Allowed

Bank of Baroda (Vijaya Bank) v. M/s Maa Sharde Agritech

DRT29 Jun 2026OA/38/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the Bank of Baroda's application for recovery of a loan of Rs. 1.05 crore from the borrowers and guarantor. The court determined the principal and ordered the issuance of a recovery certificate enforceable against the mortgaged assets. Issue of subsidy rejection was not disputed by the bank.

What did the court decide?

Awarded recovery of Rs. 1,05,49,066/- with interest, issued recovery certificate, and attached mortgaged assets.

Bank of Baroda (Vijaya Bank) versus M/s Maa Sharde Agritech — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

DRT, PATN A

OA 38 of2024jJl

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna

¶5

Karpuri Thakur Sadan, Aashiana Digha Road Patna-800025

¶6

Presiding Officer : Shri Kaushalendra Yadav

¶7

OA Case No. 38 of 2024

¶8

Bank of Baroda, (e-Vijaya Bank), Buxar Branch, Bihar, Opposite Buniyadi School, Station Road, Buxar, Bihar 802 101

¶9

Vs.

¶10

M/s Maa Sharde Agritech, a proprietorship conceal through its proprietor Yogesh Kumar Vidyarthi, S/o Vidya Sagar Singh, VillageDafadihiri, P.O.- Sikraul, Nawanagar, Buxar, Bihar- 802129, PAN No. ADFPV3309R

¶11

Yogesh Kumar Vidyarthi, S/o Vidya Sagar Singh, Village- Dafadihiri, P.O.- Sikraul, Nawanagar, Buxar, Bihar- 802129, PAN No. ADFPV3309R

¶12

Vidya Sagar Singh, S/o Shivpujan Singh, Village- Dafadihiri, P.O.Sikraul, Nawanagar, Buxar, Bihar 802129, PAN No. DZNPS9000P

¶13

Defendants

¶14

Present:

¶15

For the Applicant Shri Manish Kishore, Advocate For the Defendants Shri S.K. Srivastava, Advocate

¶16

Dated:29.06.2026

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The Applicant bank has made this application u/s 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (here-in-after referred to as Act) on 16.01.2024 against the defendants to recover its debts from defendants of Rs.1,05,49,066/- as on 08.01.2024 along with pendente-lite and future interest at the contractual rate from 09.01.2024 with costs till realization.

¶19

The application has been filed with the contention that the applicant bank, is a body corporate, carries on the business and is competent to file the suit through various branches including IIe applicant.

OA 38 of 2024jJ1

DRT, PATN A

Defendant no.1 is a proprietorship firm engaged in the business of Egg Layer Farming Unit, of which defendant no.2 is the proprietor. Defendant no. 3 stood as guarantor. Defendants approached the applicant bank for sanction of credit facility of Rs.21.10 Lakh by way of working capital and 'Term Loan of Rs.64,44,170/- for running their business, vide loan application dated 15.03.2018 and after due consideration, the applicant bank has sanctioned cash credit limit of Rs.15.80 Lakh and Term Loan of Rs.51 Lakh on 28.11.2018 on various terms and conditions, as stipulated in the sanction letter, which were duly accepted by the defendants. To secure the loan facilities defendants have executed various loan and security documents and also created mortgage in favour of the applicant bank, details of which are given in OA. The bank vide sanction letter dated 03.01.2019 communicated the defendants regarding terms and conditions of sanction and accordingly, the defendants have executed the loan documents on 03.01.2019. The applicant bank has sanctioned Rs.4.60 Lakh under pre-approved BOB GECL Scheme on 29.06.2020. Further as per directive of the RBI’s during covid pandemic, the defendant no.2 approached for One Time restructure and accordingly, overdue interest was converted into term loan and accordingly, the applicant bank disbursed an amount of Rs.96,177/- on 29.09.2020. The defendant no.2 vide letter dated 15.02.2021 sought information from the applicant bank regarding status of subsidy, which was supposed to be received from NABARD. In the said letter, the defendant no.2 acknowledged to have availed credit facilities from the applicant bank.

¶24

After availing the sanctioned credit facilities, the defendants became irregular in repayment of their dues as per agreed terms and failed to adhere to the financial norms of the bank and avoiding the repayment of its dues to the bank, in spite of several assurances given by it to the applicant bank resulting in the account turning as NPA on 3 1.03.2021.

