Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sri Biplab Mondal

DRT20 Apr 2026OA/159/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the recovery application filed by State Bank of India against respondents for defaults in loan repayment. The court held the claim was within limitation due to a revival letter and determined the debt plus future interest.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to jointly and severally pay Rs.34,28,563.13 plus future interest at 10% p.a.; recovery certificate issued under Section 19(22).

State Bank of India versus Sri Biplab Mondal — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

Page No

¶2

KOLKATA DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL NO. 2 ORDER SHEET (Continuation) State Bank of lndia

State Bank of lndia

O.A./159 o12024

Case No Vs
Sri Biptab ondal & Anr.
Office action wilh
Date date and dated
of Order with Signature Signature of
Order parties when
necessary
08 Counsel for the parties:
20.04.202 Ms. Mehzabeen Begum, Ld. Advocate representing Md
Amjad Ali, Ld. Counsel for the applicant Bank.
None for the defendants.
O.A./159 ot 2024 is ailowed and disposed of.
Final Order / Judgment is in separate sheet of 5 pages.
File be consigned to record room.
Order be uploaded on the Tribunal,s website.
fr)
(Arbind Madhav)
Presiding Ofiicer
DRT-2, Kotkata

¶7

¶8

O.A.l'159 ol 2024 - DRf -2lKot

¶9

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 2, KOLKATA Jeevan Sudha Bldg. 07tt Floor,42lC, J.L. Nehru Road, Kolkata _7OOO71

¶10

Before shri Arbind Mad hav, Presidinq Officer

¶11

O.A. No.l 59 ot 2024

¶12

ln the matter of

¶13

state Bank of rndia, a body corporate constituted under the state Bank of lndia Act 1955, having its central office at state Bank Bhawan, Madam cama Road, Mumbai_ 400021 and its Locar Head office at'samriddhi Bhawan,, 1, strand Road, Kolkata _ 700001' and carrying on business, inter-aria, amongst others at ADM Karimpur Branch, Vill. & P.O.- Karimpur, District - Nadia, pin_ 741152.

¶14

Applicant Bank

¶15

-Versus-

¶16

1 sri Biplab Mondal, son of sri Bimar Mondar, residing at Viil. & p.o.- shikarpur, Mathpara, P.S.- Murutia, Dist.- Nadia, pin - 74115g.

¶17

2 tl/s Maa Laxmi Muri Mill,^prop. sri Biprab Mondal, having unit at vill. & p.o.Shikarpur, Mathpara, P.S.- Murutia, Dist.- Nadia, pin _14115g.

¶18

Defendants

¶19

Counsel for parties:

¶20

For the Applicant Bank : Md. Amjad Ali

¶21

For the Defendants : Ex-Parte.

¶22

FINAL ORDER / JUDGMENT Delivered on 20.04.2026

¶23

Applicant, State Bank of lndia, instituted the present Application being the original Application No.159 of 2024 on 01 .0s.2024 against two Defendants under section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (amended from time to time) for recovery of sum of Rs.34,28,563.13 (Rupees thirty four lakh twenty eight thousand five hundred sixty three and paise thirteen) including interest calculated uplo 29.02.2024 and future interest chargeable at the contractual rate, i.e. @ 17.1io/o per annum with monthly rests, till full realization. 2. The brief facts of the case as set out by applicant Bank in its original Application, as under:

¶24

(i) The Defendant No.1 being the proprietor ot M/s Maa Laxmi Mui Mill applied ior Cash Credit Loan facility vide an Application; copy of loan application is annexed and marked as Annexure 'A'. Upon consideration of loan application, applicant Bank was pleased to sanction a cash credit loan to the limit of Rs.22,00,000.00 (Rupees twenty two

¶25

¶26

O.A./159 of 2024^_ DRT_2/Kot

¶27

lakh) vide sanction retter dated 28.06.2019, GECL facirity of Rs.4,25,000/- (Rupees four lakh twenty five thousand) through a letter of sanction dated 15.06.2020 and FITL facility of Rs.6,03,000/- (Rupees six lakh three thousand) vide sanction letter dated 31.0g.2021 to the defendant No.1 on certain terms and condition mentioned therein. copy of sanction letters dated 28.06.2019, 1i.o6.zo2o & 31.og.2o21are annexed and marked as Annexure'B".

¶28

(ii) Pursuant to the aforesaid loan facilities and in acknowledgement of the grant thereof, the defendant had signed and executed the following loan documents in favour of the applicant bank:

¶29

(a) Agreement of Loan Cum Hypothecation dated 28.06.2019

¶30

(b) Supplement Agreement of Loan cum Hypothecation dated 1s.06.2020.

¶31

Copy of said documents are annexed and marked as Annexure^,C,.

¶32

(iii) The borrower(s) admitted their debt & liabilities by executing Revival letter dated 10.05.2023 in favour of applicant Bank, copy of which is annexed and marked as Annexure "D".

¶33

The defendants availed and enjoyed the aforesaid loan facilities by opening Accounts in Bank's ADB Karimpur Branch, vill. & p.o.- Karimpur, Dist.- Nadia. However, the defendants did not comply with the terms and conditions of said facilities. The defendants did not repay the outstanding Bank's dues and overdue interest of loan accounts. Despite several requests made by applicant Bank, the defendants did not pay any aftention to regularize the Accounts; consequenfly, the accounts became irregular and were classified as NPA on28.11.2023. since the defendants / borrowe(s) failed to liquidate the dues inspite of repeated requests and reminders, applicant Bank issued Demand Notice dated 18.03.2024 upon the defendants through its Advocate demanding to repay the outstanding Bank's dues, but the defendants did not comply with the said notice; copy of Demand Notice dated 18.03.2024 is annexed and marked as Annexure 'E'. certifled copies of statement of Accounts along with certificate under Bankers, Books of Evidence Act, with lnterest calculation sheet, Annexure 'F', have been filed to show and prove the dues, and future interest at the contractual rate, i.e. @ 17.15o/o per annum, with monthly rests, from the date of this application till full realization, has been prayed. Applicant Bank submitted that their claim in the Application is within limitation.

¶34

4, The Notices / summons were sent / served upon the Defendants No.1 & 2 by the Tribunal. lt is observed from S/R on affidavit dated 30.04.2025 and its enclosures that service of Notices / summons upon the Defendants is not successful by postal service, such has been recorded vide Ld. Registrar's order dated 30.04.2025. At the request of Ld. Advocate on behalf of applicant Bank, Ld. Tribunal is directed to serve the summons upon the defendants by way of substituted service; and Ld. Advocate of the applicant Bank has brought on record the affidavit of service on publication dated 13.08.2025 along with relevant portion of paper cuttings in two newspapers, namely (i)'The lndian Express'in English and (ii)'Bartaman' in Bengali, both dated 22.05.2025, such has been

¶35

¶36

O.A./159 of 2024^_ DRT_2/Kot

¶37

recorded vide Ld. Registrar's order dated 2s.og.2o2s. Despite service, the defendants did not appear nor filed the written statement; thus, both the defendants were ordered to be proceeded ex-pafte vide order dated 2g.01.2026. Ld. Advocate ofthe applicant Bank has submitted argument on 17.03.2026.

¶38

5' Applicant Bank has fired Affidavit of Evidence, affirmed by sri Arnab Kumar Mandal, Branch Manager of Bank's, ADB Karimpur Branch, viil. & p.o.- Karimpur, Dist.Nadia along with copy of originar documents executed by the defendants. originar documents have been produced by appricant Bank; the same have been verified with copies of the documents annexed with the o.A. and the originals have been returned to sri Palash Roy, Manager, sARB, Jeevan Deep Brdg., Korkata -rooo71 on03.12.2024, such has been recorded vide Ld. Asstt. Registrar's order dated 03.12.2024. The documents produced by applicant Bank are exhibited and marked as Exhibits ,A-l' to ,A_ vlr'.

¶39

I have heard the Ld. Advocate forthe appricant Bank and perused the records. 6. Evidence-on-affidavit, filed by applicant Bank, has remained unchallenged, unrebutted and its veracity cannot be put to dispute. Applicant Bank has corroborated the averments made in the o.A. Applicant Bank has proved the sanction a cash credit facility vide sanction letter dated 28.06.2019, GECL facility of Rs.4,25,000/- through a letter of sanction dated 15.06.2020 and FlrL facility of Rs.6,03,000/- vide sanction letter dated 31.08.2021. Applicant Bank has proved the hypothecated movable assets, described in schedule at page 16 and para 3A at page g of the original application. 7. on the point of limitation, Loan has been sanctioned on 2g.06.2019, 15.06.2020 & 31.08.2021; documents have been executed on 28.06.2019 & 15.06.2020; originat Application has been filed on 01.05.2024. Further, the defendants admitted their debt & liabilities by executing a Revival Letter dated 1o.os.zo23 in favour of applicant bank acknowledging the outstanding balance in loan Account(s). As such, the original Application appears to have been filed well within the period of limitation. 8. Applicant Bank has stated that the outstanding balance in cash credit Accounts (inclusive of accrued interest and other charges as calculated uplo 2g.02.2024) for an aggregate sum of Rs.34,28,563.13 (Rupees thirty four lakh twenty eight thousand five hundred sixty three and paise thirteen) upto 29.02.2024, which is the amount claimed by the applicant Bank in the original Application, and the defendants No.1 & 2 are, joinfly and/or severally, liable to repay the said amount to the applicant Bank with pendente tite and future interest, till realization in full. I allow the claim as made by the applicant Bank in the original Application. Applicant Bank has prayed future interest chargeable at the contractual rate, i-e. @ 17.15o/o per annum with monthly rests, from the date of application till full realization, while in sanction letter dated 28.06.2019 towards cash credit facility and sanction letter dated 15.06.2020 towards GECL facility the rate of interest @ 12.05o/o per annum and @ 7.80o/o per annum at monthly rests respectively,

¶40

¶41

O.A./159 of 2024 - DRT-2/Kot

¶42

have been charged. Therefore, in my view, the pendente /ife & future rate of interest @ 10olo per annum, with quarterly rests, from 01.05.2024, is allowed. 9. The mafter arso fails within the territoriar as weil as pecuniary iurisdiction of this Tribunal. The Appricant Bank has proved to claim made in the o.A. The original apprication being O.A./159 of 2024 deserves to be allowed; hence allowed. 10. ln view of the above, I pass the following order:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

(i) o.A. No.159 of 2024, filed by applicant Bank, is alrowed and debt is determined with cost against the Defendants No.1 & 2. rt is hereby ordered that the Defendants No.1 & 2 are hereby directed to pay, joinfly and / or severaly, the totar debt amount of Rs.34,28,563.13 (Rupees thirty four lakh twenty eight thousand five hundred sixty three and paise thirteen) due and payabre, incrusive of interest and other charges as calculated upto 29.02.2024; and interest for the period pendente tite and future @ 10% per annum, with quarterly rests, from 01.03.2024, till realization of the entire sum due and recoverable.

¶45

(ii) Amount, if any, paid by the Defendants in roan accounts or amount, if any, recovered by appricant Bank after firing of the originar apprication, the same may be taken into account while arriving at the exact amount of dues/debt payable by the Defendants. Accordingly, the pendente tite and future interest shall be calculated on the reduced amount.

¶46

(iii) The defendants No.1 & 2 are debarred from transferring, alienating, encumbering or disposing ofthe hypothecated movable assets, described in schedule at page 16 and para 3A at page I of the original application, as under -

¶47

H heca Movable Assets:

¶48

"Hypothecation of Stock, Goods, Debts & Moveabte Assets.',

¶49

The Defendants are also debarred from transferring, alienating, encumbering or disposing any other property(s) and assets belonging to them till the aforesaid adjudicated debt amount are recovered from the Defendants No.1 & 2.

¶50

(iv) Defendants No.1 & 2 are given a time of sixty days from the date of this Final order / Judgment for repayment of the above mentioned dues, so intimated to them. ln case the Defendants fail to pay the dues within the above mentioned time, the applicant Bank is entitled to recover its dues by sale of secured property(s), as aforesaid. Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against personal properties of the Defendants No.1 & 2 both moveable and immoveable and also proceed against the Defendants No.1 & 2 personally to recover the dues, in accordance with law.

¶51

¶52

¶53

O.A./159 of 2024 - DRT-2/Kot

¶54

(v) Let the certificate of Recovery be drawn up by Ld. Registrar forthwith in terms of Final order / Judgment for issuance of the same against the Defendants No.1 & 2 in favour of applicant Bank under section 19(22) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act' 1993 (amended from time to time) and put up the same for signature for issuance.

¶55

(vi) Ld. Recovery officer shall realize the amount as per the Recovery certificate from Defendants No.1 & 2, in accordance with law.

¶56

(vii) Ld. Registrar of this Tribunal is directed to place Recovery Certificate in terms of this Final Order / Judgment under section 19(22) of the Act of 1993.

¶57

Accordingry, the origina! Apprication, being o.A. No.1s9 ot 2024 is a[owed and stands disposed of.

¶58

File be consigned to Record room.

¶59

This order is dictated and corrected by the undersigned and pronounced on this the 20th day of April, 2026.

¶60

copy of the Final order / Judgment be uproaded on the Tribunals website.

¶61

A/r-"(ltDt-. (Arbind n#3ri av) Presiding Ofiicer DRT-2, Kolkata

¶62

State Bank of India v. Sri Biplab Mondal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sri Biplab Mondal

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

Canara Bank versus Sri Hari Bandhu Jana

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Sarkar Big Bazar

Icici Bank Limited versus Abdul Kader Seikh

Punjab National Bank versus Sekh Halim

Canara Bank versus Sri Abhijit Ghosh

Uco Bank versus Sri Buddhadeb Laha