Allowed

State Bank of India v. Gurmail Singh

DRT21 Jan 2025OA/123/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the application filed by State Bank of India against the defendant for recovery of Rs. 22,14,312. The Tribunal decreed the principal amount with uniform simple interest at 8% per annum until realization, authorizing recovery via sale of mortgaged properties or attachment of personal assets under the SARFAESI Act.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 22,14,312 with simple interest at 8% p.a.; enforcement via sale of mortgaged/private assets.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.123/2022

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 04.01.2022

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 21.01.2025

¶6

State Bank of India, a body corporate constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 having its Corporate Office at Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai and one of its Local Head Office at Sector 17A, Chandigarh having branches all over India and one of its branches at Shakti Nagar Derabassi, District Sahibzada Ajit Singh (SAS) Nagar Mohali through its Chief Manager and Principal Officer Sh. Rakesh Kumar. ……..Applicant Versus Sh. Gurmail Singh S/o Sh. Roor Singh, R/o Village Ambchhappa, Post Office Jeoli, Tehsil Derabassi, District Sahibzada Ajit Singh (SAS) Nagar Mohali.

¶7

….……Defendant

¶8

Advocates: Argued by Sh. V.K. Sharma, Advocate for the applicant Defendant is ex-parte

¶9

FINAL ORDER

¶10

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.22,14,312.00 (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Fourteen Thousand Three Hundred Twelve only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Chief Manager and Principal Officer o f the applicant bank, who is competent to institute the Original Application. 2. The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant had approached the applicant bank for the grant of KCC Limit of Rs.15.50 Lacs vide Loan application dated 09.07.2014, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶11

¶12

The applicant Bank sanctioned the KCC Limit of Rs.15.50 Lacs vide Sanction Letter dated 21.07.2014, which is Annexure A2 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant.

¶13

Defendant had mortgaged his immovable property i.e. agricultural land measuring 19 Bigha 11 Biswas situated at Village Ambchhappa, Hadbast No.185, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District Sahibzada Ajit Singh (SAS) Nagar, Mohali, Punjab vide Registered Mortgaged Deed bearing vasika No. 4456 dated 14.07.2014, which is Annexure A4 to this OA. Documents executed:- Copy of Agreement for Hypothecation dated 21.07.2014, which is Annexure A3 to this OA; Copy of Balance Confirmatory cum Acknowledgment of Security Letter dated 08.02.2017, which is Annexure A5 to this OA; Copy of Revival Letter and Copy of Renewal Application for Agricultural Credit Short-Term Loan (Crop Loan) both dated 17.05.2019, which are Annexures A6 & A7 to this OA; Copy of Demand Notice dated 04.12.2021, which is Annexure A8 to this OA; Copy of Statement of Account, which is Annexure A9 to this OA and Copy of Certificate under Banker’s Book Evidence Act & Information Technology Act dated 03.01.2022 to this OA.

¶14

The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan account there was a debit of Rs.22,14,312.00, which is recoverable and the defendant was served recall notice but he did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant bank requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶15

The defendant was served notice to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendant and he was proceeded exparte on 08.04.2024. Thereafter, defendant has filed IA No. 716/2024 for setting aside the ex parte order dated 08.04.2024 and the same was dismissed on 15.01.2025.

¶16

¶17

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Chief Manager and Principal Officer, State Bank of India, h as been filed.

¶18

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶19

It was argued by learned counsel that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant bank had proved its case. From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A9 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant approached applicant bank for availing of the loan facility which was granted to him and for that he had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. The defendant failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, account of the defendant was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.22,14,312.00 (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Fourteen Thousand Three Hundred Twelve only) along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the account.

¶20

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has claimed interest @11.75%p.a. with half yearly rests from 23.12.2021 till the realization.

¶21

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 defendant, quantum of loan and prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yester years, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @8.00%p.a. in the loan account from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶22

¶23

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.22,14,312.00 (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Fourteen Thousand Three Hundred Twelve only), with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00%p.a. in the loan account from the date of filing of OA till the date of realization of the amount. Accordingly, the applicant bank shall be entitled to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of hypothecated/mortgaged properties of the defendant in execution proceedings if not sold earlier under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. If the dues of the bank still remain unsatisfied, it shall be entitled to recover the same by attachment and sale of personal assets of the defendant. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶24

Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶25

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶26

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 03.03.2025.

¶27

Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant bank and be sent to defendant through registered/speed post and this order be also uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal and record be consigned.

¶28

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 21.01.2025.

¶29

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

State Bank of India v. Gurmail Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Gurmail 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

Bank of India versus Makhan Singh and Another

Canara Bank versus Harjinder Singh and Another

Idbi Bank Ltd. versus Hardeep Singh and Another

Punjab National Bank versus Mohan Singh and Another

Punjab National Bank versus Gurpreet Singh and Others

Canara Bank versus Arav Fashions and Another