Allowed

State Bank of India v. Crast Global Agro Food Beverages Private Limited and Ors.

DRT8 Sept 2026OA/79/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Applicant filed an application under section 19 RDB Act seeking a certificate of recovery against the Respondents for outstanding loan dues. The Tribunal allowed the application, directing issuance of the certificate and restraining the Respondents from disposing of secured assets.

What did the court decide?

Certificate of recovery drawn up and issued for Rs. 6,31,22,642.25 plus interest; property alienation restrained.

State Bank of India versus Crast Global Agro Food… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, SILIGURI

¶2

Case No. OA/79/2024	ORDERSHEET State Bank of India -VS- Crast Global Agro Food Beverages Pvt. Ltd. &	Ors Office action with
Date of the order.	Order with signature	date and dated signature of parties when necessary.
08.09.2026	Present :- Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Debanjan Chakraborty, virtual mode and Ms. S. Kar, physical mode. Counsel for the Defendants : None. The order is dictated and corrected by the undersigned and pronounced in the open Tribunal under my signature on this 8^thday of September, 2026. Let the Certificate of Recovery be drawn up by the Learned Registrar forthwith in terms of judgment for issuance of the same against the defendants in favour of Applicant Bank under Sub-Section 7 and 22 of Section – 19 of The Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 and put up the same for signature for issuance. Copy of the judgment/final order be given/sent to the parties. (Rakesh Pati Tiwari) Presiding Officer DRT-Siliguri RAKESH PATI TIWARI Digitally signed by RAKESH PATI TIWARI Date: 2026.09.09 17:10:45 +05'30'

¶3

¶4

THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, SILIGURI

¶5

O.A. No. 79/2024

¶6

STATE BANK OF INDIA, STRESSED ASSETS RECOVERY BRANCH (S.A.R.B), Homeland Business Centre, 1st floor, 3rd Mile, Sevoke Road, Siliguri, Post Office & Police Station: Bhaktinagar, District-Jalpaiguri, Pin:734008.

¶7

…………………….Applicant Vs.

¶8

CRAST GLOBAL AGRO FOOD & BEVERAGES PRIVATE LIMITED A Private Limited Company Bhelkipara, Sahudangi, Jalpaiguri, Police Station: - NJP Post Office - Sahudangi, District: Japlaiguri, Pin: 735135, West Bengal.

¶9

SRI SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH Director and Guarantor of Crast Global Agro Food & Beverages Private Limited Son of Sri Parmeshwar Prasad Singh Suryasen Colony, Part 2E, Kalpana Dutta Sarani, Ward No. 34, Siliguri, Pin: 734007, Post Office & Police Station - New Jalpaiguri District- Jalpaiguri.

¶10

SRI SHANTI BHUSAN KUMAR SINGH Director and Guarantor of Crast Global Agro Food & Beverages Private Limited Son of Sri Parmeshwar Prasad Singh Suryasen Colony, Part 2E, Kalpana Dutta Sarani, Ward No. 34, Siliguri, Pin: 734007, Post Office & Police Station - New Jalpaiguri District- Jalpaiguri.

¶11

SMT. SUPRIYA SINGH Director and Guarantor of Crast Global Agro Food & Beverages Private Limited Wife of Sri Santosh Prasad Singh Suryasen Colony, Part 2E, Kalpana Dutta Sarani, Ward No. 34, Siliguri, Pin: 734007, Post Office & Police Station - New Jalpaiguri District- Jalpaiguri.

¶12

……..……………Defendants

¶13

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Debanjan Chakraborty Counsel for the defendants : Ms. Pooja Maiya

¶14

PRESIDING OFFICER: RAKESH PATI TIWARI Date of Judgment - 08.09.2026

¶15

J U D G M E N T

¶16

This is an application under section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, filed by the applicant bank against the defendants seeking issuance of Certificate of Recovery for realization of a sum of Rs.6,31,22,642.25 (Rupees Six Crores Thirty-One Lakhs Twenty Two Thousand Six Hundred Fourty-Two and Paise Twenty Five) only with interest calculated upto 24.05.2024 and future interest thereon from 25.05.2024 of 40133471335 (Bank Guarantee), for the Cash Credit Loan (40352340277) , Term Loan (39565505692) @11.40% & for the GECL facility (40745697595) @9.25% p.a. with

¶17

(Contd…)

¶18

RAKESH Digitally signed by RAKESH PATI PATI TIWARI Date: 2026.09.09 TIWARI 17:11:16 +05'30'

¶19

¶20

monthly rests, till realization of the entire amount along with injunction restraining the defendants from disposing of and/or alienating and/or encumbering the personal charged and uncharged assets and also costs.