¶25

Since, the defendants failed and neglected in spite of several reminders to make payment of the dues recoverable to the bank, hence this application has been filed by the bank

¶26

\Lbw ?,„tang O IIic'r Debts RecUa Trlbull'al

DRT, PATNA

OA 38 of 20241 Jl

The total liability in the loan account is Rs.1,05,49,066/- as on 08.01.2024 with pendente-lite and future interest contractual rate from 09.01.2024 till the realization.

¶31

This Tribunal issued summons/notices copies of application & paper book to the defendants by registered/speed post on 09.02.2024, requiring them to show-cause within 30 days of the service U/s 19 (4) of the Act & Rule of the DRT [Procedure] Rules, 1993. In response, the defendant no.1 and 2 have appeared on 18.03.2024 and have filed their written statemeht along with vakalatnama, but the defendant no.3 has not appeared, hence, the Registry of this Tribunal has ordered to publish the notice in newspaper and subsequently, substituted service by publication of notice by way of advertisement in newspaper was also made against the defendant no.3 on 03.07.2024 in “Hindustan” newspaper.

¶32

Despite the registered summons/notices and publication of notice in newspaper, the defendant no.3 has not appeared before this Tribunal to contest the case. The sufficient time has been given to the defendant no.3 to defend his case, but he failed to appear and to file WS, hence, the defendant no.3 is proceeded.

¶33

Defendant no.1 and 2 have filed their written statement as well as rebuttal evidence admitting therein that the applicant bank had granted CC limit of Rs.15.80 Lakh and Term Loan of Rs.51 Lakh on 28.11.2018 and further admitted the additional limit of Rs.4.60 Lakh during Covid 19 pandemic and a sum of Rs.96,177/- was transferred to FITL account and further admitted that the registered mortgage of the property was created by the defendants in accordance with the stipulated terms of the sanction. It has further been stated that the applicant bank has ignored to process and lodge the subsidy from NAB ARD. Before classification of account as NPA, the defendants were never informed. It has further been stated that the bank has charged rate of interest against the RBI guidelines and requested to dismiss the OA.

¶34

To prove its case, the applicant Bank has referred various certified photocopies of documents before this Tribunal. The applicant bank has also

¶35

%\b PresIding ofic'' Debts Recovery TribI'-P ' PATNA

DRT, PATNA

OA 38 of2024jJI

given evidence on affidavit by way of affidavit by Shri Manoj Kumar, Chief Manager of the applicant bank. The details of documents are as follows:

¶40

Sl.No	Descriptionof Documents PhotocoDies	1Date of IExecution 1	1Amount I(in 1Lakh)	ISignatur 1Executants' I	eof	1Ex./ IAnn. INo.
	o	[	--–e
	Sanctiol	a	TL 15.80 CC
'1J	1 mortgagedeed					3
4	Sanctir		a	–- accepted defendants	by
5	Loanagreement cum hyDothecationdeed		e
	Letter ofguarantee	03.01.2019	68.80	Def.no.3
	Lettertodef.	11 .04.2019		Bank
	Letterto bank	15.02.2021		Def.no. 1&2
	Demand notice	02.08.2021		Bank
	Letterstodefendant	08.10.2021 30.10.2021		Bank		10
	Lettertodefendant	06.12.2021		Bank
	Lettertobank Lettertodefendant	15.12.2021 22. 12.2021		Defe.no.2 Bank
13to 16	Statement of accounts			Bank		13to 16

¶41

Heard arguments and perused the case record. During the course of arguments, there is no any specific denial on behalf of the defendant no.1 and 2 with regards to the sanction of loan facilities and its utilization and further there is no any specific denial with regards to the execution of loan and security documents in favour of the applicant bank.

¶42

So far as the dispute raised with regards to the claim of the subsidy amount, Id. Counsel for the applicant bank has informed that it is the duty of the defendants to lodge subsidy claim before the NAB ARD but the defendants have failed to do so. Ld. Counsel for the applicant bank has further submitted that however, the applicant bank has processed for subsidy in the account but the concern department has rejected due to “Budget is exhausted” hence the defendants are not eligible for subsidy. Ld. Counsel for the applicant bank in this regard has referred Annexure- 10 and 12/1 i.e. intimation letter to the defendants regarding subsidy amount and its rejection.

¶43

\Jp Presidia: OJic41 D8bU Re:7TH Tabain

OA 38 of2024jJl

DRT, PATNA

Ld. Counsel of applicant bank submitted that the defendants have taken the loan and utilized the same and also executed the various loan documents to secure the loan. Further, submitted that the claim of the bank has been proved by documentary evidence. All the transactions were entered in the ledger of the loan accounts in the name of the defendant duly maintained by the applicant bank in its usual course of business. The interest /compound interest has been charged at such rates, and capitalized at such periodical rests as are permitted by and do not run counter to the directives of Reserve Bank of India.

¶48

It is further submitted by Id. Counsel of applicant bank that there is no stay granted by any Higher Court, in respect of the proceedings of the present OA and requested to issue recovery certificate, as claimed for, in OA.

¶49

It has been established that defendants are living and carrying on their business in the state of Bihar. Cause of action also arose in the State of Bihar. The said claim on the date of filing of application exceeded Rs.20 lacs. The applicant bank is functioning within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Therefore, this Tribunal has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present application.

¶50

On the issue of Limitation, to prove it, the applicant bank has submitted that the applicant bank has declared the account as NPA on 31.03.2021, whereas the present application has been filed on 16.01.2024. Even, it is counted for the purpose of Limitation, then it is established that the applicant bank has filed the case within the limitation period. As such, it is established that the present application has been filed well within the period of limitation.

¶51

Shri Manoj Kumar, Chief Manager of the applicant bank has filed the affidavit in support of contents of application and the documents as evidence and proved on oath the pleadings and documents of the applicant bank as stated above.

¶52

Section 19(3) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 provides that the application u/s S.19 (1) shall be accompanied with true copies of all the documents relied on in support of the claim.

Q4tb

nRnh

OA 38 of2024jJI

DRT, PATNA

The rule 12 (10) of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993, provides that if the defendant denies his liability to pay the claim made by the applicant, the tribunal may act upon the affidavit of the applicant who is acquainted with the facts of the case or who has on verification of the record $worn the affidavit in respect of the contents of the application and the documents as evidence.

¶59

The rule 12 (11) of the aforesaid Rules, provides that the provisions contained in section 4 of the Banker’s Books evidence that Act, 1891 (18 of 1891) shall apply to a certified copy of an entry in a Banker’s Books fUrnished along with application filed under sub section 1 of section 19 by the applicant.

¶60

Section 4 of Banker’s Books evidence Act, 1891 runs as underS.4. Mode of proof of entries in bankers’ books.–Subject to the provisions of this Act, a cert Bed copy of any entry in a banker’s book shall in all legal proceedings be received as prima facie evidence of the existence of such entry, and shall be admitted as evidence of the matters, transactions and accounts therein recorded in every case where, and to the same extent as, the original entry itself is now by law admissible, but not further or otherwise.

¶61

As such the certified true copies of the documents are admissible in evidence. The statement of account maintained in the ordinary course of business is not only admissible but shall be taken as the correct statement of account, more so since the entries in the statement of account have not been challenged.

¶62

On perusal of the application, documents, affidavit and on consideration of the arguments, it is proved that the defendants have applied for loan and the bank had sanctioned the loan and to secure the loan and for repayment of loan amount with interests etc., the defendants have executed various loan documents, as stated in the application and proved by aforesaid evidence. Defendants have neither denied the utilization of funds advanced by applicant bank nor have pointed out any specific error and discrepancy in the Statement of Account.

¶63

The evidence discussed above goes to establish that the amount of loan as mentioned in the O.A., was availed by the borrower under the agreed terms and conditions for repayment with interest. The balance amount till 08.01.2024 has been proved to be Rs.1,05,49,066/- only by way of statement of accounts. There is nothing to prove the amount more than that disclosed in the aforementioned statement. As such this amount is recoverable till full and final realization of the claim. n / -'- yA\kp $7© rt„!aHg om'” Debts Recover/ Tdbwl'PATNA

OA 38 of 20241 Jl

DRT, PATN A

In my view, facts of the case stand proved by evidence of the applicant bank. Accordingly, the applicant bank is entitled to recover from defendants jointly and severally of Rs.1,05,49,066/- along with pendente-lite and future interest @ 10% p.a. simple from 16.01.2024 (The date of filing of this OA) till realization. So the final order may be passed accordingly, to meet the ends of Justrce.

