Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S A.S. Industries

DRT13 Aug 2026OA/341/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT-I, Chandigarh allowed an application for recovery of ₹81,72,007/- with interest against a proprietorship concern and its proprietor. The court found the bank proved its case, granted recovery including sale of hypothecated assets, and issued a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of ₹81,72,007/- with interest allowed; joint and several liability confirmed; recovery via sale of hypothecated and personal property directed; Recovery Certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus M/S A.S. Industries — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 341 of 2024 Date of Institution: 16.02.2024 Date of Decision: 13.08.2026

¶4

SBI having its branches all over India and a branch at 40, SDA Complex known as Stressed Asset Recovery Branch, Zonal Officer, Building Kasumpati, Shimla.

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

M/s A.S. Industries, a proprietorship concern having its Registered Office and Administrative Office in Village Anandpur, Baddi, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh.

¶8

Amanpreet Singh Saini s/o Sh. Salender Singh, r/o Tehsil Baddi, Theda (165), Lodhi Majra, Solan

¶9

2^nd Address: Village Anandpur,Near Kharuni, Baddi, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh.

¶10

……….Defendants

¶11

Advocates

¶12

Sh. P.S. Arora, Counsel for the applicant bank. Sh. Sachin Rana, Counsel for the Defendants.

¶13

OA for the Recovery of ₹81,72,007/- with interest from 16.02.2024.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

SBI (Bank) has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of ₹81,72,007/- with interest against M/s A.S. Industries and others (defendants).

¶16

Bank’s case is that on 01.01.2020, it had granted a loan of ₹40.00Lacs in the form of C.C Limit and a loan of ₹28.00Lacs in the form of Term Loan for business purpose. On 30.05.2020, bank granted a loan of ₹40.00Lacs in the form of C.C. Limit, a loan of ₹28.66Lacs in the form of Term Loan and a loan of ₹9.05Lacs in the form of G.E.C.L. –

¶17

¶18

W.C.T.L. On 16.11.2021, bank granted a loan of ₹11.19Lacs in the form of G.E.CL. – II Limit. On 16.11.2021, the limits were restructured and converted into a Term Loan. To secure the loan, Defendant no. 1 had hypothecated assets and machinery (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). The loans were chargeable to different rates of interest. On 19.01.2024, a sum of ₹81,72,007/- was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶19

On 02.10.2024, Defendants filed their written statement wherein they alleged that the bank has concealed material facts; the bank has caused the defendants to run into losses due to acts and conducts of the bank officials; the bank has not supplied legible documents on basis of which interest has been calculated; the statement of accounts do not give a complete narration of the transactions; the certificate is not as per the Bankers Book Evidence Act; the claim of the bank is based on documents which are unenforceable, bad in law, under-stamped materially altered; the back did not inform the defendants about the declaration of the account as N.P.A.; the notice dated 15.07.2023 was never received by the defendants. Hence, the OA be dismissed.

¶20

3A. on 12.08.2025, the defendants were summoned for the purpose of admission and denial of the documents. The defendants admitted their signatures on the documents but denied their contents.

¶21

4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the
affidavit of Mr. Dogar Singh Salhan, Chief Manager along with the loan
and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-16.
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 loans under
different schemes and on 19.01.2024, a sum of ₹81,72,007/-

¶22

¶23

(₹44,68,232/- in the Cash Credit Account; ₹20,96,347/- in the Term Loan; ₹4,11,405/- in the G.E.C.L.-1 W.C.T.L. and ₹11,96,013/- in G.E.C.L.-II) was due.

¶24

Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of ₹81,72,007/- (Rupees Eighty One Lacs Seventy Two Thousand and Seven Only) ₹44,68,232/- in the Cash Credit Account; with interest @12.80% per annum with monthly rests and ₹37,03,775/- aggregate of the Amounts due in the Term Loan, G.E.C.L.-I and G.E.C.L.-II with interest @7.80% per annum with monthly rests from 16.02.2024, 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 hypothecated assets fully detailed in para No.3A of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants.

¶25

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 14.09.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgaged property(ies) and standing crops 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.

¶26

Pronounced in the open Court. (A S Narang) Dated: 13.08.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh (Law Researcher)

State Bank of India v. M/S A.S. Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S A.S. 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

Hdfc Bank versus Ranjit Singh

Huzer Akhtar versus Axis Bank

Bank of Baroda versus Thulasidas

Suresh Chowdhury and Another versus Aadhar Housing Finance Limited

Sheriff P B versus Bank of Baroda

Canara Bank versus J v Chowda Reddy