¶21

The facts in brief, giving rise to the present application as pleaded are that the defendant No.1 is a Private Limited Company and the considering the application of the defendants and the board resolution dated 29.05.2020, the applicant Bank sanctioned a credit facility of a sum of Rs. 5,09,00,000.00 (Rupees Five crores Nine Lakhs) only [Rs.1,20,00,000/- (CC) + Rs.3,70,00,000/- (TL)+ Rs. 19,00,000/- (BG)] in favour of defendants, vide Letter of Arrangement dated 28.05.2020. The defendants, pursuant to such sanction of the said credit facility, executed an Arrangement of Loan cum Hypothecation (SME-02) and Guarantee Agreement (SME-3) executed by defendant nos. 2, 3 and 4 all dated 29.05.2020. In order to secure the said credit facility the defendants created an equitable mortgage over: (a) All the piece and parcel of land admeasuring total 286.70 Decimals with buildings and structure standing appertaining to and forming part of L.R. Plot No. 117/541, 546, 609, 610, 611, 614 recorded in L.R. Khatian no. 945,946 under Mouza - Binnaguri, J.L. No.3, within PS:- Bhaktinagar, Dist. Jalpaiguri in the name of CRAST GLOBAL AGRO FOOD & BEVERAGES PRIVATE LIMITED vide deed of conveyance being no. I-6298 of 2019 (b) Factory Land with structure, land admeasuring 66.67 decimals, land recorded in LR Plot Nos. 613, 546, 623 and 609 their corresponding RS Plot Nos. 117/613, 546, 118/623 and 117/609, LR Khatian No.102, 69 and 655 their corresponding RS Khatian No.2864, Mouza Binnaguri, Sheet No. 2, J.L. No. 144 (new), 3 (old), Gram Panchayat Binnaguri, Pargana Baikunthpur, Post Office and Police StationBhaktinagr, Dist Jalpaiguri, PIN734007, vide Deed No I-7072 year 2018 in the name of Santosh Kumar Singh and Shanti Bhushan Singh. (c) all that piece or parcel of Shop No. 6, admeasuring 568.8 sq ft including super built up area, on the second floor of the building named as GOLDEN PLAZA (South Block), together with undivided share of land measuring 1.225 acres 73 Katha 12 Chatak compromised in RS Plot No. 8260 and 8262, recorded in RS. Khatian No. 2316, situated within Mouza Siliguri, JL No 110, Pargana Baikunthapur, in Ward No IV of SMC jurisdiction of Police Station-Siliguri, Additional District and Sub Registrar office-Siliguri, District -Darjeeling. The collateral security stands in the name defendant no. 2 and 3 vide Deed of conveyance No. 1-954 year 2018 dated 08.05.2018. The respective defendants executed four 'Letter of Confirmation for the creation of a

¶22

(Contd…)

¶23

Digitally signed by RAKESH RAKESH PATI TIWARI PATI TIWARI Date: 2026.09.09 17:11:30 +05'30'

