National Cooperative Development Corporation & Anr. vs MS KISAN SAHAKARI CHINI MILLS LTD on 13 October 2026

FINAL ORDER

in full.

2. The brief facts of the case are that at the request of sole defendant, the applicant no'2 sanctioned a Sugar Development Fund (SDF)- Loan Facility of Rs'19'50 Crore Ms. Manisha Aggarwal, Counsel appears for aoolicant FI. ;#";l'il;edi, counsel for sole defendant ".rlirt *'tri cn shri saurabh Bansal' appeared il"#;;;. ttnougn sole defendant is exparte since 23.03.2026)' This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 23'02'ZOt7 through Sh' A'K' Singh' Chief Director (Sugafl of the applicant FI' under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993 against the sole defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs'55'36'25'66g1- together with cost, charges and pendentellite and future interest @10.00o/o from date of filing of this O'A' till the realization E\

TANO. 1204of2022 2 for modernization/ expansion of defendant society sugar mill situated at Nanauta' District Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh' A Tripartite Agreement dated 01.06.1998 was executed between the defendant' plant & machinery, machinery accessories and other moveables' applicant no'1 and applicant no'2' It is submitted that as a security for the repayment of the said loan and as required under terms and conditions of the sanction letter dated 02.02.1998, the defendant Society executed a Deed of Hypothecation dated 04'06'1998 in favour of applicant no. 2. By this Deed' the defendant has hypothecated by way of second charge all its movable assets (save and except book debts) including movable spares, tools and both Present and future subject however to the prior charges created or to be created in favour of Bankers on its stocks of raw materials, semi-flnished and finished goods, consumable stores etc. for securing the borrowings of working capital requirements in the ordinary course of business' It is submitted that as a fufther security for the repayment of the said loan and as required under terms and conditions of the sanction letter dated 02'02'1998' the dfendant created in favor of the applicant no' 2' equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds in the office of applicant no' 1 at 4' Siri Institutional Area' Hauz Khas' New Delhi 110016 with Sh' B'V Mamtani' Director (T) Sugar of applicant no' 1' applicant no'1 acting as agent of applicant no.2, on 04'06'1998 in respect of its land (measuring 246 Bigha 4 Biswa and 5 Biswansi) situated at Village Thaska, Pargana Rampur' Teh' Deoband' Distt' Saharanpur, Village Khanpur Afghan Pargana Gangoh Teh. Nakur, Distt. Saharanpur and Village Nanauta' Pargana Rampur, Teh' Deoband, Distt' Saharanpur' Uftar cI

TANO. l2}4of2O22

Pradesh. After execution of the loan societY.

3. It is further submitted that the sole defendant enjoyed and utilized the Loan facilities' 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 account by visits and letters, but there was no response from the sole defendant. The applicant bank sewed a demand notice dated 13'10.2016 to the sole defendant but failed to recoverthesameThus,thepresento'A.rr'A.ispreferred by the applicant bank to recover its dues'

4. On notice by this Tribunal' sole defendant put appearance through counsel but failed to file written Statementontimeandfiledapplicationforextensionof time to file WS, which was dismissed vide order dated 23.03.2026 and the sole defendant was proceeded against exparte' Thereafter' the sole defendant filed application for setting aside the exparte order' which has been dismissed vide order dated 07'08'2026' and security documents,creationofmortgageetc.,asaforesaid,the entire SDF loan of Rs'19'50 crore was released in wo equal installments of Rs' 9'75 crore each by applicant no' 2 to applicant no' 1 on 16'07'1998 and 15'03'1999 respectively and the said installments were released by applicant no. 1 to the defendant society on 20'07'1998 and 17.03.1999 respectively as agent of the Central Govt' as authorised by the Central Govt' vide its letter dated 4- [2-g7-SDFdated 02'07 1998 & No' 4-22197-SDF dated 15.03.1999' In this manner' the entire sanctioned SDF loan of Rs' 19'50 crore stood disbursed to the defendant 9).

5. The applicant no'1 has filed evidence by way of affidavit of Shri. Lalit Goel' Director (legal) of the applicant no.1 as Annexure A-1 to Annexure A-20' which have gone unchallenged and un-rebutted' Hence' the case of the applicant stands fully established against the TA NO. 1204 of 2022

sole defendant with resPect outstanding amount' to nonPayment of Heard the counsels of both the parties and perused the record.

7. The first contention of the Ld' counsel of the defendant is that the present OA has not been filed by the authorized officer of the bank and Shri A'K'Singh has no authority to file the present OA' It is submitted that theauthorityofShriA.K'Singhhasexpiredintheyear 2016 and therefore, the OA is liable to be dismissed' In this regard I have perused the record' From perusal of the record it is clear that the authority to file the OA has been given to the authorized officer Shri A'K'Singh on L5.02.20t7 and the OA has been flled on 23'02'2017' It is proved by the authority letter AW-UI' Therefore' the contention of the defendant has no force'

defendant is that the OA has been filed by Shri A'K'Singh whereas the evidence affidavit has been flled by Shri Lalit Goel. It is submitted that the affidavit filed by Shri Lalit Goel cannot be taken into record' But the contention of the defendant has no force' Any person who is well versed with the facts may file evidence by filing affidavit' There is no necessity that only authorized officer who has filed the OA can file his evidence by way of affidavit' Therefore, the contention-ol-tl" defendant has no force' 9A

TA NO. r2Q4 of 2022 s defendant is that the evidence has been filed without substituting the authorized officer' But the contention of the defendant has no force' As said above' the evidence can be filed by any person as per choice of the bank'

10. The next contention of the Ld' counsel of the defendant is that the entire evidence has not been filed along with the OA and therefore' there is non compliance of the Section 19 (10A) of the RDB Act' In this regard I have perused the record' From perusal of the record it is clear that the entire evidence which is necessary for the disposal of the present OAffA has been filed along with the OA. Therefore, there is full compliance of Section 19 (10A) of the RDB Act'

defendant is that the loan account is of 1998 and no credit has been shown in the statement of account of the amountthathasbeendepositedbythedefendant.Inthis regard I have perused the statement of account' From perusal of statement of account it is clear that all the transactionshavebeendulyshowninthestatementof account. There is no evidence as to what entry is not shown in the statement of account' Therefore' the contention of the defendant has no force' t2. The next contention of the Ld' counsel of the defendant is that the demand notice has not been served upon the defendant' It has been served upon other persons. But from perusal of record it is clear that the demand notice has been serued upon the defendant' Therefore, there is no force in the contention of the defendant. a;

TA NO. 1204 of 2022

defendant is that he has moved an OTS proposal which is pending andtherefore' the OA may be dismissed' From perusal of the record it is clear that the defendant has moved an OTS proposal with the bank' But merely submitting an OTS proposal the OA cannot be dismissed' Unless the OTS is accepted and the entire amount of the OTS has been paid, the OA cannot be dismissed' t4. After perusing the records' this Tribunal is of the view that the evidence and documents filed by the applicant bank based upon the written/printed documentsandtheapplicantbankhasproveditscase beyond reasonable doubts' Inthelightoftheabovediscussions'thepresentT'A' deserves to be allowed'

ORDER

1) I hereby allow this T'A' of the applicant no'1 and direct the sole defendant to pay to the applicant no'1 within 30 days from today' a sum of Rs'55'36'25'669/- along with cost, expenses and interest @10o/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 and sale of moftgaged property i'e'' All those pieces & parcels of land measur ing 246 Bigha 4 Biswa and 5 Biswansi situatedatVillageThaska'ParganaRampur'Teh' Deoband,Distt.Saharanpur,VillageKhanpurAfghan Pargana Gangoh Teh' Nakur' Distt' Saharanpur and Village Nanauta, Pargana Ra^mpur' Teh' Deoband' Distt' s_I

TANO. 1204of2022 7 Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh' 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 Certificate 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 copy of the order and send the same to both the Parties.

5) Pafties are directed to appear before the Ld' Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi on t4'12'2026' Pending IAs, if anY, stand disPosed of' File be consigned to records' Date : 13.10.2026 (susHIL KUMAR R(Sib6I) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi This judgement has been signed' dated and pronounced in oPen court' .:!---1 eA (SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFTCER DRT-II, Delhi Date : 13.10.2026