Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S Ambey India

DRT12 Nov 2025TA/43/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed original application filed by State Bank of India. Defendants were proceeded ex-parte for non-appearance. The bank was directed to recover Rs. 69,08,543 along with interest and costs from defendants' assets.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs. 69,08,543 with interest of 11.55%, 7.05%, and 8.80% per annum from 02.09.2022 till realization along with costs within 30 days. Recovery via sale of assets if unpaid.

State Bank of India versus M/S Ambey India — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No.43 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. 43 of 2022

¶5

State Bank of India Stressed Assets Recovery Branch-II SBI House, Fourth floor, 18/4 Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh New Delhi-110005 Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s Ambey India Through its proprietress Ms Phool Thakur w/o Sone Lal Thakur

¶8

No. A1/24, Shop No.6

¶9

Street No.8, Chanakya Place Part-I New Delhi West, New Delhi-110059

¶10

Also at:

¶11

No. E2/55 A, 2nd Floor Chanakya Place-1, Gali No.9 Uttam Nagar, West Delhi New Delhi-110059

¶12

Also at:

¶13

E2/85, G.S.Street No.5 Chankya Place I Uttam Nagar, West Delhi New Delhi-110059

¶14

Also at:

¶15

No.A-1 & 2, Shop No.5 1st Floor, Chanakya Place 40 Feet Road, Uttam Nagar Delhi -110059

¶16

Also at:

¶17

No.A-28, Block-A, Chanakya Place Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059

¶18

Also at:

¶19

Khasra No.111/7, Firni Road Near Rajendra Lakra Model School Mundka, New Delhi-110041

¶20

¶21

T.A. No.43 of 2022

¶22

Ms. Phool Thakur w/o Sh.Sone Lal Thakur No. E2/55 A, 2nd Floor Chanakya Place-1, Gali No.9 Uttam Nagar, West Delhi

¶23

Also at:

¶24

Flat no.3, First floor Sai Apartments, Plot no.1,2,3 & 4 B-Block, Chanakya Place Uttam Nagar, West Delhi-110059 Defendants

¶25

Present: Shri S.K. Tyagi, counsel for the applicant bank

¶26

Date of Reserve: 27.10.2025

¶27

Date of Pronouncement: 12.11.2025

¶28

FINAL ORDER

¶29

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 26.09.2022 before DRT III, Delhi and then transferred to DRT-I Delhi through Sh. Harish Sablok, authorized representative of the applicant bank, under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.69,08,543/- (Rupees Sixty Nine Lacs Eight Thousand Five Hundred Forty Three only) as on 02.09.2022 including Rs.54,86,724/- @11.55% per annum in Cash Credit account, Rs.2,08,945/- @7.05% per annum in Term loan account and Rs.12,12,874/- @8.80% in GECL account from the 03.09.2022 till the date of its realization along with costs.

¶30

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant no.1 through its proprietress vide loan application dated 14.10.2019 along with PAN Card, GST Registration Certificate, the applicant bank sanctioned Cash Credit (Hyp.) limit of Rs.50.00 lacs and Term Loan of Rs.18.00 lacs @12.30% interest per annum. The applicant sanctioned demand loan

¶31

¶32

T.A. No.43 of 2022

¶33

under Covid 19 Emergency Credit Line of Rs.5.00 lacs @7.40% interest per annum to be repayable in 24 EMI of Rs.29,926/-. In addition to the above, the applicant bank sanctioned, the applicant bank sanctioned GECL Term Loan of Rs.13,00,000/@7.80% interest per annum to be repayable in 12 EMIs of Rs.36,150/- on 16.06.2020. The limits were sanctioned against hypothecation of stocks, receivables, fixed assets and machinery and covered under CGTMSE scheme. The defendants agreed to pay penal interest @2% in case of default in repayment of interest and instalments.

¶34

That in order to avail the said loan facilities, the defendants submitted loan applications and executed Agreement of Loan cum Hypothecation, Guarantee Agreement, List of Sundry Debtors and Creditors, Basic Covenants, Letter of Undertaking, Submission of Credit Information to CIBIL, Tax Invoice, Letter Confirming execution of Security Documents, Declaration, Supplemental Agreement and Undertaking with applicant bank on 29.11.2019/30.11.2019 and executed Letter of Arrangement on 18.04.2020 and 16.06.2020 towards the applicant bank.

¶35

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply with the sanction terms and conditions and not routed their business transactions through the account despite several requests and reminders. The account became irregular and the applicant bank classified the account as Non-Performing Asset on 25.12.2021 and served legal demand notice dated 14.09.2022 to clear the outstanding amount along with interest but defendants failed to comply the said notice. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

T.A. No.43 of 2022

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendant and despite proper service, the defendant chose to absent from the proceedings and none appeared on behalf of defendant, hence proceed ex-parte. As per order dated 27.05.2025, defendants have been proceeded ex-parte due to non-filing of written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets before this Tribunal.

¶40

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Harish Sablok, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as Gazette Notification, Loan Application alongwith PAN Card, GST Registration Certificate, Letters of Arrangement, Agreement of Loan cum Hypothecation, Guarantee Agreement, List of Sundry Debtors and Creditors, Basic Covenants, Letter of Undertaking, Submission of Credit information to CIBIL, Letters of defendant no.1, Declarations, Undertakings, Letter of Arrangement, Supplemental Agreement, Search Report, Copies of Letters, Statement of Account, Legal Notice marked as Ex.AW-1/1 to Ex.AW-1/21 (Colly). The applicant bank got the charge registered with CERSAI in respect of stocks and receivables.

¶41

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.

¶42

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.

¶43

¶44

T.A. No.43 of 2022

¶45

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

¶46

ORDER

¶47

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank, jointly or severally, within 30 days, a sum of Rs.69,08,543/- (Rupees Sixty Nine Lacs Eight Thousand Five Hundred Forty Three only) including Rs.54,86,724/- @11.55% interest per annum with monthly rests and Rs.2,08,945/@7.05% interest per annum with monthly rests and Rs.12,12,874/- @8.80% interest per annum with monthly rests from 02.09.2022 till the date of realization along with costs, failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from sale of hypothecated stock, receivable, current / fixed assets & machinery etc. In case of default, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable assets of the defendants.

¶48

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

¶49

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 09.01.2026.

¶50

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

¶51

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

¶52

(Dictated and pronounced in open court Dated: 12.11.2025

¶53

State Bank of India v. M/S Ambey India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S Ambey India

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

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Kala Singh

State Bank of India versus Sh. Malkeet Singh @Malkit Singh

Bank of Baroda versus Hopstop Private Limited

State Bank of India versus Saravanan Mani

Canara Bank versus Mahantesh Arjun

Canara Bank versus Mallappa Chavadappanavar