Allowed

State Bank of India v. Ms S S Gruh Udyog Prop. Mr. Jakir Sikandar Bagwan

DRT30 Apr 2026OA/616/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application for recovery of a debt of approximately Rs. 39.93 lakhs, reduced from the claimed amount due to unauthorised penal interest. The respondent failed to appear, and future interest was denied for non-prayer.

What did the court decide?

The defendant was directed to pay Rs.39,93,492/- within two months, and a Recovery Certificate was issued.

State Bank of India versus Ms S S Gruh Udyog Prop… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

Presented on .. 09.12.2021 Registered on .. 19.04.2023 Decided on .. 30.04.2026 Duration .. Y—M—D 04--04--21

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 616/2023.

¶3

State Bank of India,

¶4

A Banking Company incorporated under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970 having Head Office at 8^th Floor, State Bank Bhavan, Nariman Point, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai 400 021 and its branch office at – Dist. Satara.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s. S.S. Gruh Udyog and Ors., Through it’s proprietor – Mr. Jakir Sikandar Bagwan, Milkat No. 340, S. No. 81/6, Swami Vivekanand Nagar, Karanje, District Satara.

¶8

… Defendant

¶9

Appearances :-

¶10

For Applicant Advocate Pooja Mali i/b M.V. Kini & Co. For Defendant Ex parte.

¶11

Total Claim Amount – Rs.39,94,148/-

¶12

Sanap ( OA No. 616/2023 ) 1 of 5

¶13

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 30^th April, 2026)

¶14

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.39,94,148/- together with future interest without mentioning any rate of interest till realization of the entire dues from the defendant.

¶15

Brief facts of the application are as under :-

¶16

The defendant approached to the applicant Bank with loan application dated 17.10.2018 for availing TL limit of Rs.40,00,000/-. The applicant Bank sanctioned TL limit of Rs.40,00,000/- to the defendant vide Sanction Letter dated 04.12.2018.

¶17

That in the year 2020, at the request of the defendant, the applicant Bank sanctioned restructuring of existing credit facilities and granted TL of Rs.40,00,000/- and WCTL of Rs.2,61,000/- vide Sanction Letters dated 01.12.2020.

¶18

The defendant accepted terms and conditions mentioned in Sanction Letter dated 01.12.2020 and executed letter of arrangement and loan documents in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶19

The applicant Bank contended that the defendant committed defaults in payment of installments and failed

¶20

Sanap ( OA No. 616/2023 ) 2 of 5

¶21

to regularize the accounts. Therefore, on 13.06.2021, the applicant Bank has classified the account of the defendant as Non-Performing Asset in accordance with guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. Thereafter, on 06.12.2021, the applicant Bank issued legal Notice to the defendant. Despite service of Notice, the defendant failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank.

¶22

Hence, this application is filed.

¶23

The defendant failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte against the defendant as per Order dated 08.04.2026 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶24

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Mr. Sachin Maruti Patil, Chief Manager and Authorized Signatory of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW1-1 to AW1-15 along with list (Exhibit 7), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶25

I have heard arguments of the learned Advocate for the applicant Bank.

¶26

Sanap ( OA No. 616/2023 ) 3 of 5

¶27

Since the defendant failed to appear and contest the application, I find no reason to disbelieve evidence of the applicant Bank. Therefore, the applicant Bank is entitled for reliefs as claimed.

¶28

The applicant Bank has claimed relief in respect of hypothecated assets. However, there is no detailed description with respect to the hypothecated assets, therefore, the relief in terms of hypothecated assets cannot be granted.

¶29

The applicant Bank has claimed Penal Interest of Rs.656/-, which cannot be granted and the same is required to be deducted from the total claim amount. Therefore, the total claim amount of Rs.39,94,148/- is reduced to Rs.39,93,492/-.

¶30

The applicant Bank has not claimed any future rate of interest on the outstanding amount till its actual realization, which is ridiculous. The law laid down in the case of Standard Chartered Bank Vs. Dharminder Bhohi reported in (2013) 15 SCC 341 is very clear that this Tribunal does not have inherent powers like Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Court to grant the prayers or relief beyond the scope of the application.

¶31

Sanap ( OA No. 616/2023 ) 4 of 5

¶32

Therefore, as the applicant Bank has not prayed or claimed any future rate of interest, it cannot be granted.

¶33

Hence, I pass the following order.

¶34

O R D E R

¶35

A} Original Application No. 616/2023 is allowed with costs.

¶36

B} The defendant shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.39,93,492/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakh Ninety Three Thousand Four Hundred Ninety Two only) within two months from the date of this order.

¶37

C} Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶38

D} The Registrar is directed to send the copy of Judgment and Recovery Certificate to the applicant and defendant.

¶39

Sd/( Dilip G. Murumkar ) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date : 30.04.2026 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶40

Sanap ( OA No. 616/2023 ) 5 of 5

State Bank of India v. Ms S S Gruh Udyog Prop. Mr. Jakir Sikandar Bagwan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Ms S S Gruh Udyog Prop. Mr. Jakir Sikandar Bagwan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Siddhram Mhetre

Federal Bank versus Sarjerav

Canara Bank versus Pravin Sawant

Ms Vrushali Vinod Kadam versus State Bank Of India

Hdfc Bank versus Rohini Jewellers

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) versus Aniket