ADINATHRICE MILL
adinathrice.com
Purba Bardhaman, West Bengal, India
Case File · Adinath Rice Mills & Ors. vs. Indian Bank & Anr. · S.A. No. 110 of 2026 · DRT-II, Kolkata

A Chronology of
Erosion.

A ledger-ordered record of the dealings between Adinath Rice Mill and Indian Bank — from the original 2022 sanction through the 2026 SARFAESI e-auction — drawn from bank records, statutory notices, valuation reports, and WhatsApp correspondence.

SpanOct 2022 – Jul 2026 Entries Flagged as irregular ForumDRT-II, Kolkata
Main Proceeding

S.A. No. 110 of 2026 — filed under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act to challenge the NPA classification, the 13(2) demand notice, the 13(4) possession notice, and the Section 14 order passed by the ACJM, Kalna.

Next hearing12 Jan 2027
IA Docket

Every Interlocutory Application filed within S.A. No. 110 of 2026, in the order filed — what each sought, when it was heard, and how the Tribunal disposed of it.

Case Assessment

A working summary of the financial loss absorbed to date, the documentary leverage the case rests on, and the immediate action items — drawn from the Detailed Project Report, the MSME grievance filing, and the record above.

Loss Absorbed
₹6–11 Cr
Asset undervaluation

Property valued at ₹10.03 crore by the bank's own valuer (Krishna Appraisers, Jul 2024) and insured for ₹12–15 crore, auctioned for ₹4,00,10,000 — at least 60% of capital asset value destroyed in the sale.

₹186 Cr/yr
Projected revenue loss

The Detailed Project Report and MSME grievance put projected annual revenue at ₹186 crore against a total project cost of ₹25.50 crore. The lockout has paralysed that earning potential entirely.

₹5.25 Cr
Sanctioned facility, circularly financed

A ₹5 crore cash credit limit and ₹25 lakh bank guarantee were sanctioned, but disbursed funds were routed back by the bank to cover EMIs, penal interest, and insurance premiums without consent — starving actual working capital.

Documentary Leverage

The 22 Jul protective order

The DRT has already ruled that "the sale if successful, shall be subject to the decision of the IA." The ₹4 crore auction to Manyata Food Product is not legally final while IA/9103/2026 remains pending.

The postal-delivery contradiction

The bank recorded the 4th sale notice as delivered to the factory on 10 Jul 2026 — five months after the bank itself padlocked and took physical possession on 2 Feb 2026. A letter cannot be delivered inside premises the bank had locked, pointing to falsified delivery records used to bypass the mandatory 30-day SARFAESI notice period.

RBI MSME framework bypassed

The bank held the Udyam Registration Certificate since August 2022 but did not route the account through the RBI Framework for Revival and Rehabilitation of MSMEs before classifying it NPA.

Defective sale intimation letter

The letter declaring the successful bidder carries a Gujarat address for what should be a West Bengal branch, and a dummy phone number ("3322222222") — indicating the process was hastily assembled.

Immediate Action Plan
01

Push the Impleadment IA

Force the DRT to formally add Manyata Food Product as a direct respondent in S.A. 110 of 2026 — this legally paralyses the buyer and blocks the bank from quietly issuing a final Sale Certificate.

02

Halt the remaining 70% final payment via the MSME Ministry

As of 30 Jul 2026, the buyer has paid 30% of the ₹4,00,10,000 bid (a further ₹20 lakh credited to the OCC that day). The window to pay the remaining balance runs to roughly 7 Aug 2026. Follow up on MSME grievance No. WB00207337 to press for an administrative inquiry that halts issuance of the Sale Certificate before the balance clears.

03

Demand restoration of physical possession

Press the drafted "Restoration of Possession" IA — the bank took possession in direct tension with the 2 Feb DRT order, supporting a case for restoring status quo ante.

04

Put the valuation gap before the Judge

Set the July 2024 ₹10.03 crore valuation directly against the July 2026 ₹4 crore sale intimation to show the pattern of a distress sale toward a pre-selected buyer.

Legal Arguments

Two arguments built for S.A. No. 110 of 2026, linking the bank's own paper trail to the financial harm claimed.

Argument 1

Financial sabotage via withheld Bank Guarantee & forced diesel operations

The fact

The bank sanctioned a ₹25 lakh Bank Guarantee under the IB Star Agro Mill Scheme alongside the ₹5 crore Cash Credit facility on 28 Oct 2022, but the S.A. states it "failed and/or neglected to disburse the bank guarantee."

The fraud

Despite never releasing the BG, the bank continuously deducted processing fees, BG commission charges, and other hidden fees from the account.

The loss

With the BG withheld alongside the ₹35 lakh needed for the WBSEDCL bulk electric installation, the factory was starved of sanctioned infrastructure capital — forcing heavy machinery onto diesel generators and driving accumulated operational losses that drained working capital.

Argument 2

The January 2023 hypocrisy — utilization letter vs. insurance proof

16 Jan 2023

The Satgachia Branch Manager issues a letter claiming an 11 Jan visit found "paddy stock present in Godown was not sufficient as per amount availed (₹3.50 crores)," demanding a fund utilization report.

18 Jan 2023

Two days later, at 3:22 p.m., the "Audit Dec-Jan 2022-23 ADINATH RICE MILL" report is emailed to the bank, documenting exactly how the funds were utilised.

The rebuttal

The bank's own Bancassurance partner, Universal Sompo General Insurance, later confirms that for 2022-23 the mill held ₹9,30,00,000 in stock and ₹3,70,00,000 in plant & machinery — directly contradicting the "insufficient stock" claim. Confirmation email dated 17 Jan 2024, referencing the 2022-23 values.