Allowed

Central Bank of India v. M/S Suguna Industries

DRT15 Jan 2026OA/2013/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the bank's application for recovery of dues. The debt was established as defaulted, and the bank was ordered to proceed with recovery from mortgaged property and personal assets of respondents, noting limitation on heirs' liability.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.40,79,440 with interest; issuance of Recovery Certificate; distribution of proceeds via Recovery Officer.

Central Bank of India versus M/S Suguna Industries — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 2013/2022 Date of Institution: 30.09.2022 Date of Decision: 15.01.2026

¶4

Central Bank of India having its branches all over India and a branch at G.T. Road, Batala, District Gurdaspur, Punjab.

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

M/s Suguna Industries, a proprietorship firm situated at G.T. Road, Batala, District Gurdaspur, Punjab, though its proprietor i.e. Late Sh. Omesh Goel.

¶8

Late Sh. Omesh Goel s/o Sh. Ram Parkash Goel, Proprietor of M/s Suguna Industries, r/o Bouli Inderjit, Gobind Nagar, Batala, District Gurdaspur, Punjab, since deceased now represented through his Legal Heirs-

¶9

2a) Mrs. Vanni Goel w/o Late Sh. Omesh Goel, r/o Bouli Inderjit, Gobind Nagar, Batala, District Gurdaspur, Punjab.

¶10

2b) Ms. Chesta Goel d/o Late Sh. Omesh Goel, r/o Bouli Inderjit, Gobind Nagar, Batala, District Gurdaspur, Punjab.

¶11

2c) Mr. Sanyam s/o Late Sh. Omesh Goel, r/o Bouli Inderjit, Gobind Nagar, Batala, District Gurdaspur, Punjab.

¶12

Jitender Mohan Goel s/o Sh. Ram Parkash Goel, r/o Bouli Inderjit, Gobind Nagar, Batala, District Gurdaspur, Punjab.

¶13

……….Defendants

¶14

Advocates

¶15

Sh. Krishan Kumar, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants - ex parte vide order dated 05.12.2023 .

¶16

OA for the Recovery of Rs.40,79,440/- with interest @9.80% per annum with yearly rests from 30.09.2022.

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Central Bank of India has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of Rs.40,79,440/- with interest against M/s Suguna Industries and others (defendants).

¶19

¶20

Bank’s case is that on 31.03.2014, it had granted a loan of Rs.20.00 Lacs to defendant No.1 through its proprietor i.e. defendant No.2 in the form of C.C Limit for Business purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 had mortgaged their property (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). Defendant No.3 stood as guarantor vide guarantee agreement dated 03.04.2014. Defendant no.2 is deceased and now represented through his legal heirs. The loan was chargeable to interest @9.80% per annum with yearly rests. Defendants had duly acknowledged their liability towards the debt on 04.01.2020. On 26.07.2022, a sum of Rs.40,79,440/- was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶21

On 20.10.2022, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 05.12.2023, they were proceeded ex parte . 4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Sh. Ishwar Singh, Chief Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-13. 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.20.00 Lacs and on 26.07.2022, a sum of Rs.40,79,440/- was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.40,79,440/- (Rupees Forty Lacs Seventy Nine Thousand Four Hundred Forty Only) with interest @9.80% per annum with yearly rests from 30.09.2022, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of the legal heirs of defendant No.2 would be limited to the extent of the property inherited by them from Sh. Omesh Kumar Goel

¶22

¶23

(now deceased), whereas liability of defendant Nos.1 and 3 would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged property fully detailed in para No.3A of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendant Nos.1 and 3.

¶24

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 17.02.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgaged property 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.

¶25

Pronounced in the open Court. (A S Narang) Dated: 15.01.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

Central Bank of India v. M/S Suguna Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Central Bank of India v. M/S Suguna Industries

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

Ms S B Enterprise and Ors. versus Axis Bank

Abdulla Kutty M a versus State Bank of India

Saravana Rajan M versus Canara Bank

Icici Bank Limited versus Bhim Singh

State Bank of India versus Karnail Singh

Manjit Kaur versus State Bank of India