¶68

ORDER

¶69

In the result, the application of the applicant bank is allowed and debt is determined with costs against the defendants. The defendants are hereby jointly and severally, ordered to pay the applicant bank its debt amounting to Rs.1,05,49,066/- along with pendente-lite and future interest @ 10% p.a. simple from 16.01.2024 (The date of filing of this OA) till realization of the entire sum due and recoverable with costs.

¶70

It is made clear that any amount deposited by the defendants, be deducted in the claim amount, if not deducted.

¶71

Defendants are debarred from transferring, alienating encumbering or otherwise dealing with or disposing of the mortgaged or hypothecated or any other properties and assets without paying the aforesaid adjudicated dues to the applicant bank to secure the ends of justice. The mortgaged or hypothecated assets to secure the loan in question are hereby attached and shall be subject to the final order under the recovery proceedings in pursuance of the Recovery certificate issued under Section 19(22) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993. The applicant may submit the certified copy of this Judgment and the Recovery Certificate before the Registrar/Sub- Registrar to endorse the charge over the secured assets.

¶72

Let a certificate of recovery be drawn up forthwith and put up for signatures in terms of provisions contained in Section 19(22) of the Act to be issued, on the basis of the order of the Tribunal to the Recovery Officer. The Recovery Officer shall realize the amount as per the certificate in the manner and mode prescribed under the Act from the defendants, by sale of mortgaged/ hypothecated assets as well as other personal movable/immovable assets of the defendants. However, no proclamation of sale will be issued, if the

b,@

OA 38 of 20241 Jl

DRT, PATNA

Defendant/Certi$cate Debtor ensures payment of the certiDcate amount in 6 months from the date of demand notice to the Cert Ocate debtors. The Recovery OffIcer will issue demand notice to the CertifIcate debtors only after the proof of compliance under rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules 1993, ii submitted by the applicant. If The Applicant /CertifIcate holder fails to comply with directions of the Recovery Of$cer, the execution may be dismissed for nonprosecution. The copy of this judgment be uploaded in the website of the Tribunal.

¶78

Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT, Patna on 10.08.2026. The order be communicated accordingly.

¶79

Judgment signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open court on 29th day of June, 2026.

¶80

Dictated &corrected by me.

¶81

ri„”':'’ [Kaushalendra Yadav] Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna Prestdiag Once, Debts Recovery Thbua& PATNA

¶82

FORM NO. 9

¶83

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL PATNA

¶84

[See Regulation 24( 1)]

¶85

2nd Floor, (A. B & F Wing) Karpuri Thakur Sadan, Kendriya Karamchari Padsar (GPOA)I Ashiana Digha Road> Patna-800025

¶86

0 D1 9lm ME TO TIME.

R(,' No. 203/2026 IN

Case No: OA/38/2024

In the Matter of:

(CH- 1) BANK OF BARODA (VIJAYA BANK) BUXAR BRANCH, BIHAR, OPPOSITE BUNIYADI SCHOOL, STATION ROAD,

Applicant(s)

BUXAR,BIHAR -802101

––-- Versus ––---

To.

(CD- 1) M/S MAA SHARDE AGRITECH a Proprietorship Concern Through its Proprietor Yogesh Kumar Vidyarthi Slo- Vidya Sagar Singh, Village- Dafadihri, P.O.- Sikraul, Nawanagar, Buxar,BIHAR -802129

¶96

(CD- 2) YOGENDRA KUMAR VIDYARTHI S/0- VIDYA SAGAR SINGH, VILLAGE DAFADIHIRI, P.0.- SIKRAUL, NAWANGAR, BUXAR, BIHAR- 802129.

