Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S G R Agriculture Works and Another

DRT14 May 2026OA/498/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte recovery application under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993, the Tribunal held the defendants liable to repay a sanctioned loan of Rs. 25.28 lacs. The court granted recovery of the principal, future simple interest at 8% p.a., and costs, allowing the bank to enforce the claim through SARFAESI or attachment. (69 words)

What did the court decide?

Defendants liable to pay Rs. 25,28,060.00 with costs and future simple interest @8.00% p.a.; Recovery Certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus M/S G R Agriculture… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 498/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 27.03.2026

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 14.05.2026

¶6

State Bank of India, a Body Corporate constituted under State Bank of India Act, 1955 and having its Corporate Centre at Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai and having Branches all over India and one of its Branches amongst other places at (Bhikhi, District Mansa) AMCC Mansa through its Authorized Officer, Sh. Dalip Kumar, Chief Manager

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

1. M/S G R Agriculture Works Proprietorship Firm through its Proprietor, Ms. Mandeep Kaur, D/o Sh. Swaran Singh, Ward no. 10, House no. 112, Dhillon Patti, Bhikhi, District Mansa, Punjab151504

¶10

1. Ms. Mandeep Kaur, D/o Sh. Swaran Singh, Proprietor of M/S G R Agriculture Works Proprietorship Firm, R/o Ward no. 10, House no. 112, Dhillon Patti, Bhikhi, District Mansa, Punjab- 151504

¶11

….……Defendants

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

Argued by Sh. Omkar Gupta, Advocate for applicant

¶14

None for defendants (already ex-parte vide order dated 07.05.2026)

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 25,28,060.00 (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Twenty Eight Thousand Sixty Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Dalip Kumar, Chief Manager of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide in terms of Notification dated 26.09.1959, 26.08.1972, 27.03.1987 and 29.10.2005 issued by Executive Committee of the Central Board in exercise of power conferred on it under Regulation 76 and 77 of SBI

¶17

2 OA NO.498/2026 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. M/S G R AGRICULTURE WORKS AND ANOTHER

¶18

General Regulations made by RBI in exercise of power conferred by sub-section 3 of Section 50 of SBI Act with previous sanction of Central Government.

¶19

The brief facts of the OA are that defendant no. 1 through its Proprietor defendant no. 2 approached the applicant for grant of CC Limit of Rs. 15.00 Lacs and Term Loan of Rs. 15.00 Lacs vide Application dated 15.12.2022, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶20

The applicant sanctioned CC Limit of Rs. 15.00 Lacs and Term Loan of Rs. 15.00 Lacs vide Letter of Arrangement dated 07.01.2023, which is Annexure A2 to this OA and terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶21

Defendant no. 1 through its Proprietor defendant no. 2 hypothecated their machineries and other current assets vide Agreement of Loan cum Hypothecation dated 07.01.2023, which is Annexure A3 to this OA.

¶22

Documents executed: DP Note dated 07.01.2023, which is Annexure A4 to this OA; Notice with translation dated 10.10.2024, which is Annexure A5 to this OA; Revival Letter dated 28.02.2025, which is Annexure A6 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 17.03.2026, which is Annexure A7 to this OA and Statement of Accounts, which are Annexure A8 and A9 to this OA.

¶23

The loan accounts became irregular and were classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan accounts there was a debit of Rs. 25,28,060.00, which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notices but they did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶24

The defendants were served summons to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 07.05.2026.

¶25

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Dalip Kumar, Chief

¶26

Manager, State Bank of India has been filed.

¶27

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶28

3 OA NO.498/2026 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. M/S G R AGRICULTURE WORKS AND ANOTHER

¶29

It was argued by learned counsel that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant bank had proved its case.

¶30

From the perusal of all the Annexure A1 to A9 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant no. 1 through its Proprietor defendant no. 2 approached applicant for availing of the loan facilities which were granted to them and for that they had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. The defendants failed to pay back the loans as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, accounts of the defendants were classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 25,28,060.00 (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Twenty Eight Thousand Sixty Only) along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the amount.

¶31

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant has claimed interest @11.75% p.a. plus @2% penal interest with monthly rests from 21.03.2026 till the realization.

¶32

The Tribunal is of the considered opinion that sometimes in appropriate cases the prerogative of mercy is the brightest jewel in the crown of the Judge. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case including nature of the hypothecated assets, undertaking of the defendants, quantum of loans and prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yester years, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @8.00% p.a. in both the loan accounts from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶33

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.25,28,060.00 (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Twenty Eight Thousand Sixty Only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00% p.a. in both the loan accounts from the date of filing

¶34

4 OA NO.498/2026 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. M/S G R AGRICULTURE WORKS AND ANOTHER

¶35

of OA till the date of realization of the amount. Accordingly, the applicant shall be entitled to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of hypothecated assets of defendants in execution proceedings if not sold earlier under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. If the dues of the applicant still remain unsatisfied, it shall be entitled to recover the same by attachment and sale of personal assets of the defendants. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶36

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of .

¶37

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 05.06.2026. 15. Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant and be sent to defendants through registered/speed post and this order be also uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal and record be consigned. Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 14.05.2026

¶38

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶39

Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

State Bank of India v. M/S G R Agriculture Works and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S G R Agriculture Works and Another

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

Anoop Oswal Hosiery and Others versus Aditya Birla Finance Limited

State Bank of India versus Sh. Kartar Singh

Rohit Verma and Another versus Karnataka Bank Limited and Others

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sh. Jagmal Singh

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Satpreet Singh and Another

Union Bank of India versus M/S Eshan Yarns Private Limited and Others