Allowed

State Bank of India v. Mr.Khalil

DRT6 Jan 2026OA/225/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the recovery application filed by SBI against two defendants for an outstanding loan of Rs. 91 lakhs. The court directed payment of dues within two months or face sale of mortgaged assets, granted interest, and issued a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued; Defendants directed to pay Rs. 91,21,424/- with interest at 8% p.a. within two months; mortgaged and personal assets may be sold.

State Bank of India versus Mr.Khalil — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL

¶2

LUCKNOW

¶3

Dateoforderor proceeding	Orderwithsignatureofcourt	Officeaction takenwith date
O.A. No. 225/2025 18.12.2025	The Judgment is signed and pronounced on separate sheets. Separatelyattachedin07sheets.
	Order be uploaded on the Tribunal’swebsite. (Dictated\|
	(PravasKulnat Singh) PresidingOfficer (Manoj)
e..2G	a=>Ud av C+D\a<br>La +_ hAD\One\eu<br>'Ab'WqC hULL&VVoPa\o at+ y.& pJB

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT LUCKNOW

¶5

Present: Pravas Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

¶6

Case No. Original Application No. 225 of 2025

¶7

Dated: 18.12.2025

¶8

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch at 2-d Floor, 2- Tilak Marg, Near National PG College, Hazaratganj, Lucknow -226001.

¶9

........Applicant Bank

¶10

Versus

¶11

Mr. Khalil S/o Mr. Sharif Ahamad PostMadhan, Pakhbara Sambhal -244102.

¶12

Mohd. Usman Ali S/o Mr. Sharif Ahamad 179, Asmoli Pakbara Road, Post: Madhan,

¶13

Sambhal-244102.

¶14

......defendants

¶15

Counsel for applicant-bank: Shri Shivanshu Bajpai, Advocate Counsel for the defendants: Shri Ashutosh Kumar Singh, Advocate. JUDGEMENT

¶16

This Original Application has been filed by the applicant Bank under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendants for the recovery of Rs. 91,21,424/- (Rupees Ninety-One Lacs, Twenty One Thousand, Four Hundred Twenty Four only) together with pendent-lite and future interest, costs and other reliefs etc.

¶17

The brief facts of case are that the defendants No.1 is a

¶18

proprietorship firm of which defendant no.2 is the sole proprietor. The

¶19

¶20

2 O.A. No. 225 of 2025

¶21

defendant no.2 on behalf of defendant no.1 approached the applicant

¶22

bank for financial assistance of Rs. 88.00 Lacs for purchase of House situated at House No. 5A-86, MIG, M-type, Sector -5, Moradabad U.P. The applicant bank considered the request of the defendants and sanctioned Loan Facility of Rs. 87.35 Lacs vide Letter of arrangement dt. 30.09.2021 (Exhibit A-4).

¶23

To secure aforesaid credit facility, defendants had executed and signed various security documents in favour of the applicant-bank on 30.09.2021 loan and security documents. (Exhibit A- 5 & A- 6).

¶24

In order to further secure the repayment of the bank dues, the defendant No. 1 & 2 created equitable mortgage in respect of property i.e. Residential House No. 5A-86, MIG, M-type, Sector -5,

¶25

Moradabad U.P. admeasuring 153 sq. mt. in favour of the bank by deposit of title deed (Exhibit A-8). The applicant bank has also registered charge on the immovable property mortgaged with the applicant bank in the CERSAI on 08.10.2021

¶26

To avail the aforesaid credit facility, the applicant-bank opened loan account in the name of the defendant No.1.

¶27

After availing the abovementioned credit facility from the applicant-bank, the defendants failed to maintain financial discipline and also failed to comply with the terms and conditions of agreement as required in the matter. The applicant-bank made all possible efforts through oral persuasion and letters etc. The defendants was reminded

¶28

¶29

O.A. No. 225 of 2025

¶30

many times by several applications by the applicant-bank to regularize the loan account/ but the defendants kept mum and have not come forward to make any efforts regarding payment of dues but the loan account of the defendants were remained irregular and the defendants did not care to deposit the amount to adjust/ regularize the account despite various assurances given by defendants Consequently, the loan accounts of the defendant No.1 were classified as N.P.A. on 28.09.2024 by the applicant-bank as per RBI guidelines, therefore, the applicantbank issued recall/demand notice Dated 26.11.2024 (Exhibit No.A- 12) to the defendants and requested for repayments, but the Defendants did not paid their heed to the same, hence, this Original Application has been instituted.

¶31

As per books of the bank maintained in the usual and ordinary course of banking business, an outstanding of Rs. 91,21,424/- (Rupees Ninety-One Lacs, Twenty One Thousand, Four Hundred Twenty Four only) including interest upto 17.02.2025, were lying due for payment, for which the defendants are jointly and severally liable to repay the same, which they did not pay despite repeated requests and demand. The applicant bank filed the Statement of loan Accounts. (Exhibit No.A13)

¶32

The cause of action for filing the present application arose firstly when the aforesaid credit facility were sanctioned by the applicant Bank and the same were availed by the defendants and necessary

¶33

¶34

O.A. N'. 225 of 2025

¶35

documents were executed by the defendants on 30.09.2021. The cause of action further arose on when demand Notice dt. 26.11.2024 was sent to the defendants, recalling the entire outstanding dues and theY failed to pay the same.

¶36

The summons were served upon the defendant through registered post, the defendants appeared before the Tribunal to contest their case, but failed to file written statement within stipulated period. Hence, the matter is proceeded against the defendants.

¶37

From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the defendants were provided with fair opportunities to contest the claim of the bank. The defendants opted to contest the case but failed to file written statement within stipulated period, so only point of consideration before this Tribunal is as to whether bank is legally entitled to the amount as claimed in Original Application on the basis of documents and pleading submitted by it.

¶38

In support of the case Sh. Amit Kumar Singh, Chief Manager of the applicant bank has filed an affidavit.

¶39

On a careful scrutiny of the evidence on affidavit and Exhibits marked as Exhibit No.A-1 to Exhibit No.A-13, it is proved that defendants had availed the credit facilities from the applicant-bank by executing loan and security documents detailed as above in favour of the applicant- Bank. A perusal of the application, evidence and

¶40

5 O.A. No. 225 of 2025

¶41

documents relied upon clearly show that defendant had utilized the above loan facilities as granted to them. The applicant-bank had maintained the Books of account in the ordinary course of banking business showing disbursal of the loan amount. The Bank had also charged interest from time to time and the entries are relevant u/s 4 of the Banker Books of Evidence Act. It is also proved that the applicantbank’s claim is within limitation against defendants, therefore, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the dues.

¶42

Accordingly, the defendants No. 1 & 2 are directed to pay the balance dues to the applicant bank within a period of 2 months from the date of judgement failing which the applicant bank will be entitled to sell the mortgaged property, hypothecated assets and personal assets/ properties of the defendants.

¶43

The applicant-bank has claimed [email protected]% per annum with monthly rest for Home Loan and interest @ 8.90% per annum with monthly rests for Home Loan Insurance Cover Account from the date of filing of O.A. i.e. 25.02.2025 till the date of realization and costs. The contest between applicant-bank and the defendants comes to an end after filing of the O.A. as per the provisions of Section 19(2) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 (as amended from time to time) which is analogous to Section 34 to the CPC, the Tribunal/ Court has direction in awarding pendent-lite and future interest. I am also supported in my view by Hon’ble Supreme Court in a c: titled

¶44

A a//

¶45

O.A. No. 225 of 2025

¶46

Central Bank of India vs. Ravindra and others reported in AIR 2001 SC page 3095. On the basis of foregoing discussion, interest of justice will be served if pendent- lite and future interest is granted @8% per annum with monthly rest reducing balance from the date of filing of the O.A. till the date of realization with costs.

¶47

1 find that the bank has proved execution of loan documents and creation of mortgage in its favour. In the result, the Original Application succeeds as exparte against the defendant No. 1 & 2 with costs. The liability of the defendant No.1 & 2 are joint and several and mortgaged property, hypothecated asset as well as the personal properties are to be sold.

¶48

It is, therefore , ordered

¶49

(i) That the Original Application No.225 of 2025 of the applicant bank for issuance of Recovery Certificate to the tune of Rs. 91,21,424/- (Rupees Ninety-One Lacs, Twenty-One Thousand, Four Hundred Twenty-Four only) along with the interest @ 8% per annum with monthly rest from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 25.02.2025 till the loan is fully liquidated and costs succeeds against the defendant No. 1 & 2.

¶50

(ii) The defendants are directed to pay the dues within a period of

¶51

two months from the date of judgement, failing which the applicant bank will be entitled to recover the same from the

¶52

\ ~//

¶53

¶54

7 O.A. No. 225 of 2025

¶55

secured assets, personal movables and immovable assets of the defendants.

¶56

(iii) The applicant–bank is entitled to recover aforesaid amount by sale of mortgage property & hypothecated assets (if not sold earlier under the provision of the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act 2002). The amount, if any already recovered by sale of any hypothecated assets or otherwise shall be recoverable, if the dues of the applicant bank still remain unsatisfied, the same shall be recovered by attachment and sale of the personal movable assets of the defendant jointly and severally.

¶57

(iv) The defendants are here by restrained by means of injunction from depleting, transferring, encumbering, alienating or in any way dealing with their properties/estates without first paying the claim of the applicant-bank.

¶58

(V) Let Recovery Certificate be issued immediately u/s 19(22) of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993 by fixing 24.02.2026 before Recovery Officer, DRT, Lucknow.

¶59

Judgement is pronounced in the open court.

¶60

Dated: 18.12.2025.

¶61

-pF

¶62

(Pravas Kumar Singh) Presiding Officer

State Bank of India v. Mr.Khalil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mr.Khalil

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

Canara Bank versus Mr Ajay Kumar

M s ansh Rice Mill and others versus Indian Bank

Arun Kumar Gupta versus Canara Bank

M/S Jagannath Traders versus Union Bank of India

Bank of India versus M/S Mas Hospitiality

Axis Bank versus Indresh Kumar