Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S S K Agro Industries and Anr.

DRT24 Aug 2026TA/1959/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application for recovery of dues. Proceeding ex parte due to the respondents' absence, the court verified the bank's documentary evidence and directed recovery of the principal amount with interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Defendants were directed to pay Rs.21,49,987.78 plus interest and costs within 30 days, failing which recovery shall be from hypothecated stocks and properties.

State Bank of India versus M/S S K Agro Industries and Anr. — Arbitration | DRT (2026)

¶1

T.A. No. 1959 of 2022

¶2

Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi 4th Floor, Jeevan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi

¶3

Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sharma

¶4

T.A. No.1959 of 2022

¶5

State Bank of India (e-State Bank of Patiala) SARB-II Branch, SBI House 18/4, 4th Floor, Arya Samaj Road Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005

¶6

Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s S.K. Agro InduStries Through its Proprietor Sh.Suresh Kumar Plot No.169, Industrial Estate, HSIEDC

¶9

Barhi, Gannaur, Dist. Sonepat, Haryana-131039

¶10

Also at:

¶11

M/s S.K. Agro Industries Plot No.315, Sector-1, Barhi Industrial Area Gannaur, Dist. Sonepat, Haryana-131039

¶12

Sh.Suresh Kumar s/o Surajbhan At: A-13, Puru Apartment, DC Chowk Sector-13, Rohini, Delhi-110085 Defendants

¶13

Present: Sh.Rajiv K.Thakur, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶14

Date of Reserve: 12.08.2026

¶15

Date of Pronouncement: 24.08.2026

¶16

FINAL ORDER

¶17

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 10.06.2019 through Ms.Artika Kashyap, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of Rs.21,49,987.78 (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Forty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Seven and

¶18

¶19

T.A. No. 1959 of 2022

¶20

paisa Seventy Eight only) as on 31.03.2019 along with pendentelite and future interest @18.00% per annum from 01.04.2019 till the date of its realization along with costs.

¶21

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of defendant no.1 thru its proprietor/guarantor being defendant no.2 engaged in trading and manufacturing of foods grains items vide their loan application dated 30.09.2013, the applicant bank sanctioned Cash Credit (Hyp.) of Rs.20.00 lacs (Rupees Twenty lacs only) and Term Loan of Rs.2.35 lacs (Rupees Two lacs Thirty Five thousand only) @12.75% per annum in Cash Credit facility and @13.25% per annum in term loan facility subject to change as per bank guidelines on 09.10.2013. The applicant bank renewed both the credit facilities on 16.12.2016 by reducing Cash Credit facility to Rs.15.00 lacs @11.45% interest and @12.65% in term loan accounts respectively against hypothecation of stocks and book debts covered under CGTMSE scheme. Term loan facility was to be repaid in 58 EMIs of Rs.5,678/- w.e.f. 09.11.2013. In case of default in repayment of dues, the defendants also agreed to pay @2% penal interest over the agreed rate of interest.

¶22

That in order to'avail the credit facilities, the defendant no.2 as proprietor of defendant no.1 submitted loan application with KYC documents dated 30.09.2013 and executed Sanction Letter, D.P.Note, D.P.Note Delivery Letter, Letter of Arrangement, Agreement of Loan cum Hypothecation, Application for reduction of CC Limit, Renewal of Term Loan, Fresh Letter of Arrangement towards the applicant bank on 09.10.2013 and 16.12.2016.

¶23

¶24

T.A. No. 1959 of 2022

¶25

The defendants executed and acknowledged Balance Confirmation-cum-Acknowledgement of Security Letter towards the applicant bank on 08.12.2016.

¶26

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid credit facilities, the defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions of sanction and failed to maintain financial discipline. Ultimately, both the accounts of defendant no.1 became irregular and the applicant bank classified the accounts as NPA on 15.03.2017 as per RBI guidelines but defendants neglected and paid no heed. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶27

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite of proper service, the defendant has chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 29.04.2026, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as they have not appeared before the Tribunal and even written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have not been filed by the defendant.

¶28

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of Affidavit of Shri Naresh Kumar, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents such as Loan Application Ex.AW-1/1(Colly), Letter of Sanction Ex.AW-1/2, D.P.Note & D.P.Note Delivery Letter Ex.AW-1/3, Letter of Arrangement Ex.AW-1/4, Agreement of Loan cum Hypothecation Ex.AW-1/5, Application for reduction of CC Limit Ex.AW-1/6, Sanction of Reduction of CC Limit Ex.AW-1/7, Fresh Letter of Arrangement Ex.AW-1/8, Balance Confirmation Letter Ex.AW-1/9, Legal Notice & Postal Receipts

¶29

¶30

T.A. No. 1959 of 2022

¶31

Ex.AW-1/10 & Ex.AW-1/11, Certified Statement of Accounts under Bankers' Book of Evidence Act Ex.AW-1/12.

¶32

The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments made in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the applicant bank is based on the documents and the same have been duly approved.

¶33

The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and there is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant bank and the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts.

¶34

In the light of the above discussions, the Original Application deserves to be allowed.

¶35

ORDER

¶36

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank within a period of 30 days, jointly or severally, a sum of Rs.21,49,987.78 (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Forty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Seven and paisa Seventy Eight only) as on 31.03.2019 together with pendentelite and future interest @18.00% interest per annum from 01.04.2019 till the date of realization and costs failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stocks and book debts etc. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶37

(II) The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi.

¶38

¶39

T.A. No. 1959 of 2022

¶40

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 27.10.2026.

¶41

(IV) Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be sent to all concerned free of cost.

¶42

(GOVIND BALLANgifit MA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶43

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 24.08.2026

¶44

State Bank of India v. M/S S K Agro Industries and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S S K Agro Industries and Anr.

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

Bank of India versus Pavithra E

Mohammad Azeem Shad and another versus Fullerton India housing finance company limited

Mohd Naseemuddin versus Icici Bank Limited

Hdfc Bank versus Karan Vohra

Uco Bank versus Shri Sher Singh

Hdfc Bank versus Gopal Enterprises