Allowed

State Bank of India v. Ms Pappu and Dipu Aloo Co.

DRT25 Jun 2026OA/88/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT adjudicated the debt of Rs. 44.52 lakhs owed to State Bank of India by respondents for defaulted loans sanctioned in 2014-2019. The Tribunal allowed the application under Section 19, releasing the Recovery Certificate for realization of principal, interest, and costs.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs. 44,52,740.35 plus pendente-lite and future interest at 10% p.a. Simple interest from date of filing till realization.

State Bank of India versus Ms Pappu and Dipu Aloo… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

OA 88 of2024jJl

DRT, PATN A

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna

¶5

Karpuri Thakur Sadan, Aashiana Digha Road Patna-800025

¶6

Presiding Officer : Shri Kaushalendra Yadav+

¶7

OA Case No. 88 of 2024

¶8

State Bank of India, Sasaram Branch, Rohtas through the Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, 2"d Floor, Patna Main Branch Building, West of Gandhi Maidan, Patna

¶9

. . . . . . . Applicant

¶10

Vs.

¶11

M/s Pappu & Dipu Aloo Co. (a proprietorship concern), Prop.- Shri Vinod Kumar alias Vinod Kumar Sonkar, Business at Alamganj, P.O. & P.S.- Sasaram, District- Rohtas- 821115, Bihar

¶12

Vinod Kumar, Borrower/sole proprietor, Proo. of M/s Pappu & Dipu Aloo Co., S/o Late Achche Lal alias Bachche Lal, resident ofAlamganj, P.O. & P.S.- Sasaram, District- Rohtas- 821115, Bihar

¶13

. . . . . . . Defendants

¶14

Present:

¶15

For the Applicant Shri Raj Raunak, Advocate For the Defendants Shri Animesh Ranjan, Advocate

¶16

Dated:25.06.2026

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The Applicant bank has made this application u/s 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (here-in-after referred to as Act) on 06.02.2024 against the defendants to recover its debts from defendants of Rs.44,52,740.35 as on 31.12.2023 along with pendente-lite and future interest at the contractual rate from 01.01.2024 with costs till realization.

¶19

The application has been filed with the contention that the applicant bank, is a body corporate, carries on the business and is competent to file the suit through various branches including the applicant.

¶20

Defendant no.1 is a proprietorship firm of which defendant no.2 is the proprietor. Defendants approached the applicant bank for sanction of cash credit facility of Rs.10 Lakh for running of trade of Onions and Potatoes etc, vide loan application dated 05.07.2014. which was sanctioned by the applicant

DRT, PATNA

OA 88 of 20241 Jl

bank on 22.07.2014 on various terms and conditions, as stipulated in the sanction letter, which were duly accepted by the defendants. To secure the loan facilities defendants have executed various loan and security documents and also created mortgage in favour of the applicant bank, details of which are given in OA. Later on, the entire loan sanctioned was covered under the CGTMSE Scheme and therefore, the guarantee of Smt. Shanti Devi was released therefore, she was not made party in the OA and also the applicant bank has released the mortgage vide sanction dated 16.11.2022.

¶26

Defendants again approached the applicant bank for enhancement of cash credit facility of Rs.10 Lakh to Rs.15 Lakh, vide loan application dated 08.10.2015, which was sanctioned by the applicant bank on 08.10.2015 on various terms and conditions, as stipulated in the sanction letter, which were duly accepted by the defendants. To secure the loan facilities defendants have executed various loan and security documents in favour of the applicant bank, details of which are given in OA.

¶27

Defendants again approached the applicant bank for enhancement of cash credit facility of Rs.15 Lakh to Rs.22 Lakh, vide loan application dated 08.12.2017, which was sanctioned by the applicant bank on 08.12.2017 on various terms and conditions, as stipulated in the sanction letter, which were duly accepted by the defendants. To secure the loan facilities defendants have executed various loan and security documents in favour of the applicant bank, details of which are given in OA.

¶28

Defendants again approached the applicant bank for enhancement of cash credit facility of Rs.22 Lakh to Rs.35 Lakh, vide loan application dated 26.06.2019, which was sanctioned by the applicant bank on 26.06.2019 on various terms and conditions, as stipulated in the sanction letter, which were duly accepted by the defendants. To secure the loan facilities defendants have executed various loan and security documents in favour of the applicant bank9 details of which are given in OA.

¶29

During covid- 19 pandemic period, the applicant bank has also sanctioned GECL facility of Rs.5.67 Lakh on 08.06.2020. Thereafter the defendants further approached the applicant bank for taking the benefit of

¶30

P r &: s j ): n g+ () II i c d? r Ipebb RecOVery TdbWla) PATNA

DRTq PATN A

OA 88 of 20241 Jl

CCJTMSE Scheme and the limit of rs.35 Lakh was sanctioned under the C(,TMSE Scheme on 16.11.2022 and release of collateral was done and also GECL account for Rs.5.67 Lakh was reviewed.

¶35

After availing the sanctioned credit facilities, the defendants became irregular in repayment of their dues as per agreed terms and failed to adhere to the financial norms of the bank and avoiding the repayment of its dues to the bank, in spite of several assurances given by it to the applicant bank resulting in the account turning as NPA on 01.05.2023 .

¶36

Since, the defendants failed and neglected in spite of several reminders to make payment of the dues recoverable to the bank, hence this application has been filed by the bank. '

¶37

The total liability in the loan account is Rs.44,52,740.35 as on 31.12.2023 with pendente-lite and future interest contractual rate from 01.01.2024 till the realization.

¶38

This Tribunal issued summons/notices copies of application & paper book to the defendants by registered/speed post on 29.02.2024, requiring them to show-cause within 30 days of the service U/s 19 (4) of the Act & Rule of the DRT [Procedure] Rules, 1993.

¶39

In response to the notice, the defendants have appeared through their Id. Counsel by filing vakalatnama dated 24.04.2024 and have also filed their written statement admitting therein the loan facilities granted by the applicant bank to the defendants. They further stated that unsigned pages/papers cannot be acceptable against the defendants. Pages/documents at sl. no. 26,27, 52, 63, 79, 87, 91, 153 to 155 are blanked signed and not filled up. The guarantor is not made as defendant. No rate of interest is given in sanction letter at page 8 of the OA. The bank has charged higher rate of interest. There is no photograph of borrower on page 52 to link the defendants. The bank has fraudulently obtained blank signed loan documents from the defendants of prior date even before the date of sanction. The cost of the CGTMSE guarantee has already been recovered from the defendants. The applicant is under obligation to claim

OA 88 of2024jJI

DRT, PATN A

guarantee for adjustment of this bad loan. The NPA date and claim amount are wrong and is in violation of RBI rules and requested to dismiss the OA. Rebuttal evidence on behalf of the defendants has also been filed taking the same pleas as already taken in written statement.

¶44

To prove its case, the applicant Bank has referred various certified photocopies of documents before this Tribunal. The applicant bank has also given evidence on affidavit by way of affidavit by Shri Shashi Ranjan Chaudhary, Chief Manager of the applicant bank. The details of documents are as follows:

