Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. M/S Luxmi Sweets

DRT29 Jan 2026OA/1528/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this application under Section 19 of the RDB Act, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Bank of Maharashtra's claim for recovery of Rs. 32,51,276/- with interest against a proprietorship firm and its promoter/guarantor after the defendants appeared ex parte. The order directed the issuance of a recovery certificate and appearance before the Recovery Officer.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; recovery of Rs. 32,51,276/- with interest directed; Recovery Certificate issued; parties directed to appear before Recovery Officer.

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S Luxmi Sweets — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 1528/2023 Date of Institution:27.10.2023 Date of Decision: 29.01.2026

¶4

Bank of Maharashtra at Fatehabad, Haryana

¶5

……..Applicant Vs.

¶6

M/s Luxmi Sweets, through its Proprietor Sh. Krishan Kumar son of Sh. Remal Dass, situated at 4, Marla Colony, Near Mangal Deep, Fatehabad-125050

¶7

Smt. Neelam Rani wife of Sh. Krishan Kumar, resident of 4, Marla Colony, Near Mangal Deep, Fatehabad-125050

¶8

…….Defendants

¶9

Advocates

¶10

Sh. Parunjeet Singh, Counsel for the applicant bank Defendants- ex parte

¶11

OA for the Recovery of Rs.32,51,276/- with interest @7.30% per annum with monthly rests from 27.10.2023.

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Bank of Maharashtra (Applicant Bank) has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of Rs.32,51,276/- with interest against M/s Luxmi Sweets and Another (defendants).

¶14

Defendant No. 1 is a Proprietorship firm of defendant No. 2. Bank’s case is that on 30.06.2021, it had granted loans of Rs.21.80 Lacs in the form of WCTL Facility, Rs.2.04 Lacs in the form of FITL and Rs.4.00 Lacs in the form of GECL to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for business purpose. Defendant No. 2 also stood as a guarantor. To secure the loans, the defendant No. 2 had mortgaged his property (fully detailed in para No.5(ix) of the application). The WCTL facility was chargeable to interest @8.30% per annum with monthly rests, FITL facility was chargeable to interest @7.30% per annum with monthly rests and GECL facility was chargeable to interest @7.50% per annum with monthly

¶15

¶16

rests. On 15.09.2023, a sum of Rs.32,51,276/- was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶17

On 02.12.2023, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 16.05.2025, they were proceeded ex parte . 4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Smt. Yangchan Dolma, Chief Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-11. 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 loan of Rs.27.84 Lacs and on 15.09.2023, a sum of Rs.32,51,276/- was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.32,51,276/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lacs Fifty One Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy Six Only) with interest @7.30% per annum with monthly rests from 27.10.2023, 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 property(ies) fully detailed in para No.5(ix) of the application as well as from the hypothecated assets/stocks/goods/book debts etc. and personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants. 7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 23.03.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgage property(ies) 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: 29.01.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-2, Chandigarh (Additional charge)

Bank of Maharashtra v. M/S Luxmi Sweets

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. M/S Luxmi Sweets

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

Icici Bank Limited versus Abhishek Pratap

Central Bank of India versus M/S Maheshwari Ayurvedic Stores

Icici Bank Limited versus Sadiya

Central Bank of India versus Atul Kumar Tiwari S/O Shri Dinesh Prasad Sharma

Bank of India versus Praneeta

Shivani Traders versus Au Small Finance Bank Limited