¶97

Defendant(s)

¶98

(CD- 3) VIDYA SAGAR SINGH

¶99

S/0- SHIVPU JAN SINGH VILLAGE DAFADIHIRI, P.0.- SHa{AUL, NAWANGAR, BUXAR, BIHAR802129,

¶100

Recovery Certificate for Rs 10549066.00 1 Rupees One Crore Five Lakh Forty Nine Thousands Sixty Six OnI)a

¶101

In terms of final order dated 29/06/2026 passed by this Tribunal in the above mentioned case, it is ordered that the Applicant Certificate Holder Bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 10549066.00 along with cost, expenses and interest from the 16/01/2024 i.e. date of filing / with efFective date of the OA/38/2024 and future interest from order date till the date of realisation in full, jointly or severally from the Certificate Debtors, hereinafter referred to as:-

¶102

Sr.n	o CDName	n Int. Type/Mode	Int. Rate	. Effective ' Date	Order Date	: I!!!L1[1[]o u nt( IEIILsB)	LTjlitr	Interest (nson Order Date)	-AmouLt(Rs.) :Remark
1	M/S MAA SHARDE AGRITECH	Simple Interest (Yearly)	10	16/01/2024	i29/06/2026	F10549066.00	Jointly And iSeverally	'Interest As onOrder 'Date	10549066
l	YOGENDRA KUMAR VIDYARTHI	.Simple Interest (Yearly)	10	:16/01/2024	:29/06/2026,	10549066.00	Jointly E And iSeverally	Interest As ;on Order :Date	10549066
3	VIDYA SAGAR SINGH	Simple Interest ;(Yearly)	10 ;	16/01/2024	:29/06/2026	:10549066.00	Jointly And ;Severally	InterestAs .on Order }ate	.10549066

¶103

In case of failure to pay the aforementioned adjudicated amount within 30 cLiys, same shall be recovered from the sale of the mortgaged/hypothecated assets as well as other personal movable/ Immovable assets of the certificate debtors

¶104

The mortgaged or hypothecated assets to secure the loan in question are hereby attached and shall be subject to the final order under the recovery proceeding in pursuance of the Recovery certificate issued under Section 19(22) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993.

¶105

Parties are directed to appear before MANOJ KUMAR , Recovery Ofticer, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL PATNA on 10/08/2026,

¶106

The Recovery Officer shall realize the amount as per this Certificate in the manner and mode prescribed under Sections 25 to 28 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (as amended from time to time) from the above named Certificate Debtors.

¶107

This Certificate has been issued under my signature and seal of the Tribunal on this 03/07/2026

¶108

PRESIDING OFFICER DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL PATNA

¶109

¶110

_ Registrar

¶111

D :d {:::ItFi}::FFin:: n a

¶112

FORM NO. 10

¶113

[See Regulation 24(2)]

¶114

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL PATNA

¶115

2nd Floor, (A. B & F Wing) Karpuri Thakur Sadan, Kendriya Karamchari Parisar (GPOA), Ashiana Digha Road, Patna-800025 .

¶116

SCHEDULE TO RECOVERY CERTIFICATE MEMO OF COSTS

¶117

RC No. 203/2026 IN

¶118

Case No: OA/38/2024

¶119

Applicant(s): BANK OF BARODA (VIJAYA BANK) Versus

¶120

Defendant(s): M/S MAA SHARDE AGRITECH

¶121

	Item ofCosts	!Amount inRs
	Feeon the application	108000
	;;ii;;g-Fi;i(iii Put)licati8Ii)	-0
3	[Adv8cat8Fees	;0
4	mlmissioner/Receiver/Valuation/SecurityFee	0
5	[i4iscellaneous Charges	;0
	TotalCosts:Rs	108000

Place: PATNA

Date: 03/07/2026

PRESIDING OFFICER DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL PATNA

¶126

Note: Strike out whichever is not applicable

Bank of Baroda (Vijaya Bank) v. M/s Maa Sharde Agritech

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda (Vijaya Bank) v. M/s Maa Sharde Agritech

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

Bank of India versus M/s Kasturi Collection

Icici Bank Limited versus M/s Easy M Telesystems

Bank of India versus M/s Victual Lounge

State Bank of India versus M/s Ex Servicmen Canteen

Bank of Baroda versus Mrs. Pallavi Kumari

Bank of Baroda versus M/s Human Care Pharma