Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sh. Manish Kumar

DRT20 Dec 2025OA/1440/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's recovery application filed ex parte against the defendant. The Tribunal(validating the debt of Rs.25.40L) modified the claimed interest rate from 11% to a uniform 8% p.a. and ordered issuance of a recovery certificate for future enforcement.

What did the court decide?

Defendant declared liable to pay Rs. 25,40,544 plus costs and simple interest @ 8% p.a. from filing date till realization. Recovery Certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus Sh. Manish Kumar — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1440/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 30.09.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 20.12.2025

¶6

State Bank of India, a body corporate constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955) and a scheduled bank under the Banking Companies Regulation Act, having its Corporate Office at Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Post Box No. 12, Mumbai - 400021 and having its Local Head Office at Sector-17, Chandigarh, and having branches all over India amongst them, a Branch office- RDB RACC, Phagwara, District Saheed Bhagat Singh (SBS) Nagar, Punjab, through Sh. Naresh Kumar Rattan, Chief Manager, and one of the Principal Officers of the applicant.

¶7

……..Applicant Versus

¶8

Sh. Manish Kumar S/o Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Resident of Village Udhowal (272), Rahon, Tehsil Nawan Shahr, District Saheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Punjab.

¶9

….……Defendant Advocates:

¶10

Argued by Sh. AS Gagrha, Advocate for applicant

¶11

Defendant already ex parte

¶12

FINAL ORDER

¶13

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.25,40,544.00 (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Forty Thousand Five Hundred Forty Four Only). The Original Application has been filed Sh. Naresh Kumar Rattan, Chief Manager, of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application in the Gazette Notification published in Gazette of India dated 26.09.1995, 26.08.1972, 27.03.1987 and 29.10.2005 issued by the Executive Committee of Central Board in exercise of powers conferred

¶14

2 OA/1440/2025 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. MANISH KUMAR

¶15

on it under Regulations No.76 & 77 of State Bank of India General Regulations framed in exercise of the 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.

¶16

The brief facts of the OA that the defendant had approached the applicant for the grant of Term loan of Rs.22.95 Lacs for purchase of Combine Harvester vide Loan Application form dated 23.10.2023, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶17

The applicant sanctioned the Term loan of Rs.22.95 Lacs vide Letter of arrangement dated 13.12.2023, which is Annexure A2 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant. 4. Defendant hypothecated Combine Harvester Make: Gahir Agricultural Industries, Model: GAHIR-930, bearing Registration no. PB-32AC-6237, Engine No. RNHM105039, Chassis No. GAI930B240012, vide Hypothecation agreement, dated 13.12.2023, which is Annexure A3 to this OA. Performa invoice dated 11.10.2023, Annexure A5 to this OA; Retail invoice dated 05.03.2024 and insurance, is Annexure A6 to this OA; Registration certificate, is Annexure A7 to this OA.

¶18

Documents executed : Undertaking dated 13.12.2023, which is Annexure A4 to this OA; Recall notice dated 26.06.2025, which is Annexure A8 to this OA; and Statement of account along with computer certificate, which are Annexures A9 & A10 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.25,40,544.00, 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.

¶19

3 OA/1440/2025 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. MANISH KUMAR

¶20

The defendant was served notices to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendant and he was proceeded exparte on 29.11.2025.

¶21

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Naresh Kumar Rattan, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, h as been filed.

¶22

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶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 A10 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.25,40,544.00 (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Forty Thousand Five Hundred Forty Four 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. with 2% penal interest with monthly rest from the 01.10.2025 till realization.

¶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 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

¶26

4 OA/1440/2025 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. MANISH KUMAR

¶27

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.25,40,544.00 (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Forty Thousand Five Hundred Forty Four 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 hypothecated vehicle 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 08.01.2026.

¶32

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.

¶33

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal .

¶34

Dated: 20.12.2025.

¶35

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶36

Presiding Officer,

¶37

DRT-III, Chandigarh

State Bank of India v. Sh. Manish Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sh. Manish Kumar

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. Netarpal Singh and Another

State Bank of India versus Sh. Navdeep Singh Sohal

State Bank of India versus Sh. Jatinder Singh

Union Bank of India versus M/S Madhav Oil Traders and Others

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Gurpreet Singh

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Sh. Dalbir Singh