Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sh. Sukhdev Singh and Another

DRT18 Oct 2025OA/1189/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DT issued an order on 18.10.2025 allowing the SBI's recovery application for Rs. 28,58,929. It granted a recovery certificate and authorized enforcement through property sale or asset attachment, ordering simple interest at 8% p.a. instead of the claimed higher rates.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued; Defendants liable to pay Rs. 28,58,929 with costs and simple interest @ 8% p.a.; enforcement via sale of mortgaged properties or personal assets authorized.

State Bank of India versus Sh. Sukhdev Singh and Another — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1189/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BYMRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 25.08.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 18.10.2025

¶6

State Bank of lndia, a body corporate constituted under the State Bank of lndia Act, 1955 (23 of 1955) having its Corporate Centre at State Bank Bhawan, Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai and having one of its Local Head Office at Sector 17 Chandigarh, and one of its Branch at Kamalpur, District Patiala through its Branch Manager Sh. Maninder Singh.

¶7

……..Applicant Versus

¶8

Sh Sukhdev Singh S/o Sh. Kashmir Singh

¶9

Smt. Harbans Kaur W/o Sh. Kashmir Singh

¶10

Both residents of Village Ramnagar, PO Bibipur, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala.

¶11

….……Defendants

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

Argued by Sh. Rishab Gupta, Advocate proxy for Sh. Gaurav Singla, Advocate for Applicant

¶14

Defendants are ex parte

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.28,58,929.00p (Rupees Twenty Eight Lacs Fifty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Nine Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Maninder Singh , Branch Manager of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application in the terms of Gazette Notification published in Gazette of India dated 26.09.1959, 26.08.1972 and 02.05.1987 under regulations no.76 read with 77 of State Bank of India General Regulations framed in exercise of the

¶17

2 OA NO.1189/2025 STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. SH.SUKHDEV SINGH ANOTHER

¶18

powers conferred by Sub Section (3) of Section 50 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 with the previous sanction of the Central Government.

¶19

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendants had approached the applicant for the grant of KCC Limit of Rs.8.50 Lacs Term Loan of Rs.2.00 Lacs under KGC vide Loan Loan applications dated 30.01.2015, along with their translations, which are Annexures A2 & A3 to this OA. 3. The applicant sanctioned the KCC Limit of Rs.8.50 Lacs Term Loan of Rs.2.00 Lacs under KGC vide Letter of arrangements dated 04.02.2015, which are Annexures A4 & A5 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. 4. Defendant No.1 & 2 had mortgaged their immovable properties i.e. Land measuring 24K-00M i.e. 03 Acres (16K-00M in the name of defendant no. 2 and 08K-00M in the name of defendant no.2) Situated at Village Ramnagar Bakshiwala, Hadbast No. 187, Tehsil and District Patiala, Punjab vide declaration u/s 4(1) dated 30.01.2015, along with letter to sub Registrar for creation of charge and jamabandi for the year 2023-2024, w hich are Annexures A7 & A8 to this OA. Documents executed: Gazette notification dated 20.03.2017, which is Annexure A1 to this OA; Hypothecation agreement dated 04.02.2015, which is Annexure A6 to this OA; Legal notice dated 11.08.2025 along with postal receipts, which is Annexure A9 to this OA and Statement of account with Calculation sheet & Banker certificate, which are Annexure A10 & A11 to this OA. 5. The loan accounts became irregular and were classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan accounts there was a debit Rs.28,58,929.00p, which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notices but they did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶20

3 OA NO.1189/2025 STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. SH.SUKHDEV SINGH ANOTHER

¶21

The defendants were served notices to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte on 09.10.2025. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Maninder Singh , Branch Manager, State Bank of India, has been filed. 8. Heard arguments and perused record. 9. It was argued by learned Proxy counsel for applicant that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case. From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A11 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant for availing of the loan facilities which wwere granted to them and for that they had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the applicant. The defendants failed to pay back the loans as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, accounts of the defendants were classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.28,58,929.00p (Rupees Twenty Eight Lacs Fifty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Nine Only) along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the accounts.

¶22

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed [email protected]%p.a. plus 2% penal interest in KCC and [email protected]%p.a. plus 2% penal interest in KGC from 26.07.2025 till the realization.

¶23

The Tribunal is of the considered opinion that sometimes in appropriate cases the prerogative of mercy is the brightest jewel in the crown of the Judge. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case including nature of the mortgaged property, undertaking of the defendants, quantum of loan and prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yester years, while

¶24

¶25

OA NO.1189/2025

¶26

STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. SH.SUKHDEV SINGH ANOTHER

¶27

exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @8.00%p.a. in both the loan accounts from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶28

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.28,58,929.00p (Rupees Twenty Eight Lacs Fifty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Nine Only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00%p.a. in both the loan accounts from the date of filing of OA till the date of realization of the amount. Accordingly, the applicant shall be entitled to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of hypothecated/mortgaged properties of the defendants in execution proceedings if not sold earlier under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. If the dues of the applicant still remain unsatisfied, it shall be entitled to recover the same by attachment and sale of personal assets of the defendants. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law. 12. Any other application pending stands disposed of. 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 30.10.2025. 15. Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant and be sent to defendants through registered/speed post and this order be also uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal and record be consigned.

¶29

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 18.10.2025

¶30

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶31

Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

State Bank of India v. Sh. Sukhdev Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sh. Sukhdev Singh and Another

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

Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. versus M/S Ludhiana Kolkata Transport Co. and Others

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sh. Sukhminder Singh Rattan

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Lakhbir Khan

Axis Bank Ltd. versus Shree Mahavir Ji Creation and Others

Icici Bank Limited versus Gujri Industries International Pvt. Ltd. and Another

Icici Bank Limited versus Messrs Jai Mata Durga Transport Co. and Another