¶24

¶25

Mortgage by depositing of Title Deeds all dated 01.06.2020 (SME-6). Thereafter the board of director of the defendant company came up with a resolution dated 07.08.2020 to renew the credit facility and considering the application of the defendants, the applicant Bank sanctioned/ the credit facility from Rs. 5,09,00,000.00 (Rupees Five crores Nine Lakhs) only [Rs.1,20,00,000/- (CC) + Rs.3,70,00,000/- (TL)+ Rs. 19,00,000/- (BG)] to and in favour of the defendants for the expansion of their business, vide Letter of Arrangement dated 07.08.2020. Thereafter the defendant company enrolled themselves and availed a Guaranteed Emergence Credit Line (GECL) on top of the existing credit facilities and accordingly the applicant bank enhance the facilities to the borrowers Rs. 6,09,00,000.00 (Rupees Six crores Nine Lakhs) only [Rs.1,20,00,000/- (CC) + Rs.3,70,00,000/- (TL)+ Rs. 1,00,00,000 (GECL 1 Extension) Rs. 19,00,000/- (BG)] vide letter of arrangement (SME-1) dated 29.01.2022. That in pursuant to the said renewal/enhancement the directors of the company executed a Guarantee Agreement (SME-03) dated 29.01.2022, Supplemental Agreement of loan cum hypothecation (SME-04) dated 29.01.2022, Letter of confirmation for extension of ma mortgage by deposit of title deed covering enhanced limits dated 31.01.2022. The defendants further acknowledged their liability owing and payable towards the bank by executing revival letter dated 29.01.2022. Thereafter the direction of the defendant again came up with an application dated 19.05.2022 and a resolution dated 09.06.2022 in order to renew the credit facilities and considering the credibility of the defendant company the applicant bank sanctioned Rs. 5,98,00,000.00 (Rupees Five crores Ninety Eight Lakhs) only [Rs.1,55,00,000/- (CC) + Rs.3,24,00,000/- (TL)+ Rs. 1,00,00,000 (GECL 1 Extension) Rs. 19,00,000/- (BG)] vide sanction letter dated 09.06.2022. The defendants further executed a Guarantee Agreement dated 09.06.2022, executed by the defendants nos. 2, 3, and 4, directors of the defendant No.1 company and an Supplemental Agreement of loan cum hypothecation dated 09.06.2022. After availing the loan, the defendants failed to repay the dues of the loan accounts and as such the accounts were classified as N.P.A. on 29.09.2023 as per guidelines of RBI. On 29.11.2023, the defendants executed one balance confirmation letter in favour of the applicant bank. As the defendants did not make any payment of the outstanding dues of the loan accounts, the applicant bank served a legal notice dated 02.06.2024 through its advocate upon the defendants. After giving credits for all sums of moneys paid by and/or realized on behalf of the defendants a sum of Rs.6,31,22,642.25 (Rupees Six Crore Thirty One Lakhs Twenty Two Thousand Six

¶26

(Contd…)

¶27

Digitally signed by RAKESH RAKESH PATI TIWARI PATI TIWARI Date: 2026.09.09 17:11:45 +05'30'

¶28

¶29

Hundred Forty Two and Twenty Five Paisa) only inclusive of interest calculated upto 24.05.2024 was due against the defendants in the loan account Nos. 40352340277 (CC), 39565505692 (TL), 40133471335 (BG), 40745697595 (GECL).

¶30

The defendants have filed their written statement stating therein that the Applicant Bank sanctioned and disbursed various credit facilities in the year 2020 aggregating to Rs.5,09,00,000/-, against which the defendants initially made regular repayments towards principal and interest and complied with their obligations, however, no formal sanction letter was ever issued or served upon them. The defendants contend that although their business had initially flourished, the COVID-19 pandemic and nationwide lockdown from March 2020 resulted in complete disruption of their business operations, causing heavy financial losses and rendering the loan accounts irregular, whereupon they approached the Bank for restructuring of the credit facilities, but their request was not favourably considered. The defendants further state that the Bank issued a demand notice dated 24.05.2024 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 claiming Rs.6,33,05,691.25/and thereafter issued another demand notice dated 12.06.2024, allegedly in suppression of the earlier notice, claiming Rs.6,44,33,181.25/-, from which they came to know that their accounts had allegedly been classified as NPA on 29.09.2023. They allege that no prior intimation of such NPA classification was given to them and further contend that the variation of approximately Rs.11 lakh between the two demand notices demonstrates that the Bank’s claim was arbitrary and inflated. The defendants state that they submitted their representation dated 19.07.2024 under Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act and continued making payments even after the alleged NPA classification, and accordingly dispute the validity of the NPA classification and allege wrongful clubbing of their loan accounts contrary to the applicable RBI guidelines. They further contend that they repeatedly approached the Bank for settlement and repayment of the legitimate dues, but the Bank was allegedly more interested in enforcing and selling the secured properties, and thereafter issued a possession notice dated 29.08.2024 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, which, according to them, is arbitrary and suffers from material inconsistencies. The defendants also allege that despite repeated requests the Bank failed to furnish complete and updated statements of account and specifically state that, after 29.09.2023, they made substantial payments aggregating to Rs.1,01,80,862.07/-, comprising Rs.97,23,877.33/towards Current Account No.40352340277 and

