Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S Gurbir Singh and Co.

DRT12 Sept 2024OA/857/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed an application by SBI for recovery of Rs.26.46 lakhs principal and interest against the proprietors' Legal Heirs and a guarantor. The court approved sale of mortgaged property and issued a recovery certificate. Defendants appeared ex parte.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.26,46,983/- with interest allowed; recovery certificate issued; directions for sale of mortgaged property and distribution of proceeds.

State Bank of India versus M/S Gurbir Singh and Co. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 857 of 2022

¶4

Date of Institution: 27.04.2022 Date of Decision: 12.09.2024

¶5

SBI, SARB, Aman Plaza Complex, Tower B, 4^th Floor, Adjoining Passport Sewa Kender, Lajpat Nagar, Ambedkar Chowk, Jalandhar, Punjab.

¶6

……..Applicant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

M/s Gurbir Singh & Co. Dana Mandi, Mari Megha, Bhikhiwind, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran through its deceased Proprietor Nishan Singh through his LRs:-

¶9

a). Manjit Kaur

¶10

b). Hardeep Singh

¶11

c). Gurbir Singh

¶12

d). Kuldeep Singh

¶13

All resident of Dana Mandi, Mari Megha, Bhikhiwind, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran, Punjab.

¶14

Manjit Kaur W/o Sh. Nishan Singh S/o Sh. Joginder Singh, R/o Dana Mandi, Mari Megha, Bhikhiwind, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran, Punjab.

¶15

……….Defendants

¶16

Advocates

¶17

Sh. Sanjeev K. Arora, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants- Ex parte.

¶18

OA for the Recovery of Rs.26,46,983/- with interest @9.15% per annum with monthly rests from 17.04.2022.

¶19

ORDER

¶20

SBI (Bank) has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the

¶21

¶22

recovery of Rs.26,46,983/- with interest against M/s Gurbir Singh & Co. And others(defendants).

¶23

Bank’s case is that on 02.01.2019, it had granted Cash Credit Facility of Rs.20.00 lacs to defendant no.1 through its deceased proprietor Nishan Singh for business purpose. Defendant no.2 stood as guarantor. To secure the loan, Smt. Manjit Kaur/ Defendant no.1(a) wife of Sh. Nishan Singh (Since deceased) had mortgaged her immovable property (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). The loan was chargeable to interest @10.75% per annum with monthly rests. On 17.03.2020, the applicant bank had renewed the said Cash Credit Facility of Rs.20.00 lacs, at the request of defendant no.1 through its deceased proprietor Nishan Singh. Thereafter, at the request of defendant no.1 through its deceased proprietor Nishan Singh, bank had granted Term Loan of Rs.3.97 lacs due to Covid-19. Defendant no.2 stood as guarantor to the said Term Loan of Rs.3.97 lacs. The Term Loan was chargeable to interest @7.40% per annum with monthly rests. On 16.04.2022, a sum of Rs.26,46,983/- was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶24

On 23.05.2022, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 03.07.2023, they were proceeded ex parte . 4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Balbir Raj, Chief Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-18.

¶25

¶26

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.23.97 lacs and on 16.04.2022, a sum of Rs.26,46,983/- was due.

¶27

Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.26,46,983/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs Forty Six Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Three Only) with interest @9.15% per annum with monthly rests from 17.04.2022, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The LRs of deceased proprietor Nishan Singh would be liable to pay to the extent of property inherited by them from Nishan Singh (Since deceased). Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged property, fully detailed in para No.3A of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendant no.2.

¶28

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 14.10.2024 , 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: 12.09.2024 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh

State Bank of India v. M/S Gurbir Singh and Co.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S Gurbir Singh and Co.

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

Indian Overseas Bank versus Geetharani

Union Bank of India versus Mr Karsandas Bhadra and Anr.

Ms Shetkari Ginning Factory Prop Mohammad Razique versus Icici Bank Limited

Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank) versus M/S Manoj Trading Co.

Sicom Limited versus Max Energy Pvt. Ltd.

Kashyap Industries versus Bank of Maharashtra