Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S Bijeshwar Enterprises

DRT29 Apr 2026OA/1008/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh, decided an application by SBI for recovery of dues totaling approximately ₹27.04 Lakhs with interest. After evidence was placed on record and defendants appeared ex parte, the Tribunal allowed the application, held the liability joint and several, and directed the issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of ₹27,04,537/- with interest and costs allowed; recovery certificate issued; proceedings for sale of hypothecated assets directed.

State Bank of India versus M/S Bijeshwar Enterprises — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 1008/2024 Date of Institution: 01.07.2024 Date of Decision: 29.04.2026

¶4

SBI having its branches all over India and a branch at Rajgarh Road near Thodo Ground, Solan, Tehsil & Distt. Solan, Himachal Pradesh.

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

M/s Bijeshwar Enterprises, A proprietorship Concern having its Registered Office at HB No. 608, Mauza Garog, Zero Point Oachghat, Tehsil & Distt. Solan H.P. 173 223 through its Proprietor Ms. Rachna Kumari d/o Sh. Ramesh Nagaik.

¶8

Ms. Rachna Kumari d/o Sh. Ramesh Nagaik, Proprietor of M/s Bijeshwar Enterprises, r/o Village Lingzar, P.O. Sarain, Tehsil Chopal, Distt. Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.

¶9

Sh. Aman Kumar s/o Sh. Ramesh Nagaik, r/o Village Lingzar, P.O. Sarain, Tehsil Chopal, Distt. Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.

¶10

Sh. Ajay Nagaik s/o Sh. Ramesh Nagaik, r/o Village Lingzar, P.O. Sarain, Tehsil Chopal, Distt. Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.

¶11

……….Defendants

¶12

Advocates

¶13

Sh. P.S. Arora, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants - ex parte vide order dated 12.02.2025 .

¶14

OA for the Recovery of ₹27,04,537/- with interest from 01.07.2024.

¶15

ORDER

¶16

SBI has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of ₹27,04,537/- with interest against M/s Bijeshwar Enterprises and others (defendants).

¶17

Bank’s case is that on 04.11.2019, it had granted a loan of ₹25.00 Lacs to defendant No.1 through its proprietor i.e. defendant No.2 in the form of C.C Limit for Business purpose. Again on 02.06.2020, at the

¶18

¶19

request of the defendants, bank renewed the existing C.C. Limit at ₹25.00 Lacs and granted a Term Loan of ₹4.90Lacs under G.E.C.L. Scheme to defendant No.1 through its proprietor i.e. defendant No.2 for business purpose. Again on 25.10.2021, at the request of the defendants, bank restructured the existing limits and granted F.I.T.L. facility of ₹5.13 Lacs to defendant No.1 through its proprietor i.e. defendant No.2 for Business Purpose. Again on 30.11.2021, at the request of the defendants, applicant bank granted G.E.C.L.-1-Extension facility of ₹2.50 Lacs to defendant No.1 through its proprietor i.e. defendant No.2 for Business Purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant No.2 being the proprietor of defendant No.1 had hypothecated assets (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). Defendant Nos.3 and 4 stood as guarantors for C.C. Limit of ₹25.00 Lacs vide guarantee agreement dated 04.01.2024. All the loan facilities were chargeable at different rates of interest. On 06.06.2024, a sum of ₹27,04,537/- was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶20

On 29.07.2024, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 12.02.2025, they were proceeded ex parte .

¶21

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Ms. Sonia Handa, Chief Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-25. 5. I have perused the evidence on the record. I am of the considered view that the Bank has proved its case that it had advanced the loans under various schemes and on 06.06.2024, a sum of ₹27,04,537/- was due.

¶22

¶23

Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of ₹27,04,537/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lacs Four Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Seven Only) i.e. Rs.17,64,086/- in C.C. Limit with interest @12.40% p.a.; Rs.2,83,302/- in GECL 0.1 with interest @9.25% p.a.; Rs.3,88,956/- in F.I.T.L. with interest @11.25% p.a.; Rs.2,68,193/- in GECL 30% with interest @9.25% p.a. (all facilities) with monthly rests from 01.07.2024, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of all the defendants would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of hypothecated assets fully detailed in para No.3A of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants.

¶24

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 03.06.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the hypothecated assets as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) of the Act . 10. A Copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to the Recovery Officer as well as the parties. Pronounced in the open Court. (A S Narang) Dated: 29.04.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh

¶25

MANOJ KALRA

State Bank of India v. M/S Bijeshwar Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S Bijeshwar Enterprises

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

Uco Bank versus Manpreet Kumar

Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank) versus M/S Prasad Broom Stick Co. and Ors.

State Bank of India versus Muni Royal

Nawal Singh Verma versus Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.

Canara Bank versus Ms Shiddi Sai Traders Prop Sujata Ghatraj and Anr.

M/S Linsa Medicals versus State Bank of India