¶45

SI.No	Description Documents Photocopies of	Dateof Execution	Amount (inLakh)	Signatur Executants	eof	Ex./ Ann No
1	Loanapplication		10.00	Defendants	.	1
2	Letter arrangement of	22.07.2014	10.00	Defendants		2
3 &3 A	Agreement ofloan cumhypothecation CERSAIDetails	22.07.2014	10.00	e
4	Guarantee agreement	22.07.2014	10.00	Shanti Devi		4
5	Memorandum for recordingcreationof mortgage	22.07.2014	10.00	Bank		5
6	Confi;mo	23.07.2014	10.00	ShantiDev	i	6
7	PDR	22.07.2014	10.00	Defendants		7
8	PDR	22.07.2014	10.00	Shanti Devi		8
9	Letter arrangement of	08.10.2015	15.00	Bank accepted defendants	and by	9
10	Agreement ofloan cumhypothecation	08.10.2015	15.00	Defendants		10
11	Guarantee agreement	08.10.2015	15.00	l
12	Memorandum for recordingextension creationofmortgage	08.10.2015	15.00	Bank		12
13	Confirmation for extension of mortgage	08.10.2015	15.00	I
14	mD	08.10.2015	15.00	Defendants		14
15	PDR	08.10.2015	15.00	Shanti Devi		15
16	Letter arrangement of	08.12.2017	22.00	Bank accepted defendants	and by	16
17	t agreement		22.00	Shanti Devi		17
18	SIne loan cum		22.00	e

¶46

PresidinR O ficer

¶47

f).el)is Recovery Tribuna) PA'rIaA

OA 88 of20241JI

DRT, PATNA

	hyDothecation
19	Memorandum recordingexten creationofmort	for sion gage	09.12.2017	a	a
20	Confirmation extensIon mortgage	-for of		1	in
	mD		09.12.2017	22.00	Defendants
	PDR		09.12.2017	22.00	ShantiDevi
	Letter arrangement	of	26.06.2019	35.00	Defendants
24	Guara# agreement		26.06.2019	35.00	ShantiDevi	24
25	Suppl. Agreeme loan hyDothecation	ntof cum	25.06.2019	35.00	Defendants	25
26	Memorandum recordingexte creationofmort	for nsion gage	26.06.2019	3		26
	PDR		26.06.2019	35.00	Defendants
	PDR		26.06.2019	35.00	ShantiDevi
	Offer letter			Rs.5,67,800/-	Bank and accepted by defendants
e	arrangement	o		5.67	Bank and accepted by defendants	30
31	Guarantee agreement		08.06.2020	5.67	ShantiDevi	31
32	Agreement of cumhypothecat	loan ion	08.06.2020	5.67	Defendants	32
	PDR		08.06.2020	5.67	Defendants
	PDR		08.06.2020	5.67	Shanti Devi
	Sanction resolut	ion
	Creditproposal
	Control resol andotherdocum	ution ents	16. 1 1 .2022 13.12.2022	40.67	Bank . and defendants
	Photocopy ofde	ed
	CERSAIDetails
10 42	Statement accounts	of			Bank	10 42
	Revival letter		01.03.2022		Defendants
	Legal notice		08.01.2024		Bankadv.

¶52

Heard arguments and perused the case record. During the course of arguments, there is no any specific denial on behalf of the defendants with regards to the sanction of loan facilities and its utilization and further there is no any specific denial with regards to the execution of loan and security documents in favour of the applicant bank.

¶53

!I) eb! ! ! !?:1 ::1EIIIIILd) [ 1

OA 88 of2024jJI

DRT, PATNA

Ld. Counsel for the applicant bank has submitted that Smt. Shanti Devi, wife of defendant no.2, who had singed the guarantee agreement as well as created mortgage, has not been made as defendant because later on the entire sanctioned loan was covered under the CGTMSE Scheme and hence her guarantee was released and the applicant bank has also released the security as per the sanction dated 16.11.2022. These facts have also been mentioned in OA. Ld. Counsel for the applicant bank has further submitted that the rate of interest was charged as agreed by the defendants and on regular default the account was declared as NPA.

¶58

. Ld. Counsel of applicant bank submitted that the defendants have taken the loan and utilized the same and also executed the various loan documents to secure the loan. Further, submitted that the claim of the bank has been proved by documentary evidence. All the transactions were entered in the ledger of the loan accounts in the name of the defendant duly maintained by the applicant bank in its usual course of business. The interest /compound interest has been charged at such rates, and capitalized at such periodical rests as are permitted by and do not run counter to the directives of Reserve Bank of India.

¶59

It is further submitted by Id. Counsel of applicant bank that there is no stay granted by any Higher Court, in respect of the proceedings of the present OA and requested to issue recovery certificate, as claimed for, in OA.

¶60

It has been established that defendants are living and carrying on their business in the state of Bihar. Cause of action also arose in the State of Bihar. The said claim on the date of filing of application exceeded Rs.20 laos. The applicant bank is fbnctioning within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Therefore, this Tribunal has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present application.

¶61

On the issue of Limitation, to prove it, the applicant bank has submitted that the applicant bank has declared the account as NPA on 01.05.2023, whereas the present application has been filed on 06.02.2024. Even, it is counted for the purpose of Limitation, then it is established that the applicant

¶62

¶63

Ab=r : : =e :JI 1 =: 1EI1111bI!IIIIII PATN A

OA 88 of2024jJl

DRT, PATNA

bank has filed the case within the limitation period. As such, it is established that the present application has been filed well within the period of limitation.

¶68

Shri Shashi Ranjan Chaudhary, Chief Manager of the applicant bank has filed the affidavit in support of contents of application and the documents as evidence and proved on oath the pleadings and documents of the applicant bank as stated above.

¶69

Section 19(3) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 provides that the application u/s S.19 (1) shall be accompanied with true copies of all the documents relied on in support of the claim.

¶70

The rule 12 (10) of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993, provides that if the defendant denies his liability to pay the claim made by the applicant, the tribunal may act upon the affidavit of the applicant who is acquainted with the facts of the case or who has on verification of the record sworn the affidavit in respect of the contents of the application and the documents as evidence.

¶71

The rule 12 (11) of the aforesaid Rules, provides that the provisions contained in section 4 of the Banker’s Books evidence that Act, 1891 (18 of 1891) shall apply to a certified copy of an entry in a Banker’s Books furnished along with application filed under sub section 1 of section 19 by the applicant.

¶72

Section 4 of Banker’s Books evidence Act, 1891 runs as underS.4. Mode of proof of entries in bankers’ books.–Subject to the provisions of this Act, a certifIed copy of any entry in a banker’s book shall in all legal proceedings be received as prima facie evidence of the existence of such entry, and shall be admitted as evidence of the matters, transactions and accounts therein recorded in every case where, and to the same extent as, the original entry itself is now by law' admissible, but not further or otherwise.

¶73

As such the certified true copies of the documents are admissible in evidence. The statement of account maintained in the ordinary course of business is not only admissible but shall be taken as the correct statement of account, more so since the entries in the statement of account have not been challenged.

¶74

On perusal of the application, documents, affidavit and on consideration of the arguments, it is proved that the defendants have applied for loan and the bank had sanctioned the loan and to secure the loan and for repayment of loan amount with interests etc., the defendants have executed various loan documents, as stated in the app jcatio/n and proved by aforesaid evidence

nXe=:T=M

DRT, PATNA

OA 88 of 20241 Jl

Defendants have neither denied the utilization of funds advanced by applicant bank nor have pointed out any specific error and discrepancy in the Statement of Account.

¶80

The evidence discussed above goes to establish that the amount of loan as mentioned in the O. A., was availed by the borrower under the agreed terms and conditions for repayment with interest. The balance amount till 31.12.2023 has been proved to be Rs.44,52,740.35 only by way of statement of accounts. There is nothing to prove the amount more than that disclosed in the aforementioned statement. As such this amount is recoverable til'1 full and final realization of the claim.

¶81

In my view, facts of the case stand proved by evidence of the applicant bank. Accordingly, the applicant bank is entitled to recover from defendants jointly and severally of Rs.44,52,740.35 along with pendente-lite and future interest @ 10% p.a. simple from 06.02.2024 (The date of filing of this OA) till realization. So the final order may be passed accordingly, to meet the ends of JustIce.

