Disposed

State Bank of India v. Sukhwinder Singh

DRT16 May 2025OA/1209/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court corrected a clerical error regarding the date of institution in the final order of an outstanding OA. SBI's application for recovery was allowed with costs. Defendant was proceeded against ex parte after failing to appear. Direction given for sale of mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

Application for recovery allowed with costs. Defendant proceeded ex parte. Recovery to be made by sale of mortgaged land. Recovery Certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus Sukhwinder Singh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

OA/1209/2022

SBI Vs.

Sukhwinder Singh

16.05.2025

File taken up today. It has been brought to my notice that in final order dated 09.05.2025, disposing off the OA bearing the date of institution has been wrongly mentioned as 27.02.2025 instead of 27.05.2022, in para no. 6 of the Final Order. Accordingly, the same is hereby corrected. The Court master is directed to make the necessary correction in the original final order dated 09.05.2025.

¶8

¶9

Dkt:i;mMa

¶10

II\i T}}E DEli'J'S RECOVERY TRiBUNAL-i, CiIAN3ii(;fIRPI BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶11

6 d

¶12

OA No: 1209 of 2022 Date of Institution: 27.05.2022 Date of Decision: 09.05.2025

¶13

SBI. having its br,Inches all over India and a branch at SARB Branch, 4th Floor, Aman Plaza Complex, Tower-B, Adjoining Passport Se\va Kendra, Ambedkar Chowl<, District Jalandhar, Punjab.

¶14

. . . . . ...Applicant

¶15

¶16

Sukhwinder Singh s/o Sh. Harbans Singh r/o Village -Chak Kanian 1<alan, Tehsil Dharamkot, District Moga, Punjab.

¶17

I)efciitiaii$

¶18

Advocates

¶19

Ms.Anupama Ta}dli proxyfor Sh. Arun Tal<hi, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶20

}3eferrdalit - ex pcu'te .

¶21

OA for the Recovery of Rs. 50,47,144/- with interest @12% per annum with half-yearly rests from 27.05.2022.

¶22

ORDER

¶23

SBI (Bank) has filed this application under Section 19 of the iiecovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of Rs. 50,47,144/- with interest against Sh. Sukhwinder Singh (defendant).

¶24

¶25

Bank-s case is that on 08.11.2014, it had granted a loan of R_s.24.00 Lacs to Defendant in the form of C.C Limit for dgricultural purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant had mortgaged his land (fully C€iaiic<1 in para No.3 A of lhe application). The loan was chargeable to interest @12% per annum with half-yearly rests. On 30.04_2022? a sum of Rs. 50,47,144/-was due from the defendants. Despite repeated ICq IIes'I-s. dcfcirdants did not make the repaynrent. Hence> this application.

¶26

¶27

	3. On 07.07.2022, summons was sent to the defendant by registered post, which was duly served. However, defendant did not putin appearance. Vide order dated 29.01.2024, he was proceeded ex parte.
	4. In order to prove itscase,the Bank hds placed on recordthe affidavit of Mr. JS Kajla, Chief Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked themasExhibit A-1 to A-20. 5. i haveperusedtheevidenceon the record. I am of theconsidered view thattheBankhasproved itscasethat ithadadvancedthe loan of Rs.24.00L.acsand on 30.04.2022,asum of Rs.50,47,144/- wasdue.
& j A xX:# 2 i/$ f'’TI ) ;. i.=fI I X<br>’, /:dl..rb.LI=	6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.50,47,144/- (Rupees Fifty Lacs Forty Seven Thousand One Hundred FortyFour Only) withinterest @12%perannumwithhalf-yearlyrests a %<br>Iton(17.92.2025) till the dtlte of payment is hereby allowed withcosts. Bank can „cove, itsduesby thesaleofmortgaged land fully detailed in ! P„',No.3A)ofth,appii„tion„„,11„ f„m th, p„„natmovableand
IPAd:PJ&W id>1// /’ / J7c;;q dv (l;. f- ’„ ,JJ:/ ZI'’;' , "; .;? &ii	i immo,’able property(ics) of the defendant. 1 7. PendingIAs, ifany,standdisposedof i 8. i{.ecoveryCertifIcate beissuedaccordingly.
:{	Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on
	10.06.2025,\'Ilo is directed to distribute the sale proceeds ofthe :lx:r{qaQedproperty(ies)andstandingcrops as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) of the Act. 1 0B J(IEpr\tIEIbbbnJr01 ) ) /OfthiSO rder along with Recovery ter ti kate be sent tO tIle Recovery o ineel-as\veIIasthe parties. Pronou!'IcedintheopenCourt. Dated: 09.05.2025 UKI-1;{J£rntligarh

State Bank of India v. Sukhwinder Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sukhwinder 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Radhika Jayaprakash versus State Bank of India

Indian Overseas Bank versus Neohumanistic Healthcare Pvt.Ltd.

Bank of Baroda versus Santosh Kumar

M/S Pratima Enterprise and Anr. versus Punjab National Bank (Oriental Bank of Commerce)

Canara Bank versus Jarnail Singh

Union Bank of India versus M/S Partap Agrotech