Allowed

State Bank of India v. Geeta Agencies Pvt. Ltd.

DRT28 Apr 2026OA/1407/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the State Bank of India's application under Section 19 of the RDB Act for recovery of Rs. 80.5 lacs plus interest from the corporate borrower and its directors/guarantors after finding the evidence conclusive.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 80,50,124.04 plus interest at 14.05% p.a. allowed; recovery certificate issued; joint and several liability imposed; mortgaged land sale directed.

State Bank of India versus Geeta Agencies Pvt. Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 1407/2024 Date of Institution: 28.09.2023 Date of Decision: 28.04.2026

¶4

SBI having its branches all over India and a branch at Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, at #40, SDA Commercial Complex, Zonal Office Building, Kasumpti, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Geeta Agencies Pvt. Ltd., a Private Limited Company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its Registered Office at Kasai Gali, Near Old Bus Stand, Solan, Himachal Pradesh, through its Directors.

¶8

Shri Raj Kumar Mittal son of Shri Jeewan Ram Mittal, Resident of A-2 Dev Bhoomi Apartments, Power House Road, Saproon, Solan. 173211 Himachal Pradesh.

¶9

Shri Ashok Kumar Ahluwalia son of Shri Faqir Chand, Resident of House No. 337/B-2, Shiv Colony, Near Hotel Utsav, Pinjore, District Panchkula, Haryana. IInd Address: At, Village Radiyana, Post Office Subathu, District Solan. Himachal Pradesh.

¶10

Shri Sanjay Mittal son of Shri Jeewan Ram Mittal, Resident of A- 2 Dev Bhoomi Apartments, Power House Road, Saproon, Solan, Himachal Pradesh.

¶11

Smt. Sunita Mittal wife of Shri Raj Kumar Mittal, Resident of A-2 Dev Bhoomi Apartments, Power House Road, Saproon, Solan, Himachal Pradesh.

¶12

Smt. Vasudha Ahluwalia wife of Shri Ashok Kumar Ahluwalia, Resident of House No. 337/B-2, Shiv Colony, Near Hotel Utsav, Pinjore, District Panchkula. (Haryana) IInd Address: At Village Radiyana, Post Office Subathu, District Solan. 173206 Himachal Pradesh.

¶13

……….Defendants

¶14

Advocates

¶15

Sh. Vivek Verma, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants - ex parte vide order dated 01.08.2025 .

¶16

¶17

OA for the Recovery of Rs.80,50,124.04p with interest @14.05% p.a. with monthly rests from 28.09.2023.

¶18

ORDER

¶19

SBI has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of Rs.80,50,124.04p with interest against Geeta Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and others (defendants).

¶20

Bank’s case is that it had been dealing with the Company since

¶21

On 30.05.2020, it had granted various loans as under: -

¶22

Sr. No.	Facility	Limit(in Lacs)
1	C.C.Facility	37.00
2	e-DFS Limit	11.00
3	Term Loan	15.00
4	C.C.E.C.L.DemandLoan	4.80
5	G.E.C.L. W.C.T.L.	12.00
	Total	79.80Lacs

¶23

Bank had granted the abovementioned Loans to defendant No.1 through its directors i.e. defendant Nos.2 and 3 for Business purpose. To secure all the loans, Defendant nos. 2, 3 and 6 had mortgaged their properties (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). Defendant Nos.2 to 6 stood as guarantors for all the Loan facilities amounting to Rs.79.80Lacs. Again on 17.11.2011, at the request of the defendants, applicant bank renewed-cum-enhanced-cum-reduced the existing limits as follows: -

¶24

Sr. No.	Facility		Limit(in Lacs)
1	C.C. Facility		37.00
2	e-DFS Limit		11.00
3	Term Loan		10.94
4	C.C.E.C.L DemandLoan		1.89
5	G.E.C.L. W.C.T.L.		18
		Total	78.83Lacs

¶25

Defendant Nos.2 to 6 stood as guarantors for all the loan facilities amounting to Rs.78.83Lacs. All the loans were chargeable at different

¶26

¶27

rates of interest. On 27.09.2023, a sum of Rs.80,50,124.04p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶28

On 07.10.2024, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 01.08.2025, they were proceeded ex parte .

¶29

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Sh. Pardeep Kumar Arora, Assistant General Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-33.

¶30

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 27.09.2023, a sum of Rs.80,50,124.04p was due.

¶31

Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.80,50,124.04p (Rupees Eighty Lacs Fifty Thousand One Hundred Twenty Four and Paise Four Only) with interest @14.05% p.a. with monthly rests from 28.09.2023, 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 mortgaged land fully detailed in para No.3A of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants.

¶32

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

¶33

Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.

¶34

¶35

Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 01.06.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgaged land 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: 28.04.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

State Bank of India v. Geeta Agencies Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Geeta Agencies Pvt. Ltd.

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 National Bank versus Radhey Shyam Trading Company

Mr Prakash Shankar Naidu versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus M/S Babbar Brothers HUF

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S Mir Decorations

West Bengal Gramin Bank versus Mr. Amal Paul Prop. of Shibnath Marketing @ Mr Amal Pal and Anr.

Bank of Baroda versus Asha M R