¶82

ORDER

¶83

In the result, the application of the applicant bank is allowed and debt is determined with costs against the defendants. The defendants are hereby jointly and severally, ordered to pay the applicant bank its debt amounting to Rs.44,52,740.35 along with pendente-lite and future interest @ 10% p.a. simple from 06.02.2024 (The date of filing of this OA) till realization of the entire sum due and recoverable with costs.

¶84

It is made clear that any amount deposited by the defendants, be deducted in the claim amount, if not deducted.

¶85

Defendants are debarred from transferring, alienating encumbering or otherwise dealing with or disposing of the mortgaged or hypothecated or any other properties and assets without paying the aforesaid adjudicated dues to the applicant bank to secure the ends of justice. The mortgaged or hypothecated assets to secure the loan in question are hereby attached and shall be subject to the final order under the recovery proceedings in pursuance of the Recovery certificate ,issued under Section 19(22) of Recovery of Debts and Barkruptcy

¶86

P,i#%.., n,Qbtrl RecoveIY Tdlxma) p \IN A

OA 88 of20241JI

DRT, PATNA

Act 1993. The applicant may submit the certified copy of this Judgment and the Recovery Certificate before the Registrar/Sub- Registrar to endorse the charge over the secured assets.

¶91

Let a certificate of recovery be drawn up forthwith and put up for signatures in terms of provisions contained in Section 19(22) of the Act to be issued, on the basis of the order of the Tribunal to the Recovery Officer. The Recovery Officer shall realize the amount as per the certificate in the manner and mode prescribed under the Act from the defendants, by sale of mortgaged/ hypothecated assets as well as other personal movable/immovable assets of the defendants. However, no proclamation of sale will be issued, if the Defendant/CertifIcate Debtor ensures payment of the certipcate amount in 6 months from the date of demand notice to the Certipcate debtors. The Recovery OffIcer will issue demand notice to the Certipcate debtors only after the proof of compliance under rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules 1993, is submitted by the applicant. If The Applicant /CertiDcate holder fails to comply with directions of the Recovery Of$cer, the execution may be dismissed for nonprosecution. The copy of this judgment be uploaded in the website of the Tribunal.

¶92

Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT, Patna on 05.08.2026. The order be communicated accordingly.

¶93

Judgment signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open court on 25th day of June, 2026. A/

¶94

A/ (“# [KaushalendraYadav] Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna

¶95

Dictated &corrected by me.

¶96

p,e,tdint OOco Debts Rec:ova:Y Tdband PATHA

¶97

FORM NOt 9

¶98

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL PATNA

¶99

[See Regulation 24( 1 )]

¶100

2nd Floors (A. B & F Wing) Karpuri Thakur Sadan, Kendriya Karamchari Parisar (GPOA), Ashiana Digha Road, Patna-800025

¶101

RECOVERY CERTIFICATE UNDER SE(,TION 19(2) READ WITH $ECTION 19(23 OF THE RECOVERY OF DEBTS & BANKRUPTCY ACT, 1993, AS AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME.

¶102

RCNgJ&ZZ29Z6

¶103

Hq Case No: OA/88/2024

¶104

In the Matter of

¶105

(CH- 1) STATE BANK OF INDIA SASARAM BRANCH ROHTAS THROUGH THE STRESSED ASSES'TS RECOVERY BRANCH 2ND FLOOR. PATNA MAIN BRANCH BUILDING, WEST OF GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA ,BIHAR -800001

¶106

Applicant(s)

¶107

¶108

(CD- 1) MS PAPPU AND DIPU ALDO CO (A Proprietonhip Concern) Prop- Shri Vinod Kumar alias Vinod Kumar Sonkar Business at Alamganj PO and PS Sasaram, Rohtas ,BIHAR -82 1115

¶109

Defendant(s)

¶110

(CD- 2) VINOD KUMAR (BORROWEmSOLE PROPRIETOR) PROP- M/S PAPPU AND DIPU ALOO CO. S/0LATE ACHCHE LAL ALIAS BACHCHE LAL. RESIDENT OF - ALAMGANJ, P.0. AND P.S.SASARAM DISTRICT- ROHTAS- 821115 BIHAR

¶111

Recovery Certificate for Rs 4452740.35 [ Rupees Forty Four Lakhs Fifty Two Thousands Seven Hundred FQrty And Paise Thirty Five OnI)a

¶112

In terms of final order dated 25/06/2026 passed by this Tribunal in the above mentioned case, it is ordered that the Applicant Certificate Holder Bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 4452740,35 along with cost, expenses and interest &om the 06/02/2024 i.e. date of filing / with efFective date of the OA/88/2024 and future interest from order date till the date of realisation in full, jointly or severally from the Certificate Debtors, hereinafter referred to

¶113

Sr.no	CDName	Type	Int. lode	Int. ' Rate	Effective Date	Order Date	lount(Rs.)	Liability	Interest (asOl Order Date)	RC Int(Rs.)	Remark
	MSPAPPUAND DIPUALOOCO		,Simple fearly)	10		>26	4452740.35	Fointly IIly		L52740.35
	ODKUMAR BORROWER/SOLE ROPRIETOR)		?I =F:it :early)	10 i	06/02/2024		+452740.35	lintly ,nd yerally	iInterest	152740.35

¶114

In case of failure to pay the aforementioned adjudicated amount within 30 days, same shall be recovered from the sale of the mortgaged/hypothecated assets as well as other personal movable/ Immovable assets of the certificate debtors.

¶115

The mortgaged or hypothecated assets to secure the loan in question are hereby attached and shall be subject to the final order under the recovery proceeding in pursuance of the Recovery certificate issued under Section 19(22) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 .

¶116

Parties are directed to appear before MANOJ KUMAR , Recovery Officer, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL PATN A on 05/08/2026.

¶117

The Recovery Officer shall realize the amount as per this Certificate in the manner and mode prescribed under Sections 25 to 28 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (as amended from time to time) from the above named Certificate Debtors.

¶118

This Certificate has been issued under my signature and seal of the Tribunal on this 02/07/2026

¶119

a',.

¶120

PREsrDbiG OFFICER DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL PATNA Pr83td88 O jice I BOB Re::In Tdbwu

¶121

FORM NO. 10 [See Regulation 24(2)]

¶122

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL PATNA

¶123

2nd Floor) (A. B & F Wing) Karpuri Thakur Sadan, Kendriya Karamchari Parisar (GPOA), Ashiana Digha Road, Patna-800025.

¶124

SCHEDULE TO RECOVERY CERTIFICATE MEMO OF COSTS

¶125

RC No. 187/2026 IN

¶126

Case No: OA/88/2024

¶127

Applicant(s): STATE BANK OF INDIA Versus

¶128

Defendant(s): MS PAPPU AND DIPU ALOO CO

¶129

!Sr.No.	RemofCosts	AmountinRs.
il.	iFeeonthe application	!47000
12.	}ProcessFees(Inc.Publication)	10
	AdvocateFees
	kceiver/Valuation/Security Fee
	MiscellaneousCharges
	tinad8sts:Rs

¶130

Place: PATNA

¶131

Date: 02/07/2026

¶132

Note: Strike out whichever is not applicable

¶133

PRESID Ba OFFICER DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL PATNA Presiding Oficer Debts Recovery Tribunal PATRA

State Bank of India v. Ms Pappu and Dipu Aloo Co.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Ms Pappu and Dipu Aloo Co.

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

Hdfc Bank versus Bhajan Singh

Canara Bank versus P Padmanabhan

Uco Bank versus Mr Abdul Rouf And Anr.

M/S Mahavir Food Products versus Uco Bank

Central Bank of India versus M/s Royal Metal

Icici Bank Limited versus Umesh Jha