¶31

(Contd…)

¶32

RAKESH Digitally signed by RAKESH PATI PATI TIWARI Date: 2026.09.09 TIWARI 17:11:56 +05'30'

¶33

¶34

Rs.4,56,984.74/- towards GECL-30% Account No.40745697595, which, according to them, were not properly accounted for by the Bank. They further refer to the Bank’s letter dated 12.06.2025 under Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act and state that they replied thereto expressing their bona fide intention to repay the legitimate dues and requesting an updated statement of account, which was allegedly not supplied; they also informed the Bank by letter dated 16.06.2025 that a subsidy of Rs.1,06,16,902/- had been approved by the District Industries Centre, Jalpaiguri, on 13.06.2025 and requested that the same be treated towards repayment. The defendants dispute the amount claimed in the Original Application, pointing out inconsistencies between the amount of Rs.6,31,22,642.25/allegedly claimed in the Original Application and the higher amounts mentioned in the SARFAESI demand notices. They further challenge the validity and enforceability of the alleged Guarantee Agreements and other documents relied upon by the Bank, alleging that the same are not duly executed, properly signed or stamped by the authorised signatory of the Bank and that relevant particulars of the stamp papers have not been disclosed. The defendants also deny that they ever waived their liability and maintain that they have always been ready and willing to discharge the legitimate dues, while alleging that the Bank has simultaneously accepted their payments and initiated coercive measures against their properties. It is further pleaded that the defendants had already instituted S.A. No.178 of 2024 under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act challenging the measures taken by the Bank, which was pending adjudication, and that during its pendency the Bank obtained an order dated 07.07.2025 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act from the Learned District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri, authorising taking of physical possession of the secured assets; the defendants challenged the said order by filing I.A. No.508 of 2025, in which, by order dated 01.08.2025, the Tribunal restrained the Bank from taking physical possession of the property till the date fixed for hearing. Accordingly, the defendants pray for dismissal of the Original Application with exemplary costs, while reserving liberty to amend or modify their pleadings.

¶35

The Applicant Bank in support of its case has filed evidence by way of affidavit as affirmed by Sri RAJNATH PRAKASH, the Chief Manager of the applicant Bank and also relied upon the following documents:-

¶36

(Contd…)

¶37

RAKESH Digitally signed by RAKESH PATI PATI TIWARI Date: 2026.09.09 TIWARI 17:12:09 +05'30'

¶38

¶39

Sl. No	Name of the documents	Exhibits No.
. 1.	Memorandum of Association, registration certificate along with the identity cards of the directors	A Series
2.	The board resolution dated 29.05.2020 passed by the Board of Directors of the defendant Company	B
3.	Letter of arrangement dated 28.05.2020	C
4.	Agreement of Loan cum Hypothecation (SME-02) dated 29.05.2020	D
5.	'Guarantee Agreement (SME-3) dated 29.05.2020 that the directors of the company i.e. the defendant nos. 2, 3 and 4 herein will extend their personal guarantees	E
6.	Title Deed nos. I-6298 of 2019 dated 26.09.2019 and Deed No I- 7072 year 2018 along with its valuation report dated 25.11.2022, Deed no. 954 of 2018 dated 08.05.20118 along with its valuation report dated 14.10.2023 and Letters of Confirmation for creation of mortgage by deposit of title deeds (SME-6) dated 01.06.2020	F Series
7.	The board resolution dated 07.08.2020 passed by the Board of Directors of the defendant Company	G
8.	The letter of arrangement dated 07.08.2020	H
9.	The Application for GECL and board resolution dated 25.01.2022 executed by the defendants	I Series
10.	The letter of arrangement (SME-1) dated 29.01.2022	J Series
11.	A guarantee agreement (SME-03) dated 29.01.2022 executed by the directors of the defendant no. 1 company	K
12.	A supplemental Agreement of loan cum hypothecation (SME-04) dated 29.01.2022	L
13.	Letter of confirmation for extension of a mortgage by deposit of title deed covering enhanced limits dated 31.01.2022	M
14.	The revival letter (SME-11) dated 29.01.2022	N
15.	The application dated 19.05.2022 and board resolution dated 09.06.2022 passed by the Board of Directors of the defendant Company	O Series
16.	The letter of sanction dated 09.06.2022	P
17.	'Guarantee Agreement (SME-3)' dated 09.06.2022 executed by the directors of the company i.e. the defendant nos. 2, 3 and 4	Q
18.	The Supplemental Agreement Loan cum Hypothecation dated 09.06.2022	R
19.	The letter of confirmation for extension of a mortgage by deposit of title deed covering enhanced limits dated 13.06.2022.	S Series
20.	The balance confirmation letter dated 29.11.2023	T Series

