STATE BANK OF INDIA vs AMANPREET KAUR on 9 October 2026

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 29'01'2019 through Shri' Giriraj Kishore Sharma, Chief Manager of the applicant bank' under Section t9 of the RDB Act' 1993 against the sole defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs'12'15'669/- together with cost, charges and pendentellite and future interest @10.30o/o from date of filing of this O'A' till the realization in full' Z. The brief facts of the case are that at the request of sole defenriant, the applicant bank sanctioned a Cash Credit Facility of Rs'10'00 Lakh' under Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yoiana, vide sanction letter dated 10'02'2016' The sote defenciant executed all necessary loaning documents on'10.02.20i6, Thereby hypothecating its stocks' book debts and otlrer current assets'

3. It is further submitted that the sole defendant enjoyed arrd utilized the Loan facilities' but failed to maintain the financial discipline and failed to repay the dueamounts,Theapplicantbankrequestedthesole e^ I I I I I l i I

TANO. 1876of2023

defendant to regularize the loan account by visits and letters, but 'there was no response from the sole defendant. Hence, the account was classified as NPA dated 15.12.2016. The applicant bank served a demand notice dated 30.12.2016 to the sole defendant but failed to recover the same Thus, the present O'A'fl"A' is preferred by the applicant bank to recover its dues'

4. On notice by this Tribunal, sole defendant failed to put appearance at all, despite publication' Accordingly' the sole defendant was proceeded against exparte on 19.08.2025.

5. The applicant bank has flled documents along with O.A as Paper No.1 to Paper No'48, which have gone unchallenged and un-rebutted. Hence, the case of the applicant stands fully established against the sole defendant with respect to nonpayment of outstanding amount.

6. After perusing the records, this Tribunal is of the view that the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. The documents flled by the applicant bank not rebutted by the sole defendant by not placing any evidence and there is no question of disbelieving the documents filed by the applicant bank based upon the written/Printed documents. In the light of the above discussions, the present T'A' deserues to be allowed.

ORDER

1) -I herebv allow this T.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'12,15,669/- along (}

TA NO. t876 of 2023

with costr expenses and interest @10'30o/o from the date of filing of this O.A. which has become T'A till the date of realization.

2) In case of failure to deposit the above amount within the stipulated period, the same shall be recovered from the sale of 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'

3) Recovery Ceftificate be issued forthwith and be sent to Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi'

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

5) Parties are directed to appear before the Ld' Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi on 09'L2'2026' Pending IAs, if any, stand disPosed of. File be consigned to records' . t,-' Date : 09.10.2026 (SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi This judgemerit has been signed, dated and pronounced in oPen couft. Date : 09.10.2026 fJ (susHIL KUIi-AR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi