Allowed

State Bank of India v. Ms Garg Dall and Besan Mills and Ors.

DRT7 Aug 2026OA/258/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of dues. The defendants contested via absence. The Tribunal directed defendants to pay principal and interest and authorized recovery from hypothecated and mortgaged assets.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs.18,18,04,490/- with interest and costs within 30 days, recoverable from sale of hypothecated stock, assets, and mortgaged properties.

State Bank of India versus Ms Garg Dall and Besan Mills and… — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

O.A. No.258 of 2024

¶2

Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi 4th floor, Jeevan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi

¶3

Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sharma O.A No. 258 of 2024
State Bank of India Stressed Assets Management Branch-I STC Building, 12th Floor, Tolstoy Marg, Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan, New Delhi-110001 Applicant
Versus
1. M/s Garg DaII & Besan Mills C-37,2ndFloor, Lawrence Road Indl Area Delhi-110035
Also at: House No.288, Tarun Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi-110034
2. Mrs.Savitri Devi w/o late Sh.Tara Chand R/o House No.288, Tarun Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi-110034
3. Sh.Ashok Kumar s/o late Sh.Tara Chand R/o House No.288, Tarun Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi-110034
4. Sh.Tapish Garg s/o Ashok Kumar Garg R/o House No.288, Tarun Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi-110034
5. Sh.Sunil Garg s/o late Sh.Tara Chand R/o House No.288, Tarun Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi-110034 Defendants
Present: Shri Himanshu Lalini along with Sh.Deobansh Roy, Counsel for the applicant bank Date of Reserve: 30.07.2026
Date of Pronouncement: 07.08.2026

O.A. No.258 of 2024

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant ank on 17.04.2024 through Mrs. Sheenu Dinesh, authorized presentative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of ecovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the efendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.18,18,04,490/- (Rupees ighteen Crores Eighteen Lacs Four Thousand Four Hundred inety only) as on 11.04.2024 along with pendentelite and f ture interest @9.85% per annum with monthly rest and 5% penal interest per annum in Cash Credit account and 7.40% in GECL account from 12.04.2024 till the date of r alization and costs.

¶8

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant no.1 being partnership concern of defendant no.2 to 4 as partners/guarantors, engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of gram, dall and other food grains etc., the applicant bank sanctioned Cash Credit facility of Rs.1250.00 lacs for working capital requirements on 31.12.2019. On the request of defendant no.1, the applicant sanctioned additional working capital demand loan of Rs.375.00 lacs under GECL as per Govt.of India guidelines on account of Covid-19 pandemic on 01.06.2020. in addition, the applicant bank sanctioned CCECL limit of Rs.83.00 lacs on 18.03.2021, renewed on 29.11.2021 and again on 08.06.2022 for Rs.1704.00 lacs. The applicant bank sanctioned the credit facilities against hypothecation of stocks, book debs and equitable mortgage of two properties at Pitampura and Lawrence Road, Delhi. The defendant no.5 stood as guarantor for the credit facilities availed by defendant no.1.

¶9

¶10

O.A. No.258 of 2024

¶11

That in order to avail the credit facilities, the defendant 0.1 along with defendant no.2,3 and 5 and one Sh.Tara Chand since expired) as guarantors executed Letter of Arrangement, greement of Loan cum Hypothecation (SME-2) by defendant 0.1, Guarantee Agreements (SME-3), Acknowledgement onfirming execution of loan documents, Undertaking/ eclarations on 31.12.2019 and as well as on 01.06.2020 xecuted Supplemental Agreement of Loan-Cumypothecation(SME-4), Guarantee Agreement, Undertakings. n addition, the defendant no.1 along with defendant no.2 to 5 s guarantors executed Letter of Arrangement, Supplemental greement of Loan cum Hypothecation, Guarantee Agreement, etter of Undertakings & Confirmations (5), No Consideration ndertaking, Affidavit/undertaking, Undertakings for nonithdrawal of Capital Unsecured Loans etc., Letter of uthorization on 18.03.2021 and thereafter on 29.11.2021 and 18.06.2022 towards the applicant bank.

¶12

That in order to secure the credit facilities by defendant 0.1, the defendant no.1 and 2 created equitable mortgage of heir properties on 29.01.2020 and extended it on 26.11.2021 nd 03.02.2020 by depositing Title Deeds along with previous hain of documents situated at:

¶13

Residential Property bearing House No.288, Tarun Enclave, Pitam Pura, Delhi-110034 admeasuring total area of 160 sq.yds. owned by defendant no.2; this property stands cross-collateralized to secure credit facilities availed by Jyoti International, proprietorship concern of defendant no.5 and home loan facility availed by defendant no.2,3 and 5.

¶14

¶15

O.A. No.258 of 2024

¶16

Property bearing Plot No.C-37, Lawrence Road Industrial Area, Rohini, Delhi-110034 admeasuring 601.40 sq.yds owned by defendant no.1.

¶17

The applicant bank executed Memorandum of Recording of Mortgage by Deposit of Title Deeds dated 29.01.2020 and 01.06.2020 and Letters of Confirmation & Extension of Mortgage dated 03.02.2020, 10.06.2020 and 29.11.2021.

¶18

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions and account became highly irregular. The defendants failed to maintain financial discipline in the account despite several requests and reminders. The applicant bank classified the account as Non-Performing Asset on 02.07.2023 on account of non-payment of overdue amount in accordance with RBI guidelines and issued legal loan recall notice on 26.09.2023 but defendants failed to pay the oustanding. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶19

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite proper service, the defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings and none appeared on behalf of defendants. As per order dated 09.05.2025, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte due to non-filing of written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets before this Tribunal.

¶20

Notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 dated 21.02.2024 was issued to the defendants, but there is no response.

¶21

¶22

O.A. No.258 of 2024

¶23

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its vidence by way of affidavit of Mrs.Dinesh Singh, who has roved the documents such as Gazette Notifications, Letters of rrangement, Agreements of loan-cum-hypothecations, uarantee Agreements, Undertakings/Declarations, upplemental Agre&nents of Loan-cum-Hypothecation, ndertakings by Guarantors, Revival Letters, Letters of ndertakings ana Confirmations, Undertakings of No onsideration, Affidavit/Undertakings to non-classification as ilful Defaulter, Letters of Authorization, Undertakings of No onsideration, Undertaking qua Unrelated Party, Utilization of redit facilities and non-withdrawal of capital, unsecured loans tc., Memorandums for Recording of Mortgage by Deposit of itle Deeds dated 2901.2020 & 10.06.2020 along with Chain f Documents, Loan Recall and Demand Notice along with ostal Receipts, Demand Notice u/s 13(2) dated 21.02.2024 long with Postal Receipts, Certified Statement of Accounts long with interest calculation sheet and statement showing otal outstanding along with statement of discounted bills nder Banker's Books of Evidence Act marked as Ex.AW-1/1 to x.AW-1/106.

¶24

The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments ade in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the pplicant bank is based on the documents and the same have een duly proved.

¶25

The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and here is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant ank and applicant bank has proved its case beyond easonable doubts.

¶26

¶27

O.A. No.258 of 2024

¶28

In the light of the above discussions and documents on ecord, the Original Application deserves to be allowed.

¶29

ORDER

¶30

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the pplicant bank within 30 days, jointly or severally, a sum of s.18,18,04,490/- (Rupees Eighteen Crores Eighteen Lacs Four housand Four Hundred Ninety only) as on 11.04.2024 along ith pendentelite and future interest @11.85% per annum with onthly rest and costs from date of filing of this application ailing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from sale f hypothecated stock/book debts/assets/receivable, vehicles tc. and mortgaged property bearing

¶31

¶32

Property bearing Plot No.C-37, Lawrence Road Industrial Area, Rohini, Delhi-110034 admeasuring. 601.40 sq.yds owned by defendant no.1.

¶33

n case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale f movable and immovable assets of the defendants.

¶34

II) The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent o the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi.

¶35

¶36

O.A. No.258 of 2024

¶37

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 06.10.2026.

¶38

IV) Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be ent to all concerned free of cost. (GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI (Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 07.08.2026

¶39

(GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶40

State Bank of India v. Ms Garg Dall and Besan Mills and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Ms Garg Dall and Besan Mills and Ors.

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

Hdfc Bank versus Kulavindar Singh

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S Khazin Rafi

Sh. Shyam Lal versus Punjab National Bank

Punjab National Bank versus Asadul Mondal

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Karwar Motors

Axis Bank versus Shree Shani Enterprises