Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sh. Paramjit Singh

DRT20 Nov 2025OA/1306/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an application by State Bank of India against a borrower for recovery of Rs.39.35 lakhs. The court quantified interest at 8% per annum and directed recovery via sale of mortgaged assets or attachment of personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.39.35 lakhs with current and future simple interest at 8% per annum from filing date; issuance of Recovery Certificate; liberty to enforce via sale of mortgaged or personal assets.

State Bank of India versus Sh. Paramjit Singh — Specific Performance | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1306/2022

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 10.05.2022

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 20.11.2025

¶6

State Bank of India, a body Corporate Constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 having its Corporate Centre at Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai and having branches all Over India and one of its branches amongst other places at Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur, Punjab, formerly State Bank of Patiala now known SBI (Transferee Bank of State Bank of Patiala, by way of amalgamation the business including the assets and liabilities of the State Bank of Patiala vide notification dated 22.012.2017) and one of its specialized branch known as Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (SARB) at SCO-15, Sector7, Chandigarh through its Authorized Signatory Sh. Sanjeev Parkash Verma, Chief Manager.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Paramjit Singh Son of Sh. Surjit Singh R/o Village Majhi, Tehsil and District Sangrur (Punjab).

¶10

….……Defendant

¶11

Advocates:

¶12

Argued by Sh. Omkar Gupta, Advocate for applicant

¶13

None for defendant

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendant for recovery of Rs.39,35,685.00p Rupees Thirty Nine Lacs Thirty Five Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Five Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Sanjeev Parkash Verma, Chief Manager, of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application in the Gazette Notification published dated 26.09.1959, 26.08.1972, 29.03.1987 and 29.10.2005 issued by the Executive Committee of the Central Board in exercise of the powers

¶16

2 OA/1306/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS SH.PARAMJIT SINGH

¶17

conferred on it under Regulation no. 76 and 77 of SBI General Regulations made by RBI in exercise of power conferred by sub section 3 of section 50 of SBI Act, with the previous sanction of the Central Government.

¶18

The brief facts of the OA that the defendant had approached the applicant for the grant of KCC Limit of Rs.25.00 Lacs vide Loan application dated 26.06.2015, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. 3. The applicant sanctioned the KCC Limit of Rs.25.00 Lacs vide Letter of arrangement dated 20.07.2015, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant.

¶19

Defendant had mortgaged his immovable property i.e. land measuring 30 Bigha situated at Village Majhi, Hadbast No.20, Tehsil and District Sangrur, Punjab vide Declaration u/s 4(1) with charge registered on 13.07.2015, which is Annexure A4 to this OA. Documents executed: Gazette notification dated 22.02.2017, which is Annexure A1 to this OA; Hypothecation agreement dated 20.07.2015, which is Annexure A5 to this OA; Letter of Consent dated 26.06.2015, which is Annexure A6 to this OA; Letter of Undertaking dated 06.07.2015, which is Annexure A7 to this OA; Revival letter dated 25.04.2018 & 19.02.2021, which are Annexures A8 & A9 to this OA; Notice dated 07.12.2019 & 29.01.2020, along with translations, which are Annexures A10 & A11 to this OA; Demand Notice dated 27.04.2022, which is Annexure A12 to this OA and Statement of account with certificate, which is Annexure A13 to this OA. 5. 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.39,35,685.00p, which is recoverable and the defendant was served recall notices but he did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶20

3 OA/1306/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS SH.PARAMJIT SINGH

¶21

The defendant was served notices to appear before this Tribunal. Sh. Kamal Dev Sharma, Advocate appeared on behalf of defendant on 07.07.2023 and filed his memo of appearance. Power of Attorney of Sh. Abhinav Kalia, Advocate and Sh. Kamal Dev Shama, Advocate was filed on behalf of defendant on 19.10.2023. Since, WS was not filed by defendant, opportunity to file WS was closed and his defense was struck off on 15.04.2024.

¶22

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Sanjeev Parkash Verma, Chief Manager , State Bank of India, h as been filed. 8. Heard arguments and perused record. No one appeared on behalf of defendant for arguments.

¶23

It was argued by learned counsel 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 A13 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant approached applicant 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 is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.39,35,685.00p Rupees Thirty Nine Lacs Thirty Five Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Five Only). along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the account.

¶24

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed [email protected]%p.a. including 2% penal interest with half yearly rest from the 28.04.2022.

¶25

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/hypothecated

¶26

4 OA/1306/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS SH.PARAMJIT SINGH

¶27

assets, 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 @08.00%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.

¶28

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.39,35,685.00p Rupees Thirty Nine Lacs Thirty Five Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Five Only) with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00%p.a. in the loan account from the date of filing of OA till the date of realization of the amount. Accordingly, the applicant shall be entitled to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of mortgaged property/hypothecated assets of the defendant 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 defendant. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶29

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶30

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶31

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 02.12.2025. 15. Copy of this order be given Dasti to the applicant 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.

¶32

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal .

¶33

Dated: 20.11.2025.

¶34

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

State Bank of India v. Sh. Paramjit Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sh. Paramjit 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

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Sukhwinder Singh and Another

Canara Bank versus Sh. Malkeet Singh and Another

Central Bank of India versus M/S Paras Traders and Others

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Ranjodh Singh and Others

Axis Bank Ltd. versus sh. Ekam Singh and Another

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Balwinder Singh