Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Ashoka Industries

DRT7 Mar 2026TA/2043/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of outstanding dues against a loan facility defaulting borrower. The court admitted the bank's evidence based on statutory documents and directed the issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

The defendant is directed to pay Rs. 34,56,712/- with interest within 30 days. Recovery certificate issued for recovery from sale of hypothecated stocks and properties.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Ashoka Industries — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

T.A. No. 2043 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. 2043 of 2022

¶5

State Bank of India (e-State Bank of Patiala) Stressed Asset Recovery Branch 23, Najafgarh Road New Delhi-110015

¶6

Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s Ashoka Industries Proprietor Sh.Ashok Rajput F-1976, DSIIDC Industrial Park Narela, Delhi-110040

¶9

Also at:

¶10

M/s Ashoka Industries F-3/1003, TDI City Kundli, Sonipat, Haryana

¶11

Defendant

¶12

Present: Sh.Rajiv B Sarnaiyar, Counsel for applicant bank

¶13

Date of Reserve: 24.02.2026

¶14

Date of Pronouncement: 07.03.2026

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

This original application has been filed by the applicant before DRT III, Delhi on 28.03.2019 and then transferred to DRT-I Delhi under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.34,56,712/- (Rupees Thirty Four Lacs Fifty Six Thousand Seven Hundred Twelve only) as on 05.03.2019 together with pendentelite and future interest ©12.65% per

¶17

¶18

T.A. No. 2043 of 2022

¶19

annum with monthly rests from 06.03.2019 till the date of realization and costs.

¶20

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant no.1 through its proprietor Sh.Ashok Rajput vide its loan application dated 16.10.2012, the applicant bank sanctioned Cash Credit facility of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lacs only) on 16.10.2012 for the business of manufacturing of iron & steel wire products which was enhanced to Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty lacs only) on 12.12.2014 and further to Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty lacs only) on 13.01.2016 @12.65% interest per annum with monthly rests against hypothecation of stock, book debts and mortgage of property.

¶21

That in order to avail the loan facility, the defendant through its proprietor submitted loan application and executed Letters of Arrangement, Agreements of Loan cum Hypothecation, Pronote, DP Note, No Lien Letter, Free Access Letter etc. on 16.10.2012, 12.12.2014 and 13.01.2016 in favour of the applicant bank. The defendant executed revival letter of cash credit facility on 24.07.2018 in favour of applicant bank.

¶22

That in order to secure the credit facility, the defendant hypothecated the stock and book debts in favour of applicant bank.

¶23

It has been submitted by the applicant banks that after availing the loan facility, the defendant miserably failed to route their transaction thru the account as per terms of sanction and neglected to pay interest and installments in the accounts

¶24

¶25

T.A. No. 2043 of 2022

¶26

despite various notices and reminders. The applicant bank issued various request letters to clear the outstanding amount in the account and due to non-deposit, the account was classified as NPA on 28.07.2018 on account of non-payment of principal amount and interest as per RBI guidelines. The applicant bank issued legal notice on 14.11.2018 to clear the outstanding but the defendant failed to regularize the account. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this tribunal for recovery of its dues.

¶27

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendant and despite proper service, the defendant has chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 05.12.2015, the defendant has been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared before the Tribunal nor evidence and affidavit of assets have been filed.

¶28

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Rajiv Kumar, authorized representative of the applicant who has proved the documents such as Gazette Notification, Account Opening Form, Letters of Arrangement, Agreements of Loan-cum-Hypothecation, Letter dated 12.12.2014, Pronotes, DP Notes, No Lien Letters, Free Access Letter, Revival Letter, Statement of Account, Legal Notice marked as Exh.A-1 to Exh.A-8.

¶29

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 proved.

¶30

¶31

T.A. No. 2043 of 2022

¶32

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.

¶33

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

¶34

ORDER

¶35

I, allow this OA and direct the defendant to pay to the applicant bank within 30 days, a sum of Rs.34,56,712/(Rupees Thirty Four Lacs Fifty Six Thousand Seven Hundred Twelve only) as on 05.03.2019 together with pendentelite and future interest @12.65% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing of this application till the date of realization along with 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 defendant.

¶36

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

¶37

(III)^{Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer,} DRT I, Delhi on 06.05.2026.

¶38

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

¶39

(GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶40

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 07.03.2026

¶41

State Bank of India v. M/S. Ashoka Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Ashoka Industries

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

Manoj Bharti versus Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank

Icici Bank Limited versus Sbt Constructions

Bank of India versus Sh. Satnam Singh

Hdfc Bank versus Jai Hanuman Readymade Agency

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S Rohan Sons Inc.

Punjab National Bank versus Northern Sales Corporation