¶40

(Contd…)

¶41

RAKESH Digitally signed by RAKESH PATI PATI TIWARI Date: 2026.09.09 TIWARI 17:12:22 +05'30'

¶42

¶43

21. The loan recall notice dated 02.06.2024, postal receipts and tracking reports	U Series
22. Banker's Certificate along with a statement of accounts duly certified by the applicant bank.	V Series

¶44

I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant bank as well as learned counsel for the defendants and perused the documents and evidence adduced by the applicant bank as well as the written statement filed by the defendants.

¶45

The defendants have admitted the advancement of financial facilities by the applicant bank against the creation of the equitable mortgage of properties. The case of the defendants is that due to lockdown imposed by the Government of India during Covid19 Pandemic the defendants suffered huge losses in their business and thus the defendant failed to repay some installments. But considering this ground this Tribunal cannot grant any relief in financial matters on the basis of sympathy. It is pertinent to mention that Banks and Financial Institutions are only the custodian of the public money and those who take loan and avail financial facilities from the bank are duty bound to repay the amount strictly in accordance with the terms of the contract.

¶46

Except of the plea of the settlement all the plea taken by the defendants in the instant matter are with respect to the SARFAESI measures taken by the applicant bank in the capacity of secured creditor which are not required to be adjudicated in the OA case filed by the applicant bank u/s 19 of the RDB Act.

¶47

Plea of the defendants is that they had repeatedly approached the Applicant Bank for settlement of the outstanding dues and had expressed their bona fide intention and readiness to discharge the legitimate liability, while alleging that the Bank was more interested in proceeding against the secured assets.

¶48

It is pertinent to mention here that settlement of outstanding dues is essentially a matter of negotiation and commercial discretion between the parties, and unless a settlement proposal is accepted by the Bank in accordance with its applicable policy and a concluded settlement is arrived at, no corresponding right accrues in favour of the borrower to compel the Bank to accept such proposal or to defer recovery proceedings. The pleadings of the defendants themselves disclose that, despite their alleged requests for restructuring/settlement, no concluded settlement or binding arrangement was entered into between the parties. Their subsequent assertion that they were ready and willing to

¶49

(Contd…)

¶50

RAKESH Digitally signed by RAKESH PATI PATI TIWARI Date: 2026.09.09 TIWARI 17:12:34 +05'30'

¶51

¶52

repay the legitimate dues, or that they made certain payments after classification of the accounts as NPA, may be considered in accordance with law while determining the outstanding liability, but such payments or offers of settlement do not, in the absence of an accepted and concluded settlement, extinguish or suspend the Bank’s accrued right to pursue recovery of its dues in accordance with law. Accordingly, the plea of the defendants is not tenable.

