Allowed

State Bank of India v. Mrs. Sushma Malik

DRT27 May 2025TA/3269/2022

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 dues from Mrs. Sushma Malik. The court upheld the bank's case as unrebutted and directed payment of the principal amount along with interest at 12% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued directing defendant to pay Rs. 70,05,885.96/- plus interest at 12% per annum within 30 days, recoverable from sale of assets.

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Sushma Malik — Specific Performance | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 3269 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. 3269 of 2022

¶5

State Bank of India

¶6

Stressed Assets Recovery Branch-II 18/4, 3rd Floor, SBI House

¶7

Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh

New Delhi-110005

Applicant

Versus

Mrs. Sushma Malik w/o Pushpendra Malik Sole Proprietress of

¶12

M/s Malik Generators

¶13

17, Dunger Parasoli

¶14

Distt. Muzaffarnagar, UP-250001

¶15

Also at:

¶16

A-45, Gagan Vihar Rohta Road, Meerut-250002 Plot No.309, Gali no.19

¶17

Block-D, Kamlapur Tomar Colony Burari Delhi, Meerut, UP-250002

¶18

Also at:

¶19

SME Development Center Plot No.C-11, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex East Mumbai Suburban Mumbai, Maharashtra-400051

¶20

Also at:

¶21

Khasra no.17, Opposite Crystal Park Rohtak Road, Meerut Uttar Pradesh-250002

¶22

Defendant

¶23

Present: Ms Vaishali Kakra, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶24

5c1'-

¶25

¶26

T.A. No. 3269 of 2022

¶27

Date of Institution: 12.03.2021

¶28

Date of Pronouncement: 27.05.2025

¶29

FINAL ORDER

¶30

This original application has been filed by the Epplicant bank on 12.03.2021 before DRT-III Delhi, and then transferred to DRT-I Delhi through Sh.Sandeep Issar, 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.70,05,885.96/- (Rupees Seventy Lacs Five Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Five and Paisa Ninety Six only) along with pendentelite and future interest @12.20% per annum plus @2% penal interest from the date of filing this application till the date of realization along with costs.

¶31

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the defendant being proprietress of M/s Malik Generators, the applicant bank sanctioned Cash Credit (Hypothecation) Facility for a sum of Rs.60,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Lacs only) on 28.06.2017, which was renewed on 30.01.2018 with additional SLC limit of Rs.9.00 lacs @13.20% interest and @7.95% interest per annum along with 2% penal interest against hypothecation of stock in trade and receivables covered under CGTMSE scheme.

¶32

In order to avail the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendant submitted loan application and executed Letter of Arrangement, Agreement of Loan cum Hypothecation, Undertaking, Declaration, CIBIL Consent clause, Supplemental

¶33

¶34

T.A. No. 3269 of 2022

¶35

Agreement, Affidavit and Letter of Arrangement in favour of the applicant bank on 28.06.2017 and 30.01.2018.

¶36

That in order to secure the credit facility, the defendant hypothecated the raw material, stock in process, finished goods/consumable stores including book debts etc. in favour of applicant bank.

¶37

The Defendant duly acknowledged her liability to pay vide her letters dated 31.12.2018 and 12.06.2019 and also executed Revival Letters dated 20.02.2019 and 09.38.2019 towards the applicant bank but failed to maintain financial discipline.

¶38

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendant failed to comply with the terms and conditions of sanction and failed to regularize the account with the applicant bank. Ultimately, the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 30.04.2019 as per RBI guidelines and issued various letters and Emails but defendant failed to regularize the account.

¶39

The defendant issued demand Notices dated 09.04.2019 7. and 24.09.2019 to the defendant but the defendant did not clear the outstanding amount and hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶40

Notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 dated 09.12.2020 was issued to the defendants calling upon them to pay the entire outstanding dues with the applicant bank but the defendants did not clear the dues. Scf

¶41

Scf

¶42

T.A. No. 3269 of 2022

¶43

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendant and 9. despite of proper service, the defendant has chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 09.12.2024, 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.

¶44

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Sh.Sandeep Issar, authorized representative of the applicant bank, who has proved the documents General Regulations 1955, Gazette Notifications, Letters of Arrangement, Agreements of Loan cum Hypothecation, Undertakings, Declarations, CIBIL Consent Clause, Supplemental Agreement, Affidavit, Letters of Acknowledgement of Liability, Revival letters, Various letters and Reminders, Emails, Demand Notices, Notice under section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, Certified Statement of Account under Bankers' Books Evidence Act, Interest Calculation, Statements of Account marked as Ex.AW-1/1 to Ex.AW-1/47.

¶45

11.^{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.

¶46

12.^{As per the provision of Section 19(20) of the Recovery of} Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 which is analogous to Section 34 of CPC, on filing of the suit/claim, the contract between the parties comes to an end and the Court/Tribunal has a discretion to award the same depending upon the circumstances of each case. Same principle has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bank

¶47

T.A. No. 3269 of 2022

¶48

of India Vs. Ravindra & Others. Taking stock of all the circumstances and keeping in view that there is a drastic fall in rates of interest globally and domestically, I am of the opinion that interest of justice will be served if the interest at the rate of 12% p.a. is awarded

¶49

13.^{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.

¶50

14.^{In the light of the above discussions, the Original} Application deserves to be allowed.

¶51

ORDER

¶52

I, allow this OA and direct the defendant to pay to the applicant bank, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.70,05,885.96/- (Rupees Seventy Lacs Five Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Five and Paisa Ninety Six only) together with pendentelite and future interest @12% per annum with monthly rests 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 all types 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.

¶53

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

¶54

T.A. No. 3269 of 2022

¶55

(III)^{Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery} Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 25.07.2025.

¶56

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

¶57

Sc(—

¶58

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