NATIONAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs M/S KRISHAK SAHAKARI SHAKKAR KARKHANA MARYADIT on 3 September 2026

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 15.01.2021 through Mr. Lalit Goel, Director (Legal) of the applicant no.1, under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993 against the sole defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.7,82,20,453/- together with cost charges and pendentellite and future interest @10.87% p.a. from date of filing of this O.A. till the realization in full.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the defendant is a Co-operative Society incorporation and registered under the Madhya Pradesh State Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and having its registered office at the address given in the cause title of this case. It is submitted that the Central Government under the Sugar Development Fund Act 1982, has created Sugar Development Fund

TANO.956of2023 2 (SDF) to provide soft loan assistance to co-operative sugar mills, inter-alia, for their modernization cum expansion, Rehabilitation, cane development, co- generation and setting up of ethanol projects etc. Applicant no.1 deals with the financing of co-operative including various sugar factories and as such, applicant no.1 was appointed by applicant no.2 as agent for disbursement of the above SDF loan, their recovery along with interest, monitoring of project implementation etc. by executing an agreement for this purpose from time to time. At the request of defendant the applicant no.2 vide its sanction letter No.5-42l2010-SDF dated 11.06.2012, and on the recommendation of State Government of Madhya Pradesh sanctioned a Cane Development Loan Facility of Rs.4,44,15,00/- for implementation of the schemes aimed at development of sugarcane in the factory area on the terms and conditions contained in sanction letter dated 1L.06.20t2. It is submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid Sanction Letter No. 7-42120L0- SDF dated 11.06.2012 as well as the said resolution dated 10.09.2012 of the defendant society, a Tripartite Agreement dated 30.07.2012 was executed amongst applicant no.2, State Government of Madhya Pradesh, and the defendant society/borrower. It is provided in the said agreements that the loan advanced shall carry simple interest at the rate of 2o/o below the bank rate prevailing on the date of disbursement of installment of the loan by the Government or as may be decided by the Central Govt. from time to time. The repayment of the cane development loan had to commence after the expiry of three years reckoned from the date of disbursement of loan and had to be repaid in B half-yearly installments. The interest on the said loan_Dad to be paid half yearly

I

TANO.956of2023 3 for the first three years from the date of disbursement of the loan after which it had to be paid half-yearly along with the repayment of the installment of the principal. Fufther, an additional interest of @2.5o/o p.a. on account of default thereon was required to be paid by the defendant. It was also agreed that in case of 2 consecutive defaults in the repayment of loan or installments thereon, the Central Government shall realize or cause to realize the entire amount of loan along with interest and additional interest thereon from the security furnished by the sole defendant. The defendant society executed a deed of hypothecation dated L2.10.20t2 in favour of applicant no.2 as a security for the repayment of the abovementioned loan of Rs.4,44,15,000/- together with interest, costs, charges, expenses, penal interest, etc. By this deed, the defendant has hypothecated by way of exclusive second charge basis all its movable properties situated at Villages Narayanpur Tehsil Raghogarh, District Guna, Madhya Pradesh and elsewhere in the State of Madhya Pradesh (save and except book debts) including movable plant & machinery, machinery, equipment, machinery, spares, tools and accessories and other movables, both present and future whether installed or not and whether now lying loose or in case subject however to the prior charges created or to be created in favour of its bankers on its consumable stock and book debts, etc. As a further security_for the repayment of the said loan, an Indenture of Mortgage dated 11.10.2012 was executed by the defendant society through its General Manager Shri P.R. Bhatt and thereby the properties namely All that pieces and parcels of freehold land admeasuring in the aggregate Hectares 62.181 or thereabout situated at ,, TANO.956of 2023

Villages Narayanpura and Behrakhedi, Tehsil Raghogarh, District Guna in the State of Maharashtra were mortgaged in favour of the applicant no.2. The defendant society executed all necessary loaning documents on 12.t0.20t2 and t2.L0.20L2. After execution of Loan agreement and security documents and creation of security by the defendant, the applicant no.2 vide letters dated 22.lt.Z0LZ and 11.03.2013 conveyed administrative approval for disbursement of cane development loan of Rs.4,44,15,000/- to the society in two installmenb i.e. Rs.2,16,45,000/- and Rs.2,27,70,000/- respectively. The first, installment of Rs.2,16,45,000/- was released by applicant no.2 to the society through State Government of Madhya Pradesh vide demand draft dated 27.t1.2012 and second installment of Rs.2,27,70,000/- was released by applicant no. 2 to the society through State Government vide demand draft dated 14.03.2013.

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 served a recall notice dated 14.10.2016 to the sole defendant but failed to recover the same Thus, the present O.A.ff.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 seruice. Accordingly, the -qQ

TA NO. 956 of2023 sole defendant on 16.01.2025. was proceeded against expafte

5. The applicant bank has filed evidence by way of affidavit of Mr. Lalit Goel, Director (Legal) of the applicant bank as Annexure A-1 to Annexure A-16, 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 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 direct the sole defendant to pay to the applicant bank within 30 days from today, a sum of Rs.7,82,20,4531- along with cost, expenses and interest @10.87olo 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 9e hectares situated at Village Narainpura and Behrakhedi, Tehsil Raghogarh, District Guna, Madhya pracresh. In case of short fall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of personal movable and immovable assets of the

5) Pafties are directed to appear before the Ld. Recovery Officer, DRT_II, Delhi on O3.|L.ZO26. pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. TANO.956of2023 6 moftgage property i.e., Land File be consigned to records. Date : 03.09.2026 (sus PR measuring 62.181 9E sole defendant.

3) Recovery Ceffficate be issued forthwith and be sent to Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal_Il, Delhi.

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

Date : 03.09.2026 (susHrl KU q qA MAR PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi This judgement has been signed, dated and pronounced in open court.

1 14 HIL KUMAR GI) ESIDING OFFICER DRT.II, Delhi )