Allowed

State Bank of India v. Smt Pushpa Devi

DRT17 Sept 2024OA/1718/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application by SBI bank for recovery of Rs.22,51,993/- principal and interest from defendants who failed to repay a KCC loan secured by mortgaged agricultural land, ordering a recovery certificate and sale of mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

The application for recovery of Rs.22,51,993/- with interest was allowed; a Recovery Certificate was to be issued; and parties were directed to appear for distribution of sale proceeds.

State Bank of India versus Smt Pushpa Devi — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 1718/2022

¶4

Date of Institution: 18.08.2022 Date of Decision: 17.09.2024

¶5

SBI, one of its branch at Kala Tibba, Tehsil Abohar, District Fazilka.

¶6

……..Applicant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Smt. Pushpa Devi W/o Sh. Vishwa Mittar, R/o Village Himmatpura, Tehsil Abohar and District Fazilka.

¶9

Sh. Parveen Kumar S/o Sh. Vishwa Mittar, R/o Village Himmatpura, Tehsil Abohar and District Fazilka.

¶10

……….Defendants

¶11

Advocates

¶12

Ms. Sonal, proxy Counsel for Sh. Pankaj Beri, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants – ex parte

¶13

OA for the Recovery of Rs.22,51,993/- with interest @11.75% per annum with half yearly rests from 18.08.2022.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

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.22,51,993/- with interest against Smt. Pushpa Devi and another (defendants).

¶16

Bank’s case is that on 19.09.2013, it had granted a KCC Limit of Rs.14.00 Lacs to defendants for agricultural purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant No.1 had mortgaged her agricultural land (fully detailed in para No.3(A) of the application). The loan was chargeable to interest @11.75% per annum with half yearly rests. On 18.08.2022, a sum of Rs.22,51,993/- was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶17

On 02.09.2022, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not

¶18

¶19

put in appearance. Vide order dated 06.11.2023, they were proceeded_ex_ parte.
4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Rajpal Buriya, Branch Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-7.
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.14.00 Lacs and on 18.08.2022, a sum of Rs.22,51,993/- was due.
6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of
Rs.22,51,993/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Fifty One Thousand Nine
Hundred and Ninety Three Only) with interest @11.75% per annum with
half yearly rests from 18.08.2022, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of all the defendants would be joint and
several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged agricultural
land fully detailed in para No3(A) of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants.
7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.
8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.
9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on
18.10.2024, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the
mortgage land 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: 17.09.2024 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh Pankaj

State Bank of India v. Smt Pushpa Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Smt Pushpa Devi

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

Ramkrupa Building Material Supplyers versus Idfc First Bank Ltd.

Gaurav Pralhadbhai Pawar And Ors. versus State Bank of India

Bank of Baroda versus Haritbhai

Shubham Singh versus Authorised Officer Shubham Housing Development Finance Company Limited

Saurabh Bansal versus the Baghat Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Punjab National Bank versus Sangita Singh