Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S Anurag Foods, a Proprietary Concern, Acting through Its Proprietor Ahri Anurag Rakesh Jagiya

DRT17 Mar 2026OA/367/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an application under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993 for recovery of loan dues by State Bank of India against M/s Anurag Foods and Shri Anurag Rakesh Jagiya, who appeared ex parte.

What did the court decide?

The respondents are liable to pay Rs. 24,07,466/- on term loan and Rs. 55,473/- on cash credit with future interest, costs, and recovery certificate to be issued.

State Bank of India versus M/S Anurag Foods, a Proprietary… — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

Page 1 of 4 O.A. No. 367/2024

¶2

PRESENTED ON : 16.10.2024 REGISTERED ON : 25.10.2024

¶3

Exh. No. 11

¶4

BEFORE THE PO, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR

¶5

Delivered by Pankaj Kumar

¶6

O.A. No. 367/2024

¶7

State Bank of India

¶8

: Applicant

¶9

A bank constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 having one of its branch at Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, 5, Sai Complex, 3^rd Floor, Above Industrial Finance Branch, Bharat Nagar, Amravati Road, Nagpur – 440010

¶10

Phone No. 0712-2567934, 2567345 IFS Code : SBIN0010152 Acting through its Chief Manager Mr. Ruddhashil Chandan Mesham, Mobile No. 7391816901 Email : [email protected] Having authority to file the Original Application which includes the authority to verify & sign the Original Application.

¶11

Versus

¶12

1. M/s Anurag Foods

¶13

: Defendants

¶14

A proprietary concern, acting through its Proprietor

¶15

Shri Anurag Rakesh Jagiya, Aged about : 22 Years, Occupation : Business Near Khotele Hospital, NH-6, Sendurwafa, Tah. Sakoli Dist. Bhandara – 441802 PAN : CDNPJ9679N Also at : Ganesh Ward, Sakoli, Dist. Bhandara – 441802

¶16

Page 2 of 4 O.A. No. 367/2024

¶17

2. Shri Anurag Rakesh Jagiya

¶18

Aged about : 22 Years, Occupation : Business Near Khotele Hospital, NH-6, Sendurwafa, Tah. Sakoli Dist. Bhandara – 441802 PAN : CDNPJ9679N Also at :

¶19

Ganesh Ward, Sakoli, Dist. Bhandara – 441802

¶20

Learned Counsel for Applicant	Adv. S.N. Kumar
	Adv. P.P. Joshi
Defendants Set Exparte On	26.11.2025

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

(Delivered on 17^th Day of March, 2026)

¶23

This is an application filed by the applicant U/s . 19 of RDB Act, 1993 against defendants for recovery of aggregate amount of Rs. 24,62,939/- with monthly rests from the date of filing of O.A. till the date of realization as under :

¶24

A. An amount of Rs. 24,07,466/- outstanding in Term Loan Account No. 41705193825 with costs and future interest @12.40% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of filing of O.A. till the date of realization.

¶25

B. An amount of Rs. 55,473/- outstanding in Cash Credit Loan Account No. 41705189547 with costs and future interest @12.40% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of filing of O.A. till the date of realization.

¶26

Page 3 of 4 O.A. No. 367/2024

¶27

Though, defendants were duly served with the suit summons vide Exh. 5 to 8, they failed to cause appearance before this Tribunal to defend their case despite granting several adjournments. Hence , the proceeding against defendants was set exparte on 26.11.2025.

¶28

The applicant has filed its Claim Affidavit (Exh. 9) alongwith List of Documents (Exh. 10), annexing therewith 5 documents. The original documents therein are marked as Exh. AW-1/1 to AW-1/4. It has been stated by the applicant in O.A. as well as in Claim Affidavit that no penal interest has been applied in the loan accounts.

¶29

Heard Learned counsel for the applicant.

¶30

As stated supra, defendants remained exparte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz. Exh. AW -1/1 to AW-1/4 marked on behalf of the applicant, clinches the claim of the applicant against defendants. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence adduced on behalf of applicant. Hence, defendants are liable to pay, jointly and severally, the claim of applicant with costs and future interest.

¶31

Hence, it is ordered as under:-

¶32

ORDER

¶33

A] O.A. No. 367/2024 is allowed to the extent as under with costs.

¶34

B] Defendants to pay jointly and severally to the applicant bank an amount of Rs. 24,07,466/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakh Seven Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Six Only) outstanding in Term Loan Account No.

¶35

Page 4 of 4 O.A. No. 367/2024

¶36

41705193825 with simple future interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of O.A. till its realization.

¶37

C] Defendants to pay jointly and severally to the applicant bank an amount of Rs. 55,473/- (Rupees Fifty Five Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Three Only) outstanding in Cash Credit Loan Account No. 41705189547 with simple future interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of O.A. till its realization.

¶38

D] It is declared that charge of outstanding dues is kept on hypothecated property of defendant no. 1 as described in Schedule-I annexed to O.A. and as referred in Exh. AW-1/2.

¶39

E] Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶40

F] The Registrar is directed to send the copy of Judgment and Recovery Certificate to the parties to this O.A at once.

¶41

Nagpur

¶42

Date: 17.03.2026

¶43

(Pankaj Kumar) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal Nagpur

State Bank of India v. M/S Anurag Foods, a Proprietary Concern, Acting through Its Proprietor Ahri Anurag Rakesh Jagiya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S Anurag Foods, a Proprietary Concern, Acting through Its Proprietor Ahri Anurag Rakesh Jagiya

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

State Bank of India versus Partha Chakraborty and Ors.

Sri Dorai Swamy versus Shimsha Sahakari Bank Niyamithsa

Mr Manjunath B versus Bank of India

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S Mohammad Afzal Sheikh

Punjab National Bank versus Smt. Gurmit Kaur

Sri. v. Benjamin versus State Bank of India