Allowed

State Bank of India v. Messrs Bajaj Trading Co. and Others

DRT2 Jul 2026OA/125/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT allowed the banks original application for recovery of a non-performing asset. The court declared the defendants jointly and severally liable for the principal amount with costs and awarded simple interest at 8% p.a. from the filing date until realization, permitting recovery via mortgage sale or asset attachment.

What did the court decide?

Declarations of joint and several liability for Rs. 31,18,617 plus costs. Award of simple interest at 8% p.a. from filing date. Order to issue Recovery Certificate and proceed under SARFAESI Act.

State Bank of India versus Messrs Bajaj Trading Co. and… — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.125/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 01.02.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 02.07.2026

¶6

State Bank of India, a body corporation constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 having its Corporate Office at Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai and one of its Local Head Offices at Chandigarh having branches all over India and one of its Branch Office amongst other places is situated at Sirsa Road Sardulgarh, District Mansa, Punjab, through its Chief Manager Sh. Rajive Chopra.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s. Bajaj Trading Co., a proprietorship concern, having its Registered Office at Shop No 12, Grain Market, Sardulgarh District Mansa - 151507, through its proprietor Sh. Gurpreet Bajaj.

¶10

Sh. Gurpreet Bajaj S/o Sh. Jagdish Rai, sole proprietor M/s. Bajaj Trading Co., R/o Street No. 5, Ward no. 11, Near Saint Meera School, Old Cinema Road, Sardulgarh District Mansa, Punjab - 151507.

¶11

Sh. Jagdish Rai, S/o Lachmann Dass, R/o Street No. 5, Ward no. 11, Near Saint Meera School, Old Cinema Road Sardulgarh Mansa, Punjab – 151507.

¶12

……..Defendants

¶13

Advocates:

¶14

Argued by Sh. Yogesh Kumar, Advocate proxy for Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the applicant

¶15

None for Defendants (Already ex-parte vide order dated 29.06.2026).

¶16

FINAL ORDER

¶17

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.31,18,617.00 (Rupees Thirty

¶18

2 OA NO.125/2025

¶19

STATE BANK OF INDIA VS M/S BAJAJ TRADING CO. AND OTHERS

¶20

One Lacs Eighteen Thousand Six Hundred and Seventeen Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Rajive Chopra, Chief Manager of the applicant bank , who is competent to institute the Original Application in terms of the Gazette Notification published in the Gazette of India dated 27.03.1987 & 17.05.2001 under Regulation No. 76 and 77 framed in exercise of power conferred by Sub Section (3) of Section 50 of State Bank of India Act, 1955, with the previous sanction of Central Government, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶21

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant no. 1 through its proprietor defendant no. 2 approached the applicant for grant of Cash Credit Limit of Rs.15,00,000.00. Thereafter, the defendant no. 1 through its proprietor defendant no. 2 approached the applicant for enhancement of Cash Credit Limit from Rs.15,00,000.00 to Rs.20,00,000.00 vide Application Form for MSEs dated 20.01.2014, which is Annexure A5 to this OA.

¶22

The applicant sanctioned the Cash Credit Limit of Rs.15,00,000.00 vide Letter of Arrangement dated 07.11.2012, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. Thereafter, the applicant enhanced the Cash Credit Limit from Rs.15,00,000.00 to Rs.20,00,000.00 vide Letter of Arrangement dated 20.01.2014, which is Annexure A6 to this OA. Thereafter, the applicant renewed the Cash Credit Limit of Rs.20,00,000.00 vide Letter of Arrangement dated 23.03.2018, which is Annexure A10 to this OA. Thereafter, the applicant renewed the Cash Credit Limit of Rs.20,00,000.00 vide Letter of Arrangement dated 12.06.2019, which is Annexure A11 to this OA and terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant no. 1 through its proprietor defendant no. 2. Defendant no. 3 stood as guarantor.

¶23

Defendant no. 3 mortgaged his immovable property i.e.,

¶24

Residential House measuring 5 Marlas as per Jamabandi for the year 2014-15, situated at Near Saint Meera School, Ward No. 11, Street No. 5, Sardulgarh District Mansa, Punjab vide Sale Deed bearing Vasika No. 447 dated 29.05.2009 along with its translation and the

¶25

confirmation letter dated 20.07.2011 for depositing of Original Title

¶26

¶27

OA NO.125/2025 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS M/S BAJAJ TRADING CO. AND OTHERS

¶28

Deeds along with CERSAI copy, which are Annexures A12 to A14 to this OA.

¶29

Documents executed : Agreement of Loan cum Hypothecation, Guarantee Agreement, both dated 07.11.2012, which are Annexures A3 & A4 to this OA; Demand Promissory Note, Agreement of Loan cum Hypothecation, Guarantee Agreement, all dated 20.01.2014, which are Annexures A7 to A9 to this OA; Revival Letter dated 22.09.2019, which is Annexure A15 to this OA; Notice u/s 13(2) dated 23.01.2025, which is Annexure A16 to this OA; Statement of account along with certificate, which is Annexure A17 to this OA; Valuation Report dated 03.12.2022, which is Annexure A18 to this OA.

¶30

The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan account, there was a debit of Rs.31,18,617.00, which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notices but they did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶31

The defendants were served summons to appear before this Tribunal, but no one appeared on behalf of the defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 29.06.2026. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Rajive Chopra, Chief Manager, State bank of India has been filed.

¶32

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶33

It was argued by learned proxy counsel for applicant that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case.

¶34

From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A18 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant no. 1 through its proprietor defendant no. 2 approached applicant for availing of the loan facility, which was granted to them, defendant no. 3 stood as guarantor and for that they had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. The defendants failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of

¶35

¶36

OA NO.125/2025

¶37

STATE BANK OF INDIA VS M/S BAJAJ TRADING CO. AND OTHERS

¶38

the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, loan account was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.31,18,617.00 (Rupees Thirty One Lacs Eighteen Thousand Six Hundred and Seventeen Only), along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the amount.

¶39

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @11.55%p.a. with monthly rests till the realization.

¶40

The Tribunal is of the considered opinion that sometimes in appropriate cases the prerogative of mercy is the brightest jewel in the crown of the Judge. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case including nature of the mortgaged property, undertaking of the defendants, quantum of loan and prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yester years, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant simple interest @08.00%p.a. in the loan account from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶41

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.31,18,617.00 (Rupees Thirty One Lacs Eighteen Thousand Six Hundred and Seventeen Only), jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00% p.a. in the loan account from the date of filing of OA till the date of realization of the amount. Accordingly, the applicant shall be entitled to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of mortgaged property of the defendant no. 3 in execution proceedings if not sold earlier under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. If the dues of the applicant still remain unsatisfied, it shall be entitled to recover the same by attachment and sale of personal assets of the defendants. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶42

5 OA NO.125/2025

¶43

STATE BANK OF INDIA VS M/S BAJAJ TRADING CO. AND OTHERS

¶44

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of. 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶45

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 17.07.2026.

¶46

Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant and be sent to defendants through registered/speed post and this order be also uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal and record be consigned.

¶47

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal .

¶48

Dated: 02.07.2026

¶49

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶50

Presiding Officer,

¶51

DRT-III, Chandigarh

State Bank of India v. Messrs Bajaj Trading Co. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Messrs Bajaj Trading Co. and Others

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

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Deep Garments and Another

Union Bank of India versus Smt. Renu Sharma and Others

Axis Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Gurjot Singh

Yes Bank Ltd. versus M/S Vohra Trading Company and Others

Hdfc Bank Limited versus M/S Home Need Department Store and Others

Idfc Bank Limited versus Naib Singh and Another