Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S Sai Cattle Feed Industries and Others

DRT23 Mar 2026OA/849/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This decision of the Debts Recovery Tribunal allows the applicant's claim for recovery of an outstanding loan sum of approximately 52.97 lakhs against the defaulting partners and firms, granting interest and issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.52,97,548.00 with interest at 8% p.a. and issuance of Recovery Certificate.

State Bank of India versus M/S Sai Cattle Feed Industries and… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.849/2024

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 24.06.2024

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 23.03.2026

¶6

State Bank of India, a body corporate, constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955, and having Central Office at Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai and one of its Local Head Office at Sector 17-A, Chandigarh and one of its Branch’s, at Ferozepur Road, Moga through its Manager Credit Sh Surmukh Singh, posted at Retail Assets Credit Centre (RACC) Above ADB Branch, Amritsar Road, 1st Floor, Moga 142001.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/S Sai Cattle Feed Industries, a partnership firm, situated at VPO Patto Heera Singh Road, Nihal Singh Wala, District Moga, Punjab-142055, through its Partners Sh Jyoti Lal and Sh Mukesh Kumar.

¶10

Sh. Jyoti Lal son of Sh Subhash Chander, resident of Near Krishana Mandir, Nihal Singh Wala, District Moga, Punjab.

¶11

Sh. Mukesh Kumar son of Sh Bharat Bhushan, resident of Old Grain Market, Nihal Singh Wala District Moga, Punjab.

¶12

….……Defendants

¶13

Advocates:

¶14

Argued by Sh. Pankaj Beri, Advocate for Applicant.

¶15

None for Defendants.

¶16

FINAL ORDER

¶17

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.52,97,548.00 (Rupees Fifty Two Lacs Ninety seven thousand Five hundred Forty eight Only). The Original Application has been filed through, Sh. Surmukh Singh,

¶18

¶19

OA NO.849/2024 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS MESSRS SAI CATTLE FEED INDUSTRIES AND OTHERS Manager, of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide in the Gazette of India dated 26th September, 1959 and 26th August, 1972 & 1987 issued under Regulation No. 76 & 77 of State Bank of India Regulations framed in Exercise of the powers conferred by Sub section (3) of Section 50 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955, with the previous sanction of the Central Government.

¶20

The brief facts of the OA are that the Defendant no.1 through its partners, Defendant nos.2 & 3, approached the applicant for the grant CC Limit of Rs.45.00Lacs vide loan application dated 04.06.2015, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. Thereafter, Defendant no.1 through its partners, Defendant nos.2 & 3, approached the applicant for the renewal of CC Limit of Rs.40.00Lacs and for the grant of GECL limit of Rs.12.00Lacs vide application dated 16.03.2022.

¶21

The applicant sanctioned the CC Limit of Rs.40.00Lacs vide Letter of Arrangement dated 29.06.2015, which is Annexures A3 to this OA and terms and conditions were duly accepted by the Defendants. Thereafter, the applicant renewed the existing limit of 40lacs and also sanctioned the GECL limit of Rs.12.00Lacs vide Letter of Arrangement dated 25.03.2022, which is Annexures A9 to this OA. 4. Defendant no. 1, through its partners Defendant nos. 2 and 3, hypothecated present and future current assets and stocks of finished/unfinished goods vide Agreement of Loan cum Hypothecation dated 29.06.2015, which is Annexure A4 to this OA. Defendant No 2&3, mortgaged their immovable property i.e. Industrial Property measuring 17Marla, situated at Patto Hira Singh, Tehsil Nihal Singh Wala, District Moga, Punjab, owned by Defendant No 2&3 in equal share vide registered sale deed bearing Vasika no. 2099 dated 04.12.2012, which is Annexure A6 to this OA. Letter Evidencing Deposit of Title Deed dated 30.06.2015, executed by Defendant No 2&3 for securing the credit facility, which is Annexure 7 to this OA. Documents executed: Partnership Deed, which is Annexure A1 to this OA; Guarantee agreement by Defendant Nos. 2&3 dated

¶22

¶23

OA NO.849/2024 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS MESSRS SAI CATTLE FEED INDUSTRIES AND OTHERS

¶24

29.06.2015, which is Annexure A5 to this OA; Valuation Report dated

¶25

22.01.2024, which is Annexure A8 to this OA; Supplementary Agreement of Loan cum Hypothecation, Guarantee Agreement executed by Defendant nos. 2&3, Letter of Confirmation for Extension of Mortgage, all dated 25.03.2022, which are Annexures A10 to A12 to this OA; Revival letters dated 14.05.2018, 26.03.2021 & 25.01.2024, which is Annexure A13 to this OA; Notice dated 02.01.2024, which is Annexure A14 to this OA and Statement of accounts with certificate, which are Annexures A15 & A16 to this OA.

¶26

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.52,97,548.00, 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.

¶27

The defendants were served notices to appear before this Tribunal. Ms. Manvi Arora, Advocate appeared on behalf of defendants on 19.04.2025 and seeks time to file Power of Attorney on behalf of defendants. Thereafter, Sh. Sachin Sharma, Advocate appeared on behalf of defendants on 10.09.2025 and stated that Power of Attorney on behalf of defendants has been filed online and seeks time to file hard copy of the same. But no one appeared on behalf of defendants thereafter. Since, no WS was filed by defendants, opportunity to file WS by defendants was closed and defense was struck off vide order dated 19.02.2026. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Surmukh Singh, Manager, State Bank of India, has been filed. 8. Heard arguments and perused record. No one appeared on behalf of defendants for arguments.

¶28

¶29

OA NO.849/2024 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS MESSRS SAI CATTLE FEED INDUSTRIES AND OTHERS

¶30

It was argued by learned counsel that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case. From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A16 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant for availing of the loan facilities, which were granted to them and for that they 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, both the 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.52,97,548.00 (Rupees Fifty Two Lacs Ninety seven thousand Five hundred Forty eight Only) along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the accounts.

¶31

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest in CC Limit @13.00%p.a. & interest in GECL @9.40%p.a. with monthly rests in both loan accounts from 19.06.2024 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 mortgaged property/hypothecated assets, undertaking of the defendants, quantum of loan 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 all 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

¶34

OA NO.849/2024 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS MESSRS SAI CATTLE FEED INDUSTRIES AND OTHERS

¶35

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.52,97,548.00 (Rupees Fifty Two Lacs Ninety seven thousand Five hundred Forty eight 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 of OA till the date of realization of the amount. Accordingly, the applicant shall be entitled to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of mortgaged properties/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. 12. Any other application pending stands disposed of . 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 15.04.2026. 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: 23.03.2026 (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

State Bank of India v. M/S Sai Cattle Feed Industries and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S Sai Cattle Feed Industries and Others

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 Sh. Bahadur Singh

State Bank of India versus Sh. Jatinder Singh

State Bank of India versus Sh. Sukhchain Singh

State Bank of India versus M/S M M Cotton Factory and Others

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S Sanjeev Traders and Others

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sh. Iqbal Singh and Another