STATE BANK OF INDIA vs M/S ANAND AGENCIES on 20 July 2026

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 04.t0.2022 through Mr' Dheeraj Kumar, Chief Manager of the applicant under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993 against the defendant no'1 for recovery of a sum of Rs.8,62,61,4051- together with cost, charges and pendentellite and future interest @8.15olo from date of flling of this O.A' till the realization in full.

2. The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendants, the applicant bank sanctioned a Fund- Based Limit of Cash Credit (Hypothecation) of Rs'550 Lac. The defendants have executed all necessary loaning documents on 23.09.2019' The defendant nos.2 & 3 executed and lQed guarantee agreement i)..'

TANOll9l4l2023

dated 24.09.2019 in favour of applicant bank' It is submifted that on 03.01.2020, the defendant no'3 has created equitable moftgage of her i'e', Entire Second Floor without roof rights, built-up properfy bearing no.C-2l311-II, Block- C-2, situated in the layout plan of Pankha Road Residential Scheme, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058, area measuring 2017 '82 sq' ft in favour of the applicant bank. The defendant no'3 has signed letter of confirmation of mortgage dated 04'01'2020 in favour of the applicant bank' Again, at the request of defendants, the applicant bank sanctioned/renewed the credit facilities on 15.04.2020 and sanctioned C-ash Credit (Hypothecation) facility of Rs'550 Lacs and CECL (Demand Loan) of Rs'55 Lacs, totaling Rs'605 Lacs' The defendantsexecutedallnecessaryloaningdocuments on 15.04.2020. The defendant nos'2 & 3 have executed and signed guarantee agreement dated 15'04'2020' The defendant no.3 has extended mortgage charge over her said property in favour of applicant bank for this enhanced limit. The defendants have hypothecated firm's all current assets both present and future including hypothecation of finished goods' semi- finished goods, raw material and stores lying in the factory premises or elsewhere and all the present and futuredebts/receivable(domestic/exports)andlst charge on the entire current assets of the company in favour of the applicant bank and applicant bank has first and exclusive hypothecation charge over the said hypothecation flxed assets and goods' Again' at the request of defendants, the applicant bank sanctioned/renewed of Working Capital Limit' i'e'' (i)' Cash Credit (Hypothecation) facility of Rs'550 Lacs' (ii)' CECL (Demand Loan) of Rs'55 lacs' (iii)' GECL (Term Loan) of Rs.1O5 Lacs aELy) SME C'ar Loan of Rs'9 d..

TANOlt9r4l2023 3 Lacs, totaling Rs.719 Lacs. The defendants have executed all necessary loaning documents on 30.05.2020. Again, at the request of defendants, the applicant bank on 30.06.2021 sanctioned a sanctioned/renewed of Working Capital Limits i'e', (i)' Cash Credit (Hypothecation) facility of Rs'550 Lacs, (ii)' CECL (Demand Loan) outstanding of Rs'37 Lacs, (iii)' GECL (Term Loan) of Rs.105 Lacs, (iv)' FITL-I of Rs.28.39 Lacs, (v). FITL-2 of Rs'67 Lacs and (vi) GECL Additional of Rs.52.85 Lacs, totaling Rs'840'24 Lacs' The defendants have executed all necessary loaning documents on 30.06.2021.

3. It is further submitted that the defendants enjoyed and utilized the Loan facility, but failed to maintain the flnancial discipline and failed to repay the due amounts' The applicant requested the defendants to regularize the loan account by visits and letters' but there was no response from the defendants' Hence' the account was classified as NPA dated 30'04'2022' fhe applicant bank served a legal demand notice dated OL.OI.2O22 to the defendants but failed to recover the same Thus, the present O'M['A' is preferred by the applicant bank to recover its dues'

4. On notice by this Tribunal, the defendants put appearance through counsel and Rled written statement but failed to file evidence and the defendants were proceeded exparte on 06'05'2026'

5. In their written statement it is submitted that the said OA is not maintainable as cause of action not exist to file the present OA. It is further submitted that the Entire Second Ftoor bearing- Io' C-zl3ll-fi, Block C2' qx\

