Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sh. Mahinder Kumar @ Mahinder Singh

DRT3 Feb 2025OA/1189/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this ex parte application, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed SBI's claim for recovery of Rs. 32,59,785/- with interest against two defendants, finding the bank proved the loan advance and outstanding dues, and directed the issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 32,59,785/- with interest allowed; Recovery Certificate issued; sale of mortgaged property directed.

State Bank of India versus Sh. Mahinder Kumar @ Mahinder Singh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 1189 of 2022 Date of Institution: 02.06.2022 Date of Decision: 03.02.2025

¶4

SBI, having branches all over India having a branch at Gandhi Chowk, Abohar, District Fazilka, Punjab.

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Sh. Mahinder Kumar @ Mahinder Singh s/o Sh. Ram Rakh r/o Village Wayam Khera, Tehsil Abohar & District Fazilka, Punjab

¶8

Sh. Vipin Kumar s/o Mahinder Kumar r/o Village Waryam Khera, Mani Chowk, Tehsil Abohar & District Fazilka, Punjab.

¶9

……….Defendants

¶10

Advocates

¶11

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

¶12

OA for the Recovery of Rs. 32,59,785/- with interest @10.60% per annum with half-yearly rests from 02.06.2022.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

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. 32,59,785/- with interest against Sh. Mahinder Singh and another (Defendants).

¶15

Bank’s case is that on 01.06.2014, it had granted a loan of Rs. 20.00 Lacs to the Defendant nos. 1 and 2 in the form of KCC Limit, for agricultural purposes. To secure the loan, Defendant no. 1 had mortgaged property (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). The loan was chargeable to interest @10.60% per annum with half-yearly rests. On 30.04.2022, a sum of Rs. 32,59,785/- was due from the defendants.

¶16

¶17

Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶18

On 06.07.2022, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 14.02.2023, they were proceeded ex parte . 4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Manoj Kumar, Chief Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-8. 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. 20 Lacs and on 30.04.2022, a sum of Rs. 32,59,785/- was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs. 32,59,785/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lacs Fifty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty Five Only) with interest @10.60% per annum with halfyearly rests from 02.06.2022, 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 property fully detailed in para No.3A 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 05.03.2025 , who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgaged property as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) of the Act .

¶19

¶20

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: 03.02.2025 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh

State Bank of India v. Sh. Mahinder Kumar @ Mahinder Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sh. Mahinder Kumar @ Mahinder 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

Idbi Bank versus Sh. Jagdish Prasad Swami

Canara Bank versus Sh. Sharad Bansal

Idbi Bank Ltd. versus M/S Evolve Hr Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Mrs Shaba Khan versus Icici Bank Limited

Amrik Singh versus Au Small Finance Bank Limited

Ms Lotia Auto Industries versus Axis Bank