Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S Raj Deepak Fruit Company and Others

DRT11 Feb 2026OA/1501/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of Rs. 38.16 lakhs against borrowers and guarantors. The Tribunal fixed simple interest at 8% p.a. considering market rates and granted a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 38,16,353.00 with simple interest at 8% p.a. from filing date; issue of Recovery Certificate.

State Bank of India versus M/S Raj Deepak Fruit… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1501/2022

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 17.08.2022

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 11.02.2026

¶6

State Bank of India, a body corporate, constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955, and having its Corporate Office at Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai and one of its Local Head Office at Sector 17-A, Chandigarh and one of it’s Branch at SME Samana, Ambedkar Chowk, Samana, District Patiala (Punjab) through its Chief Manager Ms. Alka Rani Sinhmar.

¶7

……..Applicant Versus

¶8

M/s Raj Deepak Fruit Company, New Sabzi Mandi, Bhawanigarh Road, Samana, District Patiala, Punjab through its Proprietor Sh. Raj Kumar.

¶9

Sh. Raj Kumar S/o of Sh. Gopal Krishan, (Proprietor) R/o of Ward No.11, Near Moudgil Play Way School, Anand Colony, Samana, District Patiala, Punjab.

¶10

Sh. Ravi Kumar S/o of Sh. Hari Ram, R/o of 263, Shekhon Colony, Malkana, Samana, District Patiala, Punjab.

¶11

………Defendants

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

Argued by Sh. Vinish Singla, Advocate for the applicant

¶14

Defendants already ex-parte vide order dated 22.08.2023

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.38,16,353.00 (Rupees Thirty Eight Lacs Sixteen Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Three Only). The Original Application has been filed through Ms. Alka Rani Sinhmar, Chief Manager, of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application in the terms of Gazette Notification dated 26.09.1959, 26.08.1972, 02.05.1987 issued by the Executive

¶17

2 OA NO. 1501/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS M/S RAJ DEEPAK FRUIT COMPANY AND OTHERS.

¶18

Committee of the Central Board in exercise of powers conferred on it under regulation no. 76 and 77 of State Bank of India General Regulations made by Reserve Bank of India in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section 3 of section 50 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955.

¶19

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. 30.00 Lacs vide Loan Application dated 22.05.2016 which is Annexure A1 to this OA. Defendant nos. 2 and 3 stood as guarantors. Thereafter, defendant no.1 through its proprietor defendant no. 2 requested the applicant for reducing the Limit to Rs.24.50 Lacs vide loan application dated 22.10.2019. Thereafter, defendant no.1 through its proprietor defendant no. 2 requested the applicant for grant of Working Capital Term Loan (WCTL) of Rs.4.78 Lacs under GECL.

¶20

The applicant sanctions the Cash Credit limit of Rs.30.00 Lacs vide letter dated 14.06.2016, which is Annexure A2 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. Thereafter, the limit was reduced by the applicant to Rs.24.50 Lacs vide letter of arrangement dated 25.10.2019, which is Annexure A12 to this OA. Thereafter, the applicant sanctioned Working Capital Term Loan (WCTL) of Rs.4.78 Lacs under GECL vide letter of arrangement dated 16.06.2020, which is Annexure A15 to this OA. The applicant also sanctioned Funded Interest Term Loan (FITL) of Rs.1,18,916.00.

¶21

Defendant no. 1 through its proprietor hypothecated book debts vide agreement of loan cum hypothecation dated 14.06.2016, which is Annexure A4 to this OA; Supplemental Loan Cum Hypothecation Agreement dated 25.10.2019, which is Annexure A13 to this OA.

¶22

Defendant no. 2 mortgaged his immovable property i.e. Residential House measuring 5½Marla i.e. 166.66 Sq. Yards Situated at Village Malkan, Tehsil Samana, District, Patiala, Punjab through equitable mortgage of sale deed bearing vasika no. 3562 dated

¶23

3 OA NO. 1501/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS M/S RAJ DEEPAK FRUIT COMPANY AND OTHERS.

¶24

22.03.2002. Sale deed along with its translation filed on 27.01.2026 vide diary no. 1623 in compliance to order dated 29.12.2025.

¶25

Letter dated 15.06.2016 of creation of mortgage by deposit of title deed, which isAnnexure A11to this OA.
Documents executed:Guarantee Agreement, No Lien Letter,
Promissory Letter, DP Note Delivery Letter, Free Access Letter, CIBIL
Consent Letter, all dated 14.06.2016, which areAnnexures A5 to
A10to this OA; Guarantee Agreement dated 25.10.2019, which is
Annexure A14to this OA; Statement of Accounts, which are
Annexures A16 to A18to this OA; Legal Notice dated 18.12.2020,
which isAnnexure A19to this OA; Notice dated 28.12.2020 under
Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, which isAnnexure A20to this OA;
Possession Notice dated 10.03.2021 under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI
Act, which isAnnexure A21to this OA; Revival Letter dated
01.02.2022, which isAnnexure A22to this OA.
5. The loan accounts became irregular and were classified as NPA
and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loans accounts there was a debit of Rs.38,16,353.00 which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notice but defendants did not repay the outstanding
amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application
and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.
6. The defendants were served notices to appear before this
Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they were
proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 22.08.2023.
7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Ms. Alka Rani Sinhmar, Chief
Manager, State Bank of India,has been filed.
8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.
9. It was argued by learned counsel that in view of the
documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted,
the applicant had proved its case. From the perusal of all the
Annexures A1 to A22to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant for availing of the loan facilities which were

¶26

4 OA NO. 1501/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS M/S RAJ DEEPAK FRUIT COMPANY AND OTHERS.

¶27

granted to them and for that they had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the applicant. The defendants failed to pay back the loans as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, accounts of the defendants were classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.38,16,353.00 (Rupees Thirty Eight Lacs Sixteen Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Three Only) along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the accounts.

¶28

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @11.25%p.a. with 2% penal interest with monthly rests from 01.06.2022 till the realization.

¶29

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/hypothecated assets, undertaking of the defendants, quantum of loans 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 uniform simple interest @08.00%p.a. in all the loan accounts from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶30

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.38,16,353.00 (Rupees Thirty Eight Lacs Sixteen Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Three Only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00%p.a. in all the loan accounts 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

¶31

5 OA NO. 1501/2022

¶32

STATE BANK OF INDIA VS M/S RAJ DEEPAK FRUIT COMPANY AND OTHERS.

¶33

from the sale of hypothecated/mortgaged properties of the defendants 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.

¶34

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of .

¶35

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶36

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 25.02.2026.

¶37

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.

¶38

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal .

¶39

Dated: 11.02.2026.

¶40

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

State Bank of India v. M/S Raj Deepak Fruit Company and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S Raj Deepak Fruit Company and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Sh. Ranjit Singh and Another

Canara Bank versus Sh. Vishal Soni And Another

Canara Bank versus M/S Teria Machinery Store and Others

Idfc First Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Vijay Kumar and Another

Idfc First Bank Ltd. versus Mandhar Medical Agency and Others

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sh. Sherbaz Singh and Others