¶53

The applicant bank has adduced documentary evidences which are marked as Exhibits- ‘A’ series, ‘B’ to ‘E’, ‘F Series’, ‘G’, ‘H’, ‘I Series’, ‘J Series’, ‘K’ to ‘N’, ‘O Series’, ‘P’ to ‘R’, ‘S Series’, ‘T Series’, ‘U Series’ and ‘V Series’. The sanction of loan has been proved by producing letter of Arrangement dated 28.05.2020, 07.08.2020, 29.01.2022 & 09.06.2022 (Exhibits - ‘C’, ‘H’, ‘J series’ & ‘P’). The execution of required documents like Memorandum of Association, registration certificate along with the identity cards of the directors, The board resolution dated 29.05.2020 passed by the Board of Directors of the defendant Company, Agreement of Loan cum Hypothecation (SME-02) dated 29.05.2020, 'Guarantee Agreement (SME-3) dated 29.05.2020 that the directors of the company i.e. the defendant nos. 2, 3 and 4 herein will extend their personal guarantees, Title Deeds, Letters of Confirmation for creation of mortgage by deposit of title deeds (SME-6) dated 01.06.2020, The board resolution dated 07.08.2020 passed by the Board of Directors of the defendant Company, The Application for GECL and board resolution dated 25.01.2022 executed by the defendants, A guarantee agreement (SME-03) dated 29.01.2022 executed by the directors of the defendant no. 1 company, A supplemental Agreement of loan cum hypothecation (SME-04) dated 29.01.2022, Letter of confirmation for extension of a mortgage by deposit of title deed covering enhanced limits dated 31.01.2022, The revival letter (SME-11) dated 29.01.2022, The application dated 19.05.2022 and board resolution dated 09.06.2022 passed by the Board of Directors of the defendant Company, 'Guarantee Agreement (SME-3)' dated 09.06.2022 executed by the directors of the company i.e. the defendant nos. 2, 3 and 4, The Supplemental Agreement Loan cum Hypothecation dated 09.06.2022, The letter of confirmation for extension of a mortgage by deposit of title deed covering enhanced limits dated 13.06.2022., The balance confirmation letter dated 29.11.2023, recall notice etc. have been proved by exhibiting the same at ‘A series’, ‘B’, ‘D’,’E’, ‘F series’, ‘G’, ‘I series’, ‘J series’, ‘K’ to ‘N’, ‘O series’, ‘Q’, ‘R’, ‘S series’, ‘T series’, ‘U Series’ respectively. By filing the Statement of Account (Exhibit - ‘V series’), the

¶54

(Contd…)

¶55

Digitally signed by RAKESH RAKESH PATI TIWARI PATI TIWARI Date: 2026.09.09 17:12:48 +05'30'

¶56

¶57

applicant bank has proved the total outstanding dues along with interest upto 19.09.2025 to the tune of Rs.6,31,22,642.25 (Rupees Six Crore Thirty One Lakhs Twenty Two Thousand Six Hundred Forty Two and Twenty Five Paisa) only against the defendants.

¶58

Taking into account of the creation of the mortgage of immovable landed property by the defendants, the limitation available is for 12 (twelve) years and as such the claim of the applicant bank is within limitation.

¶59

The applicant bank has got valid cause of action to file this case as after taking the loan the defendants failed to make payment as per the terms and conditions of the sanction letter agreed by the defendants.

¶60

There is nothing available on the record to contradict the version of the applicant bank and thus the applicant bank has sufficiently proved its case by exhibiting all relevant documents.

¶61

In the above circumstances, following order is passed ;

¶62

O R D E R

¶63

(i) O.A. No. 79/2024 filed by the applicant bank is allowed against the defendants No. 1, 2, 3 & 4 jointly and severally with costs and it is hereby ordered that the applicant bank is entitled to recover the total dues debt amount of Rs.6,31,22,642.25 (Rupees Six Crores Thirty-One Lakhs Twenty Two Thousand Six Hundred Fourty-Two and Paise Twenty Five) only with interest calculated upto 24.05.2024 and future interest thereon from 25.05.2024 @11.40% for the Cash Credit Loan (40352340277) , Term Loan (39565505692) & for the GECL facility (40745697595) @9.25% p.a. and for Bank Guarantee (40133471335) till realization of entire balance from the defendants along with cost amount.

¶64

(ii) Amount, if any, paid by the defendants in the loan account or amount recovered by the applicant bank, if any, made towards the loan accounts after filing of the O.A be taken into account while arriving at the exact amount of outstanding payable by the defendants.

