STATE BANK OF INDIA vs SHRI AMARJEET KUMAR on 15 July 2026

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been flled by the applicant banK on 17'03.2018 through Shri' Santosh Kumar Dwivedi, Chief Manager of the applicant bank' under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993 against the sole defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs'12'94'063'19 together with cost, charges and pendentellite and future interest @14.90o/o from date of filing of this O'A' till the realization in full.

2. The brief facts of the case are that at the request of sole defendant, the applicant bank sanctioned a Cash Credit (Hypothecation) Facility of Rs'10'00'000/-' vide sanction letter dated 25'02'2015 for business of trading of Kitchenware & Crockery' The sole defendant loaning documents on executed all necessary ge TANO. 567 of 2023 25.02.20t5. and availing of the above loan the sole defendant for repayment of loan together with interest hypothecated the stocK in trade, stocks of Kitchenware & Crockery as a security and agreement of loan cum hypothecation with the applicant bank and applicant bank has a primary charge over the said hypothecated goods and existing as well as future flxed assets of the sole defendant.

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. Hence, the account was classified as NPA dated 02.01.2017. The applicant bank served a legal demand notice dated 10'06.2017 & 28'09'2017 to the sole defendant but failed to recover the same Thus' the present O.A.fI.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 16.10'2025.

5. The applicant bank has flled evidence by way of affidavit of Mr. Praveen Chaturvedi, Branch Manager of the applicant bank as Paper No'01 to Paper No'107' unchallenged and un-rebutted'

In consideration of sanction which have gone ,.r9

TANO. 567 of2023

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 evidence and documents filed by the applicant bank not rebutted by the sole defendant by not placing any evidence and there is no question of disbelieving the evidence and 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 hereby allow this T'A' of the applicant bank and directthesoledefendanttopaytotheapplicantbank within 30 days from today, a sum of Rs'12'94'063'19 along with cost, expenses and interest @12'75olo 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 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. q$

TANO. 567 of 2023

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) Parties are directed to appear before the Ld' Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhion 15.09'2026' Pending IAs, if any, stand disPosed of. File be consigned to records. *.,_-- s0 Date : 15.07.2026 (SUSHIL KUMAR oGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi This judgement has been signed, dated and pronounced in open coutt. --^___-_-, e9 tb Date : 15.07.2026 (SUSHIL GI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi