Allowed

Bank of India v. M/S Balaji Sankal Udyog

DRT3 Jun 2026OA/986/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Bank of India's original application for recovery of an outstanding cash credit loan of Rs. 27,07,443.57. The court declared the proprietorship firm and its proprietor jointly and severally liable, ordered the issuance of a recovery certificate, and directed recovery proceedings against hypothecated assets and personal properties. The case was heard ex parte as

What did the court decide?

Claim allowed; recovery certificate issued for Rs. 27,07,443.57 along with pendente lite and future interest at 10% p.a.; authority directed to proceed against secured and personal assets;

Bank of India versus M/S Balaji Sankal Udyog — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

“ORIGINAL APPLICATION” No. 986 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR

¶3

PRESENT- SHRI VIMAL GUPTA

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

O.A. NO. 986 OF 2022

¶6

DATE OF DELIVERY OF ORDER 03.06.2026

¶7

BANK OF INDIA , a body corporate constituted under Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970 having its Head Office at Plot no. C-5, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 and having its Branch office at 202, Goverdhan Colony, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur (Raj.) represented through Ms. Dipti Aggrawal, AGM, SMECC Jaipur and constituted Power of Attorney Holder.

¶8

…..Applicant Bank…..

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

1. M/S Balaji Sankal Udyog, a Proprietorship firm, through Proprietor Mr. Mukesh Kumar Saini S/O Shri Babu Lal Saini, R/o Plot No. 719, Ward No. 1, Ram Bagh Ki Dhani, Needar Udaipuria, Tehsil Amer, Jaipur - 302013.

¶11

2. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Saini S/O Shri Babu Lal Saini, R/o Plot No. 719, Ward No. 1, Ram Bagh Ki Dhani, Needar Udaipuria, Tehsil Amer, Jaipur - 302013.

¶12

……Defendants…..

¶13

Counsel for the Applicant Bank Sh. Ratnesh Sharma Defendants

Ex parte

OA No. 986 of 2022

JUDGMENT

This Original Application was filed by the applicant bank on 26.08.2022 for recovery of outstanding amount of Rs. 27,07,443.57/- from the Defendants.

¶19

As per the pleadings, Defendant No. 1 is a proprietorship firm and Defendant no. 2 is the proprietor of the Defendant No. 1 and was engaged in the business of trading of steel sankal goods.

¶20

The Defendant had approached the applicant bank for availing Cash Credit Loan facility under MSMEs. After due consideration, cash credit loan facility was sanctioned by the Applicant Bank in favour of Defendants in the year 2019 vide sanction letter dated 27.06.2019 for a total sum of Rs. 25 Lac against the security of stocks/hypothecation of stocks of goods and book debts.

¶21

It is submitted that the Defendants acknowledged the Debt and Securities by executing the Acknowledgement of Debt on 21.06.2022. Therefore, this OA is well within the limitation.

¶22

It is submitted that the Applicant Bank issued loan demand notice dated 01.07.2022 and finally issued a legal notice dated 03.07.2022 to the Defendant No. 1 and 2 for payment of outstanding amount as on 01.07.2022.

¶23

It is submitted that the Defendants have failed to regularize the account despite frequent request and failed and neglected

¶24

¶25

OA No. 986 of 2022

¶26

to repay the amount due to the Applicant Bank in Cash Credit account despite serving of the Demand Notices.

¶27

Defendants failed to maintain financial discipline and therefore, their loan account was classified as NPA on 30.04.2022. Applicant Bank has therefore, filed this original application for recovery of its dues against the Defendants.

¶28

Summons were issued to the Defendants on 20.09.2022. Counsel for the Applicant Bank filed postal receipts dated 12.10.2022 and daily newspaper Punjab Kesari dated 18.10.2022. Despite service none were appeared on behalf of the Defendant, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 13.04.2023.

¶29

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶30

As stated supra, the Applicant Bank filed the evidence affidavit of Ms. Dipti Aggrawal coupled with the recitals in the documents, viz Exhibit A/1 to A/18 marked on behalf of the applicant bank, clinches the claim of the applicant bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are jointly & severally liable to pay to the applicant bank the claim made in O.A. with future interest and costs.

¶31

In the result, this O.A. No. 986 of 2022 is allowed declaring that:-

¶32

a) The Defendants are jointly & severally liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum of Rs. 27,07,443.57/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lac Seven Thousand Four Hundred

¶33

¶34

OA No. 986 of 2022

¶35

Forty Three and Fifty Seven Paisa Only) with pendente lite and future interest @ 10% (simple) from 26.08.2022 till the date of realization.

¶36

b) The applicant bank is entitled to recover the above amount from the sale of hypothecated stocks/goods/book debts/assets as well as from the personal movable and immovable properties/assets of Defendants. The applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same towards recovery of its debt.

¶37

c) The applicant bank is entitled to the costs of the O.A.

¶38

12.The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to the Recovery Officer, DRT, Jaipur.