TA NO/1914/2023 4 Janakpuri, New Delhi- 110058 is mortgaged to the applicant bank but the applicant has not taken any step to sell the security mortgaged to it despite assessing the value of the mortgaged asset to be of Rs.4,59,00,000/- as on 21.04.2022. The defendants never resisted the bank to dispose of the same which the bank could have easily done under Securitization Act and it is due to the failure of the bank in taking timely action and disposing of the said asset, the'defendants are being burdened with undue charges, interest and expenses, The defendants cannot be held liable for gross negligence of the bank in taking appropriate action under law in disposal of these assets and as such ensuing loss is to be borne by the bank and the defendants reserve a right of claiming a set off against the bank' It is submitted that flrst charge on firm's all current assets both present and future including hypothecation of finished goods' semi-finished goods, raw material and stores lying in the factory premises or elsewhere and all the present and future debts/receivables, has not taken any step in selling the hypothecated goods having a limited shelf life and that due to the first wave of Corona Pandemic which engulfed the entire country in March 2020 a lockdown was imposed/clamped all over India which resulted in such losses to the company, that it is unable to come out of the grip of these losses' Therefore' it is prayed that this Honble Tribunal may dismiss the present O.A.

6. The applicant bank has filed evidence' On the other hand the defendants have failed to file evidence' $l

TANOlt9t4l2023 5

7. Heard the Ld. Counsels of applicant bank and the Ld. Counsel for defendant and perused the record. L The first contention of the defendants is that the OA has been filed without any cause of action. In this regard I have gone through the record. From perusal of the record it is clear that the applicant bank has issued legal notice to the defendants to repay the amount due and the defendants have failed to repay the entire due amount and therefore, the cause of action to file the OA has duly arisen and therefore, the contention of the defendants has no force.

9. The next contention of the defendants is that the property of entire Second Floor bearing no'C-2/311-il Block-C2, Janakpuri, New Delhi is mortgaged with the bank and the bank has not taken any step to sell the secured assets. It is fufther submitted that the applicant bank has not taken any step to sell and recover the amount from all the current stock both present and future of the flrm including hypothecation of finish goods, semi-finish goods, raw material and stores lying in the factory premises and all the present and future debts of the receivables' Therefore, it is submitted that the bank has failed to take appropriate actions under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act to recover the dues and therefore, the applicant bank cannot be permitted to recover the dues under Section 19 of the RDB Act. In this regard I have perused the record and has also considered the legal position in this regard. If a borrower fails to pay the dues of the secured creditor or a creditor, the bank has two options either to proceed under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act to recover the dues--fro2 the secured assets' The c.\', I

TANOll9l4l2023

creditor has also an option to recover the dues by filing an application under Section 19 of the RDB Act' Merely because the creditor has failed to proceed under provisions of the SARFAESI Act to recover the dues, the creditor cannot be prevented to recover the dues under Section 19 of the RDB Act. The secured creditor can proceed to recover the dues simultaneously proceeding under SARFAESI Act as wellas RDB Act' Therefore, the contention of the defendants has no force'

10. From perusal of the entire evidence, it is clear that the defendants have failed to prove their case as claimed in the written statement. On the other hand, the applicant has proved his case against the defendants and therefore, the defendants are liable to pay the amount claimed by the applicant bank and the O.A of the applicant bank is liable to be allowed' In the light of the above discussions, the present O.M[.A.deserves to be allowed.

ORDER

1) I hereby allow this T.A. of the applicant bank and direct the defendant nos.l to 3 to pay jointly and severally to the applicant within 30 days from today, a sum of Rs.8,62,61,405/- along with cost, expenses and interest @8.15olo 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 the sale of mortgage property bearing Entire Second Floor without roof rights, built-up property bearing no'C- zl3tl-rl, Block- C-2, si!ffd in the layout plan of TANOlt9t4l2023

Pankha Road Residential Scheme, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058, area measuring2017.82 sq.ft.In case of short fall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of personal movable and immovable assets of the defendant no.1 to 3.

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) Parties are direct to appear before the Ld. Recovery fficer, DRT-II, Delhi on 21.09.2026. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. File be consigned to records. Date: 20.07.2026 : t^; (susHrl KUMAR dnSrOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi This judgement has been signed, dated and pronounced in open court. SA , Date:20.07.2026 (susHrl KUMAR rinlrbcll PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi ( t