

¶35

ORDER

¶36

I, allow this OA and direct the defendant to pay to the applicant bank, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.80,75,432/- (Rupees Eighty Lacs Seventy Five Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Two only) together with pendentelite and future interest @9.25% 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/goods and mortgaged property bearing No.C-360/3, measuring 50 sq. yards, out of Khasra no.839, Village Ghonda, Gujran Khadar, Block-C, Gali no.11, Near Nala, New Usmanpur, Illaka, Shandara, Delhi. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendant.

¶37

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

¶38

(III)^{Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery} Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 10.06.2025.

¶39

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

¶40

. 591

¶41

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

¶42

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 11.04.2025

State Bank of India v. Sh. Naveen Kumar Saini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sh. Naveen Kumar Saini

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

Mr Mahadevappa and Gurushantappa Gibbur versus State Bank of India

Sri Babajigouda Satagouda Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs versus Canara Bank

Ms Shree Shyam Fashions versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd.

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Deepak Kumar

Canara Bank versus M/S Addu Mod Kidz

State Bank of India versus Mr.Usman Khan