Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sh Ranjit Singh @ Jeet Singh

DRT25 Sept 2024OA/1706/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the bank’s application for recovery of Rs. 27,04,968/- with interest advanced as a KCC loan by the defendant. The court ruled that the dues could be recovered by selling the mortgaged land and other properties of the defendant.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 27,04,968/- with interest allowed; Recovery Certificate issued; direction to distribute sale proceeds.

State Bank of India versus Sh Ranjit Singh @ Jeet Singh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 1706/2022 Date of Institution: 16.08.2022 Date of Decision: 25.09.2024

¶4

SBI, one of its local head office at Sector 17-A, Chandigarh and one of its Branch at Handiaya, District Barnala, Punjab.

¶5

……..Applicant Vs.

¶6

Sh. Ranjit Singh @ Jeet Singh S/o Sh. Gurcharan Singh, R/o Sandhu Patti, Village Kot Dunna, Post Office Kot Dunna, Tehsil and District Barnala, Punjab.

¶7

……….Defendant

¶8

Advocates

¶9

Sh. Pankaj Beri, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendant – ex parte

¶10

OA for the Recovery of Rs.27,04,968/- with interest @11.15% per annum with half yearly rests from 16.08.2022.

¶11

ORDER

¶12

SBI, (Bank) has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of Rs.27,04,968/- with interest against Sh. Ranjit Singh @ Jeet Singh (defendant).

¶13

Bank’s case is that on 08.04.2016, it had granted a KCC Limit of Rs.16.00 Lacs to defendant for agricultural purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant had mortgaged his land (fully detailed in para No.3(A) of the application). The loan was chargeable to interest @11.15% per annum with half yearly rests. On 16.08.2022, a sum of Rs.27,04,968/- was due from the defendant. Despite repeated requests, defendant did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶14

¶15

On 02.09.2022, summons was sent to the defendant by registered post, which was duly served. However, defendant did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 06.11.2023, he was proceeded ex parte . 4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Nagendra Singh, Branch Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-6. 5. I have perused the evidence on the record. I am of the considered view that the Bank has proved its case that it had advanced the loan of Rs.16.00 Lacs and on 16.08.2022, a sum of Rs.27,04,968/- was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.27,04,968/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lacs Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty Eight Only) with interest @11.15% per annum with half yearly rests from 16.08.2022, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged land fully detailed in para No.3(A) of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendant. 7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 25.10.2024, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgage land and standing crops as per the provisions of Section 19(20AB) of the Act . 10. A Copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to the Recovery Officer as well as the parties. Pronounced in the open court. (A S Narang) Dated: 25.09.2024 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh Pankaj

State Bank of India v. Sh Ranjit Singh @ Jeet Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sh Ranjit Singh @ Jeet Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bank of Baroda versus M/s Mahavir enterprises and others

Anita Kumari versus Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank)

Md Tarique Anwar versus Canara Bank

Union Bank of India versus M/S Kusum Enterprises

Punjab and Sind Bank versus M/S Taj Industry

Punjab National Bank versus Mr. Satinder Pal Singh