STATE BANK OF INDIA vs SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA on 5 August 2026

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 02.03.2019 before DRT-III Delhi & then transferred to DRT-I Delhi under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.6,99,30,237.73 (Rupees Six Crores Ninety Nine Lacs Two Thousand Thirty Seven & paisa Seventy Three only) as on 01.03.2019 along with, pendentelite and future interest in Cash Credit account @13.35% and 12.90% interest in SLC limit per annum with monthly rests along with @2% penal interest from the date of filing this application till the date of its realization and costs.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the defendant no.1 as sole proprietor of M/s Rahul Enterprises, engaged in the business of trading of all kinds of structural steels, steel & PVC pipes and fittings, the applicant bank sanctioned working capital limit under SME Connect scheme of Rs.500.00 lacs (Rupees Five Hundred Lacs only) on 28.02.2015 which was renewed on 01.07.2015 and enhanced on 05.11.2015 for Rs.550.00 lacs by adding SLC limit of Rs.50.00 lacs and further renewed it on 30.03.2016 @11.95% interest per annum with monthly rests against hypothecation of stocks, receivables and other current assets of the firm and equitable mortgage of properties owned by defendant no.1 and personal guarantee of defendant no.2. The defendant no.3 deposited title deeds of their properties for securing repayments of loan facilities granted to M/s RMG Tubes Pvt.Ltd. sanctioned by the applicant bank.

3. That in order to avail the credit facilities sanctioned by the applicant bank, the defendant no.1 & 2 executed Arrangement Letters accepting Terms and Conditions for Working Capital Limit, Agreements of Loan cum Hypothecation, Guarantee Agreements, Affidavits, CIBIL Consent Letters, Consent Letters for Consenting to Cancel the Limits Unconditionally, Indemnity Bonds, Undertakings and Supplemental Agreement of Loan cum Hypothecation on 28.02.2015 and thereafter on renewal/modification of limits towards the applicant bank.

4. That in order to secure the credit facilities, the defendant no.1 hypothecated the stocks, raw materials, goods, book debts and vehicles, machinery and Equipments etc. in favour of applicant bank.

5. That in order to secure the credit facilities sanctioned to defendant no.1, the following properties were mortgage by depositing the title deeds of freehold industrial property:

i) Part of Plot No.164 and 164A, Khasra No.53 min, 62 min. & 63 min, situated in Prakash Industrial Estate, Hadbast Kadkad Moden, Pargana Loni, Tehsil & Distt. Ghaziabad measuring 262.19 sq.yds. owned by defendant no.1;

ii) Part of Plot No.130, Khasra No.70, Prakash Industrial Estate, Hadbast Kadkad Moden, Pargana Loni, Tehsil & Distt. Ghaziabad measuring 34.0416 sq.yds.owned by defendant no.1;

iii) Part of Plot No.130, Khasra No.70, Prakash Industrial Estate, Hadbast 'Kadkad Moden, Pargana Loni, Tehsil &

Distt. Ghaziabad measuring 102.12 sq.yds., owned by defendant no.3 also covers repayment of credit facilities availed by M/s RMG Tubes Pvt.Ltd. vide Memorandum and letter of confirmation on 12.03.2015, 30.06.2015, 01.07.2015 and 14.07.2015 and indemnity bonds dated 01.07.2015.

6. It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid credit facilities, the defendant no.1 failed to maintain financial discipline and comply with the terms and conditions of loan despite various letters and emails. The defendant no.1 acknowledged their liability vide their various letters dated 08.03.2017, 14.03.2017 and 14.07.2017 promising to pay the outstanding amount but failed to do so. The applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 28.10.2017 as per RBI guidelines. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

7. Notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 dated 31.07.2018 was issued to the defendants but they failed to pay. The defendant no.1 sent its reply dated 08.09.2018 to applicant bank receive don 14.09.2018 which was controverted and replied on 20.09.2018 by the applicant bank.

8. Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite proper service the defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 28.10.2024, all the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as they have not appeared before the Tribunal nor written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have been filed.

9. In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Lalit Kumar Gupta, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents such as Gazette Notifications, Business Profile of Rahul Enterprises, Arrangement Letters, Agreements of Loan cum Hypothecation, Guarantee Agreements, Affidavits, CIBIL Consent Letters, Consent Letter for Cancel the Limits unconditionally, Indemnity Bonds, Undertakings, Letters of Confirmation for Mortgage, Memorandums of Recording of Extension of Mortgage by Deposit of Title Deeds, Affidavits, Insurance Indemnity, Confirmation of Deposit of Title Deeds, Copies of Sale Deeds of Mortgaged properties of defendant no.1 and 3, Certified Copy of Sale Deeds, General Power of Attorney, Letters of Acknowledgement of Liability, Letters & Emails to Defendants, Demand Notice, Reply to Notice, Rejoinder, Certified Statement of Accounts under Bankers' Books of Evidence Act marked as Ex.AW-1/1 to . Ex.AW-1/91.

10. 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.

11. 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.

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

ORDER

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank, jointly or severally, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.6,99,30,237.73 (Rupees Six Crores Ninety Nine Lacs Two Thousand Thirty Seven & paisa Seventy Three only) as on 01.03.2019 along with pendentelite and future interest @13.35% per annum with monthly rests from 01.03.2019 till its realization with costs, failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stocks, book debts, current assets, machinery, vehicles etc. and following mortgaged properties : ­ Part of Plot No.164 and 164A, Khasra No.53 mini 62 min. & 63 min, situated in Prakash Industrial Estate, Hadbast Kadkad Moden, Pargana Loni, Tehsil & Distt. Ghaziabad measuring 262.19 sq.yds. owned by defendant no.1; ­ Part of Plot No.130, Khasra No.70, Prakash Industrial Estate, Hadbast Kadkad Moden, Pargana Loni, Tehsil & Distt. Ghaziabad measuring 34.0416 sq.yds.owned by defendant no.1; ­ Part of Plot No.130, Khasra No.70, Prakash Industrial Estate, Hadbast Kadkad Moden, Pargana Loni, Tehsil & Distt. Ghaziabad measuring 102.12 sq.yds., owned by defendant no.3 also covers repayment of credit facilities availed by M/s RMG Tubes Pvt.Ltd. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants. (II) The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi.

(III) Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 05.10.2026. (IV) Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be sent to all concerned free of cost.

(GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI (Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 05.08.2026