Allowed

Central Bank of India v. M/s S G Trade Impex

DRT27 Apr 2026TA/784/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Tribunal allowed the application of Central Bank of India under Section 19 of the RDB Act for recovery of a sanctioned MSME loan. The applicants showed a cash credit facility of Rs. 2 Crores. As the respondents defaulted and failed to appear, the tribunal established the case against them and directed repayment of the outstanding sum.

What did the court decide?

Respondents to pay Rs.2,16,27,395/- along with interest @2.45% p.a. and costs within 30 days; recovery via sale of mortgaged property and assets if unpaid.

Central Bank of India versus M/s S G Trade Impex — RTI and Transparency | DRT (2026)

¶1

Before SUSHIL KUMAR^{RASTOGI, Presiding} Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il,^Delhi

¶2

TA No.784 OF 2024

¶3

CENTRAL BANK^{OF rNDrAVS M/S S.G. TRADE} IMPEX & ORS

¶4

Reserued on : 23.03.2026

¶5

Pronounced on^{z 27.04.2026}

¶6

Centra! Bank of^India

¶7

-Applicant bank

¶8

Vs.

¶9

M/s S.G. Trade^ImPex

¶10

Shri Yash^Pal Singla

¶11

Defendants

¶12

Present:

¶13

Mr. Prashant Goswami, Proxy^{for Mr.} Yogesh Pachauri,^{Counselappears for} applicant bank. Defendants are^{exparte since 29.09.2025}

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

This original application^{has been filed by the} applicant bank, on^{29.06.20L7through Shri V'K'} chauhan, chief^{Manager of the applicant bank, under} Section 19 of^{the RDB Act, 1993 againstthe defendants} for recovery^{of a sum of Rs.2,16,27,395/-together with} cost, charges^{and pendentellite and future interest} @L2.45o/o^{from date of filing of this o.A. till the} realization in^full.

¶16

2.The brief facts^{of the case are that at the requestof} the defendant^{no.1, the applicantbank sanctioned a} cash credit^{Limit Facility of Rs.2 Crores under MSME} Loan scheme,^{vide sanctionletter dated 06.01;-20f6.} The defendant^{no.1 through its proprietor Shri Sachin} Gupta, executed^{all necessaryloaning documentson} 06.01 .20t6.^{The defendant n9.1 createdthe equitable}

9I ':

TA NO. 784 of 2024

mortgage of his^property bearing^No.855(Old No.525), situated at Ward^{No.B, Gali Beri Wali, Imli} Mohalla, kucha Pati Ram, Sita^{Ra, Bazar,New Delhi-} 110006, Area measuring^{75 Sq yards, and deposited} the original Relinquishment^{Deed dated 11.12.2015} along with the^{previouschain of title documents with} the applicant bank on^{06.01 .2016.The defendantno.Z} furnished his^{persona!guarantee to the tune of Rs.2} Crores and executed^{the form of guaranteeand} consent clause both^{dated 06.01.2016 in favour of the} applicant bank.

¶21

It is further^{submitted that the defendants} enjoyed and utilized^{the Loan facilities, but failed to} maintain the^{financiat discipline and failed to repay the} due amounts.^{The applicant bank requested the} defendants to^{regularize the loan account by visits and} letters, but there^{was no response from the} defendants,^{hence the accountwas classifiedas NPA.} The applicant bank^{serued a demand notice dated} 11.06.2016 to^{the defendantsbut failed to recover the} same. Thus, the^{present o.A.fl-.A. is preferred by the} applicant^{bank to recover its dues.}

¶22

on notice^{by this Tribunal, defendants failed to} appearance^{at all, despite pubtication. Accordingly,the} defendants^{were proceededagainstexpafteon} 29.09.2025.

¶23

5.Theapplicantbankhasfiledevidencebywayof affidavit of^{Mr. Hansraj Haritash, senior Managerof the} applicant bank^{as Anne;ure. A- 1 to AnnexureA-24,} tr

¶24

TA NO. 784^of 2024 3 which have^{gone unchallenged and un-} rebutted. Hence,^{the case of the applicant stands fully} established against^{the defendants with respect to} nonpayment of^{outstanding amount.}

¶25

After^{perusing the records, this Tribunalis of the} view that the^{applicant bank has provedits case} beyond reasonable^{doubts.The evidenceand} documents filed^{by the applicant bank not rebuttedby} the defendants^{by not placing any evidenceand there} is no^question of^{disbelievingthe evidenceand} documents^{filed by the applicant bank based upon the} written/printed^documents.

¶26

In the light of^{the above discussions, the present T.A.} deserues to^{be allowed against defendants'}

¶27

CEEER

¶28

I hereby^{allow this T.A. of the applicant bank and} direct the defendant^{nos.l and 2 to pay jointly and} severally to^{the applicant bank within 30 days from} today, a sum^{of Rs.2,16,27,3951- along with cost'} expenses and^interest @L2.45o/o^{from the date of filing} of this o.A.^{which has become T.A till the date of} realization.

¶29

In case^{of failure to deposit the above amount} within the^{stipulated period, the same shall be} recovered^{from the sale of moftgaged property bearing} No.855(oldNo.525),situatedatWardNo.S,GaliBeri Wali, Imli^{Mohalla,kucha Pati Ram, Sita Rd, Bazar'} Ansari Road,^Hauz Qazi,^{New Delhi-l10006. In case of} short fall, the^{same sna[ U-g.-recoverfrom the sale of} grt

¶30

TA NO. 784 of 2024

¶31

¶32

personal movable and immovable assets of the defendant nos.l and 2.

¶33

Recovery Ceftificate be issued fotthwith and^be sent to Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi.

¶34

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

¶35

Parties are directed to appear before the^Ld. Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi on 29.06 .2026.^Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

¶36

File be consigned to records.

¶37

Date : 27,04.2026

¶38

eA (SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

¶39

This^judgement has been signed,^datedand pronounced in open court.

¶40

¶41

Date z 27.04.2026

¶42

(susHrL KUMAR nnstoct) PRESIDING OFRCER DRT-II, Delhi

Central Bank of India v. M/s S G Trade Impex

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Central Bank of India v. M/s S G Trade Impex

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