The DRT allowed the bank's application for recovery of ₹52,88,799.39p along with interest and costs from a partnership firm and its guarantor partners after proving the loan advance and non-repayment.
Recovery of ₹52,88,799.39p with interest and costs allowed; Recovery Certificate issued to be sent to Recovery Officer.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH
BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER
OA No: 908/2024 Date of Institution:19.06.2024 Date of Decision: 28.08.2026
SBI having its branches all over India and a branch at Sai Road, Baddi, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh and one of the Specialized Branch known as Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, at #40, SDA Commercial Complex, Zonal Office Building, Kasumpti, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.
……..Applicant
Vs.
1. M/s Sidhi Vinayak Enterprises, a Partnership Firm, at Village Delha, Manpura Davni Road, Baddi, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, through its Partners Sh. Rajiv Sharma s/o Sh. Ram Krishan, Shri Nishant Sharma s/o Sh. Sanjay Sharma.
2. Sh. Rajiv Sharma s/o Sh. Ram Krishan, Partner of M/s Sidhi Vinayak Enterprises, r/o H.No. 416, Chandigarh Road, Near Gupta Hospital, Ward No. 7, Kurali, District SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab. IInd Address: r/o Ward no.11, Near Sai Mandir, Kurali, District SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab
……….Defendants
Advocates
Sh. Sunil Salhotra proxy counsel for Sh. Vivek Verma, Counsel for the applicant bank.
Defendants- ex parte vide order dated 19.05.2025 .
OA for the Recovery of ₹52,88,799.39p with interest from 19.06.2024.
ORDER
2
₹52,88,799.39p with interest against M/s Sidhi Vinayak Enterprises and others (defendants).
2A. Again on 17.03.2021, at the request of the defendants, bank enhanced the existing C.C. Limit from ₹25.00Lacs to ₹35.00Lacs and also granted a Term Loan-I of ₹2.69 Lacs under G.E.C.L. Scheme to defendant No.1 through its partners defendant Nos.2 to 4 for Business purpose. To secure the loans, Defendant Nos.2 to 4 being the partners of defendant No.1 had hypothecated assets (fully detailed in Supplementary Agreement of Loan-Cum-Hypothecation of the application). Defendant Nos.2 and 4 stood as guarantors for the both loan facilities vide Guarantee Agreement dated 17.03.2021.
2B. Again on 17.11.2021, at the request of the defendants, bank renewed the existing limits and also granted a Term Loan-II of ₹2,04,139/- in the form of GECL1.0 Extension under E.C.L.G.S. Scheme to defendant No.1 through its partners defendant Nos.2 and 3 for Business purpose. To secure the loan facilities, Defendant Nos.2 and 3 being the partners of defendant No.1 had hypothecated assets (fully
3
detailed in para No.3A of the application). Defendant Nos.2 and 3 stood as guarantors vide Guarantee Agreement dated 15.12.2021. 2C. Again on 17.05.2022, at the request of the defendants, bank reduced the Term Loan-I from ₹2.69 Lacs to ₹1.87 Lacs and Term Loan-II from ₹2,04,139/- to ₹2.04 Lacs and enhanced the C.C. Limit from ₹35.00 Lacs to ₹45.00 Lacs. To secure the loan facilities, Defendant Nos.2 and 3 being the partners of defendant No.1 had hypothecated assets (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). Defendant Nos.2 and 3 stood as guarantors for the aforementioned loan facilities aggregating to ₹48.91 Lacs vide Guarantee Agreement dated 17.05.2022. All the loan facilities were chargeable to different rates of interest. On 18.06.2024, a sum of ₹52,88,799.39p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application. 3. On 11.07.2024, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 19.05.2025, they were proceeded ex parte . 4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Sh. Pardeep Kumar Arora, Assistant General Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Annexures A- 1 to A-24. 5. I have perused the evidence on the record. I am of the considered view that the Bank has proved its case that it had advanced the total loan of ₹48.91 Lacs and on 18.06.2024, a sum of ₹52,88,799.39p was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of ₹52,88,799.39p (Rupees Fifty Two Lacs Eighty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety Nine and Paise Thirty Nine Only) - ₹50,17,143.39p in
4
the C.C. Limit with interest @11.15% per annum with monthly rests; ₹55,482/- in the G.E.C.L. Limit – I and ₹2,16,174/- in the G.E.C.L. Limit – II, both with interest @9.25% per annum with monthly rests from 19.06.2024, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of defendant No.4 would be up to the C.C. Limit of ₹35.00Lacs and Term Loan-I of ₹2.69Lacs being the guarantor. The liability of defendant nos.1 to 3 would be joint and several for the whole decretal amount. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of hypothecated assets fully detailed in para No.3A of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants accordingly.
Pronounced in the open Court. (A S Narang) Dated: 28.08.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant bank's claim for recovery of dues under Section 19 of the RDB Act is sustainable.
Whether the liability of retiring partners and guarantors can be enforced jointly and severally for the decretal amount.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SBI
M/s Sidhi Vinayak Enterprises
Sh. Rajiv Sharma
Sh. Nishant Sharma
Sh. Sanjay Kumar Sharma
A S Narang
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
