In this TA application, the Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the State Bank of India's claim against Shri Mehar Singh for recovery of Rs. 12.87 lakh, citing undisputed documentary evidence of a cash credit facility and NPA.
Recovery of Rs. 12,87,63,157 with cost and interest for payment within 30 days; issuance of recovery certificate.
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.
BeforesUsHILKuMARRASToGI,Presidingofficer DebtsRecovetY Tribunal-Il' Delhi
TA No.10MOF 2024 STATEBANKOF INDIAVS SHRI MEHAR SINGH
Reserved on z 23'04'2026 Pronouncedon : 25'05'2026
State Bankof India Vs. Shri MeharSingh
-Applicant bank
CounselaPpears for Present: Ms. JaYaTomar, applicantbank. is exPafte,since, Soledefendant 16.05.2019.
FINALORDER
This originalapplication has been filed by the applicantbank, on 17'03'2018throughShri' Santosh Kumar,ChiefManageroftheapplicantbank'under Section19 of the RDB Act, 1gg3 againstthe sole defendantfor recovery of a sum of Rs'12 '87 '63t'57 togetherwith cost, charges and pendentelliteand futureinterest @14.600/ofrom date of filing of this O'A' till therealization in full'
2.Thebrieffactsofthecasearethatattherequest ofthesoledefendantbeingtheproprietorofM/sVishal Traders,theapplicantbanksanctionedaCashCredit (Hypothecation)Limit Facility of Rs'10'00'000/-on 22.o4.2ol5forcarryingonbusinessoftradingof]K WhitecementandPoP.Thesoledefendanthas executedail necessary roaning documents on 22.o4.2ol5.ItisconsideQggnofsanctionandavailing €)
_-t
ra
TA NO.tO44 of 2024
2
of theabove loan the defendant for repayment ofloantogetherwithinteresthypothecatedthestocks in trade,stocksof lK White Cementand POP as a securitytowards dues of applicant in terms of arrangementletter and agreementof loan cum hypothecationwiththeapplicantbankandapplicant bankhas a primary charge over the said hypothecated goodsandexistingaswellasfuturefixedassetsofthe defendant.
5.The applicant bank has flled evidenceby way of affidavitof Mr. Ravinder Tehlan,Branch Managerof the applicantbank as Paper No't to Paper No'130 along with theOA, which have. gone unchallengedand un-
c)1
3 TA NO.lO44 of 2024 rebutted.Hence, the case of the applicantbank standsfullyestablishedagainstthesoledefendantwith respectto nonpaymentof outstanding amount'
6.After perusing the records' this Tribunalis of the view thatthe applicant bank has proved its case beyondreasonable doubts' The evidenceand documentsfiled by the applicantbank not rebuttedby the soledefendant by not placing any evidence and there isno question of disbelievingthe evidence and documentsfiledbytheapplicantbankbaseduponthe written/Printed documents'
Inthelightoftheabovediscussions,thepresentTA. deservesto be allowed'
ORDER
q.\
4 TA NO.lO44 of 2024 3) RecoveryCertificatebe issuedforthwithand be DebtsRecovery Tribunal-Il' sent toRecovery Officer, Delhi.
5)Parties are directed to appear before the Ld' RecoveryOfFtcer, DRT-II, Delhi on27 '07 '2026' Pending IAs, ifanY, standdisPosed of'
File beconsigned to records' )> (susHIL KUMARnnsioct) Date t25.05.2026 PRESIDINGOFFICER DRT-II,Delhi
signed,dated and Thisjudgement has been
pronouncedin oPen coutt'
9A (susHIL ruM-nnnnSIOCt) Date :25.05.2026 PRESIDINGOFFICER DRT-II,Delhi
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the present application for recovery of a debt is maintainable under Section 19 of the RDB Act.
Whether the evidence filed by the applicant bank stands unrebutted to warrant dec-reeing in its favour.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State Bank of India
Hil Kumar ASTogi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
