Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S Jai Ambe Enterprises

DRT18 Feb 2026TA/1680/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery under Section 19 of the RDDB Act. Being ex-parte against the sole defendant, the Tribunal accepted the bank's evidence and directed payment of dues with interest and recovery from hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Sole defendant directed to pay Rs.29,68,840.89 with cost and interest within 30 days; Recovery Certificate to be issued; Recovery from hypothecated and personal assets if short fall.

State Bank of India versus M/S Jai Ambe Enterprises — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

Before SUSHIL KUMAR. RASTOGI, Prcsiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi

¶2

TA No.168O ot 2022

¶3

STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs M/S JAI AMBE ENTERPRISES

¶4

Reserved on =^2L.OL.2O26

¶5

Pronounced on : 18.O2.2026

¶6

State Bank of India -^{Applicant bank}

¶7

Vs.

¶8

M/s lai Ambe Enterprises^- Sole defendant

¶9

Present: Ms. Jaya Tomar, Counsel appears for applicant bank.

¶10

Sole defendant is ex-parte since 14.08.2024.

¶11

FINAL ORDER.

¶12

This original application has been^{filedby the applicant} bank, on 17.08.2022 through^{Ms. Aditi Chauhan,Chief} Manager of the applicant bank, under Section¹⁹ of^{the RDB} Act, 1993 against the sole defendant for^{recoveryof a sum} of Rs.29,68,840.89 together with^{cost, charges and} pendentellite and future interest @ 11.05o/o^p.a. from^date of filing of this O.A. till the^{realization in full.}

¶13

The brief facts of the case are that at^{the request of} the sole defendant through its^{proprietorGanga Prasad, the} applicant bank sanctioned, on^13.06.2016, a^{Cash Credit} (Hypothecation) Facility of Rs.24 lacs for carrying^on business of manufacturer of sheet^{metal and dye tools. In} order to avail the said loan facility the^{sole defendant} through its^proprietor Ganga^{Prasadhas erecutedvarious} loaning documents dated 13.06.2016. The^defendant hypothecated entire stocks and other assets^{with the} applicant bank, over which applicant bank^{has first and} exclusive charge. At the request of the^{defendant,applicant} has sanctioned the Cash Credit^{(Hypothecation)facility of} Rs.24 lacs and defendant^has executed^{& signed the various} loaning documents on 01.12.2018. At the^{request of the} defendant, on 26.06.2020, the^{applicant bankhas}

¶14

¶15

TANO. 1680of2022 2

¶16

snctioned and^granted an additional WCTL facility provided by the bank under the Guarantee Emergency Credit Line (GECL) product will be covered with the 100o/o guarantee of National Credit Guarantee Trustee Company Ltd (NCGTC) as per Emergency Credit Line of Guarantee Scheme^(ECLGS) of Rs.4,72,700/- and Cash Credit^Limit under SBI smart score with CGTMSE coverage of Rs.24,00,000/-, totaling of Rs.28,72,7001-. In order^to secure the above said facility, the defendant^{has executed} and signed various loaning documents on 26.06.2020.^In consideration of sanctions and^grant of the said^{limits, the} defendant has hypothecated entire^{fixed assets of the firm} i.e. all current assets both^present and^{futureincluding} hypothecation of finished^{goods, semi-furnished goods, raw} materials & stores lying in the^{factorypremises or elsewhere} and all receivables lying in the^{factorypremisesor} elsewhere and all receivables lying^{in the factory and go} down and other stock^{points with applicant bank, over} which applicant has first and exclusive^{charge. Cast credit} limit under SBI smart score with^{CGTMSEcoverage and} additional WCTL covered with^{100o/oguaranteeof NCGTCas} per the ECLGS scheme as third party^guarantee.

¶17

It is further submitted that the^{sole defendant} enjoyed and utilized the Loan facility, but^{failed to maintain} the financial discipline and^failed to^{repay the due amounts.} The applicant bank requested the sole^{defendant to} regularize the loan accounts by visits and^{letters, but there} was no response from the sole^{defendant, hence the} accounts were classified as^NPA on^{31.03.2022. Therefore,} the applicant bank served a legal demand^noticedated M.06.2022 to the sole defendant,^{demandingthe amount} due as on that date, but failed to^recover the^{same. Thus,} the^present O.A.[I.A. is^prqpned by^{the applicant bank to} recover its dues. qI

¶18

TA NO. 1680 of 2022

¶19

¶20

On notice by this Tribunal, sole defendant failed to^put appearance at all, despite service and accordingly sole defendant was^proceeded against exparte on^14.08.2024.

¶21

The applicant bank filed its evidence by way of the affidavit of Ms. Aditi Chauhan, Chief Manager of the applicant bank as Annexure A-1 to Annexure A-17.

¶22

The documentary evidence^produced by applicant bank has gone unchallenged and un-rebutted. Hence, the case of the applicant bank stands fully established against the sole defendant with respect to non^payment of EMI/ outstanding amount.

¶23

After perusing the records, this Tribunal is of the view that the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. The documenb and evidence filed by the applicant bank not rebutted by the sole defendant by not placing any evidence and there is no question of disbelieving the evidence filed by the applicant bank based upon the written/printed documents.

¶24

In the light of the above discussions, the Transfer Application deserves to be allowed against sole defendant.

¶25

ORDER

¶26

I hereby allow this O.A.ff.A. of the Applicant Bank and direct the sole defendant to^pay to the applicant bank within 30 days from today, a sum of Rs.29,68,840.89 along with cost, expenses and interest @ 11% from the date of filing of this O.A. which has become T.A. till the date of realization.

¶27

In case of failure to deposit the above amount within the stipulated^period, the. samg shall be recovered from the >//

¶28

TANO. 1680of2022 4

¶29

sale of the hypothecated assets. In case of short fall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of^{personal movable} and immovable assets of the sole defendant.

¶30

Recovery Certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi.

¶31

The registry of this Tribunal is hereby directed to issue free copy of the order and send the same to both the pafties.

¶32

Parties are directed to appear before the Ld. Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi on 20.04.2026. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

¶33

File be consigned to records.

¶34

I s,\ -I' (SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

¶35

Date : 18.02.2026

¶36

This judgement has been signed, dated and

¶37

pronounced in open court.

¶38

Date : 18.02.2026

¶39

sn -t ( (susHrl KUMAR RASTOGT) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

¶40

State Bank of India v. M/S Jai Ambe Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S Jai Ambe Enterprises

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