¶39

13.Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT, Jaipur on 06.07.2026 .

¶40

14.Prepare Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶41

15.A copy of the Judgment and Recovery Certificate be given or sent by registered post to each of the parties free. A copy of the Recovery Certificate be sent to the Recovery Officer of this Tribunal for necessary action as per the law.

¶42

(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶43

Order pronounced in the open court today i.e. 03.06.2026 .

¶44

(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶45

¶46

OA No. 986 of 2022

¶47

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR

¶48

PRESENT- SHRI VIMAL GUPTA

¶49

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶50

O.A. NO. 986 OF 2022

¶51

DATE OF DELIVERY OF ORDER 03.06.2026

¶52

RECOVERY CERTIFICATE

¶53

(UNDER SUB Section 22 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (Act 51 of 1993)

…..Applicant Bank…..

VERSUS

2. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Saini S/O Shri Babu Lal Saini, R/o Plot No. 719, Ward No. 1, Ram Bagh Ki Dhani, Needar Udaipuria, Tehsil Amer, Jaipur - 302013.

……Defendants…..

OA No. 986 of 2022

Recovery Certificate for Rs. 27,07,443.57/-

¶63

In terms of final order dated 03.06.2026 passed by this Tribunal in the above mentioned case, it is ordered that the-

¶64

a) The Defendants are jointly & severally liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum of Rs. 27,07,443.57/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lac Seven Thousand Four Hundred Forty Three and Fifty Seven Paisa Only) with pendente lite and future interest @ 10% (simple) from 26.08.2022 till the date of realization.

¶65

b) The applicant bank is entitled to recover the above amount from the sale of hypothecated stocks/goods/book debts/assets as well as from the personal movable and immovable properties/assets of Defendants. The applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same towards recovery of its debt.

¶66

c) The applicant bank is entitled to the costs of the O.A.

¶67

Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT, Jaipur on 06.07.2026 .

¶68

The Recovery Officer shall realize the amount as per this Certificate in the manner and mode prescribed under Section 25 and 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 Debtor.

¶69

¶70

OA No. 986 of 2022

¶71

This Certificate has been issued under my signatures and seal of the Tribunal on this 03.06.2026 .

¶72

(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶73

¶74

OA No. 986 of 2022

¶75

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR

¶76

PRESENT- SHRI VIMAL GUPTA

¶77

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶78

O.A. NO. 986 OF 2022

¶79

DATE OF DELIVERY OF ORDER 03.06.2026

¶80

SCHEDULE TO RECOVERY CERTIFICATE

MEMO OF COST

…..Applicant Bank…..

VERSUS

2. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Saini S/O Shri Babu Lal Saini, R/o Plot No. 719, Ward No. 1, Ram Bagh Ki Dhani, Needar Udaipuria, Tehsil Amer, Jaipur - 302013.

……Defendants…..

OA No. 986 of 2022

S.No.	Item of Costs	Amount (Rs.)
1	Fee on the Application	30,000.00
2	Process Fee (Inc. Publication)	80.00
3	Advocate Fee	1,250.00
4	Court Commissioner’s Fees	NIL
5	Commission/Receiver/Valuation	NIL
6	Miscellaneous Charges	NIL
	Total	31,330.00

¶91

(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

OA No. 986 of 2022

03.06.2026

Counsel: Sh. Ratnesh Sharma, Counsel for Applicant Bank Defendants are ex-parte

¶96

Judgment dictated separately and pronounced in the open court. As per order the O.A. is allowed. Recovery Certificate be prepared accordingly and the Registry is directed to verify the Recovery Certificate as per Regulation 22(1) of Debts Recovery Tribunal Regulation 2024 and after verification place the same before the Tribunal.

¶97

(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

OA No. 986 of 2022

03.06.2026

Counsel:

Sh. Ratnesh Sharma, Counsel for Applicant Bank Defendants are ex-parte

¶103

The Tribunal vide order dated 03.06.2026 , directed the Registrar to verify the Recovery Certificate as per Regulation 22(1) of Debts Recovery Tribunal Regulation 2024.

¶104

The Registrar vide order dated 03.06.2026 verified the Recovery Certificate as per Regulation 22(1) of Debts Recovery Tribunal Regulation 2024. Recovery Certificate be prepared accordingly. Copy of the Judgment and Recovery Certificate be given free to the concerned parties as well as be sent to the Recovery Officer for further proceedings. File be put up before the Registrar for compliance. After compliance file be consigned to record.

¶105

(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

Bank of India v. M/S Balaji Sankal Udyog

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. M/S Balaji Sankal Udyog

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

Sikander Khan versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

Mrs Kiran Devi versus Hdfc Bank

Idbi Bank Ltd. versus M/S Unikol Bottlers Ltd.

Pream Kanwar versus Manibhavnam Home Finance India Private Limited

Rajasthan Gramin Bank versus Foosaram Alias Phusaram

Radhe Shyam versus Csl Finance Limited