Allowed

State Bank of India v. Gurmeet Kaur

DRT23 May 2025OA/1334/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant's original application for recovery of Rs.24,99,879. Declaring defendants jointly and severally liable, the Tribunal adjusted interest rates to 8% p.a. and authorized recovery via sale of mortgaged properties or attachment of personal assets under SARFAESI. A Recovery Certificate was issued.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued; orders defendants to pay Rs.24,99,879.00p plus costs at 8% simple interest p.a. from filing date, realizable via sale of mortgaged properties or attachment of personal ass

State Bank of India versus Gurmeet Kaur — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1334/2022 PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 08.07.2022

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 23.05.2025

¶5

State Bank of India, a body corporate constituted under The State Bank of India 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 including one such branch at Samana (ADB) District Patiala through its chief manager Sh. Sandeep Kumar Bajaj.

¶6

……..Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Gurmeet Kaur Wd/o Jangir Singh R/o Village Arain Majra, PO Marori, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala, Punjab.

¶9

Jaswant Singh S/o Jangir Singh R/o Village Arain Majra, PO Marori, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala, Punjab.

¶10

….……Defendants

¶11

Advocates:

¶12

Argued by Sh. Rishab Gupta, Advocate proxy for Sh. Gaurav Singla, Advocate for applicant Defendants are ex parte

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.24,99,879.00p (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Ninety Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Nine only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Sandeep Kumar Bajaj, Chief Manager of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application in terms of gazette notification dated 26.09.1959, 26.08.1972 02.05.1987 and 29.10.2005 read with Regulations No.76 and 77 of State Bank of India General Regulations 1955 framed in exercise of powers conferred by Section 50 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955

¶15

2 OA NO.1334/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS GURMEET KAUR AND ANOTHER

¶16

and being successor to State Bank of Patiala under the Acquisition by way of Amalgamation of State Bank of Patiala order dated 22.02.2017 passed by the central government.

¶17

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendants had approached the applicant for the grant of KCC Limit of Rs.7.00 Lacs & KGC Limit of Rs.5.00 Lacs vide Loan application dated 15.09.2014, which are Annexures A2 & A3 to this OA. 3. The applicant sanctioned the KCC Limit of Rs.7.00 Lacs & KGC Limit of Rs.5.00 Lacs vide Letter of arrangement dated 23.09.2014, which are Annexures A4 & A5 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. 4. Defendant no.1 had mortgaged her immovable properties i.e. total land measuring 20K-00M situated at Village Arain Majra, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala, Punjab vide Declaration u/s 4(1) of Punjab Agriculture Credit Operations and Miscellaneous Provisions (Bank’s) Act, 1978 dated 26.09.2014, with its translations & Letter to Sub Registrar for Creation of charge, which is Annexure A8 this OA. Documents executed: - Gazette Notification dated 20.03.2017, which is Annexures A1 to this OA; Hypothecation agreement (KCC), hypothecation agreement (KGC) both dated 29.09.2014 & 29.02.2016 which are Annexures A6 & A7 to this OA; Legal notice dated 17.06.2022 along with postal receipts, which is Annexure A9 to this OA and Statement of account (KCC) (KGC) & Account closure enquiry both dated 23.06.2022, which are Annexures A10 to A13 to this OA. 5. The loan accounts became irregular and were classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in both the loan accounts there was a debit of Rs.24,99,879.00p, 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.

¶18

3 OA NO.1334/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS GURMEET KAUR AND ANOTHER

¶19

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 30.11.2023.

¶20

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Sandeep Kumar Bajaj chief manager, State Bank of India, h as been filed. 8. Heard arguments and perused record.

¶21

It was argued by learned proxy 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 defendants approached applicant for availing of the loan facilities which were 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 loan 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.24,99,879.00p (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Ninety Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Nine only) rest 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 interest @11.75%p.a. in KCC & interest @13.20%p.a. in KGC along with penal interest @2.00%p.a. with half yearly rests from 23.06.2022 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

4 OA NO.1334/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS GURMEET KAUR AND ANOTHER

¶25

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.

¶26

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.24,99,879.00p (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Ninety Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy 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.

¶27

Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶28

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶29

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this

¶30

Tribunal on 06.06.2025.

¶31

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.

¶32

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal .

¶33

Dated: 23.05.2025.

¶34

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

State Bank of India v. Gurmeet Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Gurmeet Kaur

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

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sh. Rajiv Kumar and Others

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sh. Ranjit Singh and Others

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Nachhatar Singh and Another

State Bank of India versus Sh. Harbant Singh

Priyanka Garg and Another versus Icici Bank and Others

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Sri Ganga Traders and Others