Allowed

State Bank of India v. a B Construction

DRT10 Jun 2026OA/679/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application for recovery of debts filed by State Bank of India under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993, the tribunal allowed the claim against respondents who appeared ex parte. The court directed payment of principal amounts with modified interest rates but denied penal interest claims.

What did the court decide?

Direct order payment of Rs. 19,87,151.60 and Rs. 93,978.31 with simple future interest from filing date. Issued recovery certificate.

State Bank of India versus a B Construction — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

Page 1 of 4 O.A. No. 679/2023

¶2

PRESENTED ON : 16.10.2023 REGISTERED ON : 06.11.2023

¶3

Exh. No. 11

¶4

BEFORE THE PO, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR Delivered by Pankaj Kumar

¶5

O.A. No. 679/2023

¶6

State Bank of India

¶7

: Applicant

¶8

A Corporation Constituted under

¶9

the State Bank of India Act, 1955

¶10

Small and Medium Enterprises, Centre, (SME Centre) Branch, Shhradhanand peth,

¶11

Nagpur – 440033

¶12

Phone no. 0712-6607932

¶13

IFSC Code: SBIN0004497

¶14

email: [email protected]

¶15

acting through its one of the Principal Officer Chief

¶16

Manager i.e. Pramod Sakharam More having authority to

¶17

file the Original Application which includes the authority to verify & sign the Original Application.

¶18

Versus

¶19

1. M/s A.B. Construction,

¶20

: Defendant

¶21

Through its proprietor Shri. Anil S/o. Sukhdeo

¶22

Borkar,

¶23

Plot No. 27, Shree Nagar, Wathoda Layout,

¶24

New Nandanwan, Nagpur - 440009

¶25

Also at: 41 Darshan Colony, K.D.K College Road,

¶26

Nandanwan, Nagpur – 440009

¶27

PAN No. :- AJSPB1007D

¶28

2. Shri. Anil S/o. Sukhdeo Borkar,

¶29

Aged about 59 years; Occ: Business,

¶30

Plot No. 27, Shree Nagar, Wathoda Layout,

¶31

New Nandanwan, Nagpur - 440009

¶32

Also at: 41 Darshan Colony, K.D.K College Road,

¶33

Nandanwan, Nagpur – 440009

¶34

Page 2 of 4 O.A. No. 679/2023

¶35

3. Smt. Tara W/o. Gajanan Gondane

¶36

Aged about 63 years; Occ: Business, R/o. At- Dongri Bujurg, Tahsil – Tumsar

¶37

District – Bhandara – 441907

¶38

PAN No. AQOPG0352M

¶39

Learned Counsel for Applicant	Adv. Anita Bhojwani
Defendants Set Exparte On	22.11.2024

¶40

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 10^th Day of June, 2026)

¶41

This is an application filed by the applicant U/s 19 of RDB Act, 1993 against defendants for recovery of aggregate amount of Rs. 21,47,811/- with costs and future interest with monthly rests from the date of filing of O.A. till the date of realization as under:-

¶42

A. An amount of Rs. 20,51,693.71 outstanding in Cash Credit Loan Account No. 36505855957 with costs and future interest @13% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of filing of O.A. till the date of realization.

¶43

B. An amount of Rs. 96,117.31 outstanding in GECL Loan Account No. 39818616503 with costs and future interest @8.40% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of filing of O.A. till the date of realization .

¶44

Though, defendant nos. 1 to 3 were duly served with the suit summons vide Exh. 5 to 7, they failed to cause appearance before this Tribunal to defend their case despite granting several adjournments. Hence, the proceeding against defendant nos. 1 to 3 was set exparte on 22.11.2024.

¶45

Page 3 of 4 O.A. No. 679/2023

¶46

The applicant has filed its Claim Affidavit (Exh. 9) alongwith List of Documents (Exh. 10), annexing therewith 16 documents. The original documents therein are marked as Exh. AW-1/1 to AW-1/13 respectively. The applicant has stated in the O.A. as well as in claim affidavit that the penal interest of Rs. 64,542.11/- has been charged in the Cash Credit Loan Account No. 36505855957 & Rs. 2,139/- has been charged in the GECL Loan Account No. 39818616503.

¶47

Heard Learned counsel for the applicant.

¶48

As stated supra, defendants remained exparte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents marked as viz. Exh. AW-1/1 to AW-1/13 filed 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 the applicant with costs and future interest. However, I am not inclined to allow the penal interest of Rs. 64,542.11/- charged in the Cash Credit Loan Account No. 36505855957 & Rs. 2,139/- charged in the GECL Loan Account No. 39818616503.

¶49

Hence, it is ordered as under:-

¶50

ORDER

¶51

A] O.A. No. 679/2023 is allowed to the extent as under with costs.

¶52

B] Defendants to pay jointly and severally to the applicant bank an amount of Rs. 19,87,151.60 (Rupees Nineteen Lakh Eighty Seven Thousand One Hundred Fifty One and Paise Sixty Only) outstanding

¶53

Page 4 of 4 O.A. No. 679/2023

¶54

in Cash Credit Loan Account No. 36505855957 with simple future interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of O.A. till its realization.

¶55

C] Defendants to pay jointly and severally to the applicant bank an amount of Rs. 93,978.31 (Rupees Ninety Three Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy Eight & Paise Thirty One Only) outstanding in GECL Loan Account No. 39818616503 with simple future interest @8.40% p.a. from the date of filing of O.A. till its realization.

¶56

D] It is declared that outstanding dues are secured by mortgaged immovable property of defendant no. 3 as described in Schedule-A in O.A and as referred in Exh. AW-1/4, AW-1/9 & AW-1/10.

¶57

E] It is also declared that charge of the outstanding dues is kept on hypothecated goods as referred in Schedule-B annexed to the O.A. and as referred in Exh. AW-1/2 & AW-1/7.

¶58

F] Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶59

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

¶60

Nagpur

¶61

Date: 10.06.2026

¶62

(Pankaj Kumar) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal Nagpur

State Bank of India v. a B Construction

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. a B Construction

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

Canara Bank versus Sri Krishnappa

M S Pace Marketing Solutions Private Limited versus Bank of Maharashtra

Raja J versus Smfg India Home Finance Company Limited

Smt Sulukshna Tandon versus Central Bank of India

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S Ganaie Traders

Canara Bank versus M/S Nikha Ornaments