¶65

(iii) Hypothecated properties being (i) Hypothecation of stocks viz. raw materials, stockin-progress, finished goods, Plant & Machinery and future fixture purchased both in present and future as mentioned in the documents (Schedule A) of the original application, and Mortgaged properties being (a) All the piece and parcel of land admeasuring total 286.70 Decimals recorded in JL NO. 03, L.R. Plot No. 117/541, 546, 609, 610, 611, 614 recorded in L.R. Khatian no. 945,946 under Mouza - Binnaguri, Sheet No. 02, within PS:- Bhaktinagar,

¶66

(Contd…)

¶67

Digitally signed by RAKESH RAKESH PATI TIWARI PATI TIWARI Date: 2026.09.09 17:13:03 +05'30'

¶68

¶69

Dist. Jalpaiguri in the name of CRAST GLOBAL AGRO FOOD & BEVERAGES PRIVATE LIMITED vide lease deed No. I-6298 of 2019 (b) Factory Land with structure, land admeasuring 66.67 decimals, land recorded in LR Plot Nos. 613, 546, 623 and 609 their corresponding RS Plot Nos. 117/613, 546, 118/623 and 117/609, LR Khatian No.102, 69 and 655 their corresponding RS Khatian No.2864, Mouza Binnaguri, Sheet No. 2, J.L. No. 144 (new), 3 (old), Gram Panchayat Binnaguri, Pargana Baikunthpur, Post Office and Police Station- Bhaktinagr, Dist Jalpaiguri, PIN-734007, vide Deed No I-7072 year 2018 in the name of Santosh Kumar Singh and Shanti Bhushan Singh. (c) all that piece or parcel of Shop No. 6, admeasuring 568.8 sq ft including super built up area, floor type cemented, use commercial Back Side (Shop), on the second floor of the building named as GOLDEN PLAZA (South Block), together with undivided share of land measuring 1.225 acres 73 Katha 12 Chatak compromised in RS Plot No. 8260 and 8262, recorded in RS. Khatian No. 2316, situated within Mouza Siliguri, JL No 110, Pargana Baikunthapur, in Ward No IV of SMC jurisdiction of Police Station-Siliguri, Additional District and Sub Registrar officeSiliguri, District -Darjeeling. The collateral security stands in the name defendant no. 2 and 3 vide Deed No. 1-954 year 2018 year 2018, as mentioned in Schedule ’B’ of the original application, shall remain charged to the applicant bank and the applicant bank shall have paramount charge thereon.

¶70

(iv) The defendants are debarred from transferring; alienating, encumbering or disposing of the hypothecated/mortgaged properties or any other property and assets belonging to the defendants till the aforesaid adjudicated debt amount is recovered from the defendants.

¶71

(v) The defendants are given a time of thirty days from the date of this judgment for repayment of the above decreed debt amount with interest failing which the applicant bank is entitled to recover its dues by sale of the hypothecated/mortgaged property as aforesaid and is also entitled to proceed against the said defendants personally and/or personal properties to recover the dues in accordance with law.

¶72

(vi) Let the certificate of Recovery be drawn up by the Learned Registrar forthwith in terms of judgment for issuance of the same against the defendants in favour of applicant bank under Sub-Section 22 of Section-19 of The Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 and put up the same for signature and issuance.

¶73

(Contd…)

¶74

RAKESH Digitally signed by RAKESH PATI PATI TIWARI Date: 2026.09.09 TIWARI 17:13:24 +05'30'

¶75

¶76

(vii) Learned Recovery Officer is directed to realize the dues amount from the defendants as per the recovery certificate in accordance with law.

¶77

(viii) Let this judgment be uploaded on website of the tribunal and the Registry is directed to serve/send copy of this judgment to the parties free of cost.

¶78

(ix) Record is consigned to the record room along with the judgment.

¶79

The judgment is signed and pronounced in the open Tribunal on 08^th day of September, 2026.

¶80

Digitally signed by RAKESH RAKESH PATI TIWARI PATI TIWARI Date: 2026.09.09 17:13:36 +05'30' (RAKESH PATI TIWARI) Presiding Officer DRT, Siliguri.

¶81

(Contd…)

State Bank of India v. Crast Global Agro Food Beverages Private Limited and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Crast Global Agro Food Beverages Private Limited and Ors.

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

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Pathania Poultry Farm

Bank of India versus Sh. Jaspal Singh

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Karnail Singh

Hdfc Bank Limited versus M/s Samta Trading Company

Indian Bank versus Jeevan Jyoti Enterprises

Punjab National Bank versus M/s Just Wow Readymade Garments Shop