Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sh Ranjit Singh

DRT21 Aug 2024OA/1716/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this application under Section 19 of the RDB Act, SBI sought recovery of Rs.34,50,489/- plus interest against a defendant who failed to repay an enhanced KCC loan despite mortgage security. The tribunal noted the defendant's ex parte absence after valid summons and, finding the bank's evidence uncontroverted, allowed the application, issued a recovery certificate, and directed the Recovery Offi

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; Recovery Certificate issued; Recovery Officer directed to distribute sale proceeds of mortgaged property and standing crops.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 1716 of 2022 Date of Institution: 17.08.2022 Date of Decision: 21.08.2024

¶4

SBI, one of its branch at Village Khurdpur, District Jalandhar, Punjab.

¶5

……..Applicant Vs.

¶6

Sh. Ranjit Singh S/o Sh. Kabal Singh, R/o H. No.221, Village Gharhial, Tehsil and Distt. Jalandhar, Punjab.

¶7

……….Defendant

¶8

Advocates

¶9

Ms. Puja Sharma, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendant- Ex parte.

¶10

OA for the Recovery of Rs.34,50,489/- with interest @10.60% per annum with half yearly rests from the date of filing the present application i.e. 17.08.2022. ORDER

¶11

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.34,50,489/- with interest against Sh. Ranjit Singh (defendant).

¶12

Bank’s case is that on 28.05.2011, it had granted KCC Loan of Rs.3.00 lacs to defendant for agricultural purpose. Thereafter, at the request of defendant, the said KCC Loan was enhanced from Rs.3.00 lacs to Rs.22.00 lacs, on 13.10.2012. To secure the loan, Defendant had mortgaged his immovable properties (fully detailed in para No.5.7 of the application). The loan was chargeable to interest @10.60% per annum with half yearly rests. On 05.11.2021, a sum of Rs.34,50,489/- was due from the defendant. Despite repeated requests, defendant did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶13

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 07.11.2023, he was proceeded ex parte .

¶14

¶15

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Rupinder Kumar Sharma, Branch Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A- 16. 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.22.00 lacs and on 05.11.2021, a sum of Rs.34,50,489/- was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.34,50,489/- (Rupees Thirty Four Lacs Fifty Thousand Four Hundred Eighty Nine Only) with interest @10.60% per annum with half yearly rests from the date of filing the present application i.e. 17.08.2022, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged property, 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 24.09.2024 , who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgage property and standing crops as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) 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: 21.08.2024 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh

State Bank of India v. Sh Ranjit Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sh Ranjit 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

Pradeep Bhanuvadan Shah and Ors. versus Hero Housing Finance Limited

Rambhai M Gondaliya versus Icici Bank Limited

Ms Ekta Cold Storage versus Indian Bank

State Bank of India versus Harvel Singh

Harikishan Shankarji Gogikar a K a Harikrishanan Shankarji Gudipati versus Encore Assets Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd.

Mr Anil Anant Mhadaye versus The Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd.