Allowed

State Bank of India v. Late Sh. Naresh Kumar through His Legal Heirs

DRT26 Dec 2025OA/1492/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application to recover Rs. 29,41,535 along with reduced simple interest of 8% p.a. from the heirs of the deceased borrower after they failed to repay the loan and appeared in absentia.

What did the court decide?

Declaration of liability to pay Rs. 29,41,535 plus 8% simple interest; Recovery Certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus Late Sh. Naresh Kumar through His… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1492/2022

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 28.07.2022

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 26.12.2025

¶6

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.

¶7

……..Applicant Versus

¶8

Sh. Naresh Kumar S/o Sh. Lekh Ram R/o Village Dulhar, Teshil Samana, District Patiala, since deceased represented by:

¶9

A. Smt. Sunita Rani, Wd/o Sh. Naresh Kumar S/o Sh. Lekh Ram R/o Village Dulhar, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala, Punjab.

¶10

B. Sh. Yadwinder Sharma S/o Sh. Naresh Kumar, S/o Sh. Lekh Ram R/o Village Dulhar, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala, Punjab.

¶11

C. Ms. Geeta Rani D/o Sh. Naresh Kumar, S/o Sh. Lekh Ram R/o

¶12

Village Dulhar, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala, Punjab.

¶13

….……Defendants

¶14

Advocates:

¶15

Argued by Sh. Rishab Gupta, Advocate proxy for Sh. Gaurav Singla, Advocate for Applicant

¶16

Defendants already ex parte

¶17

FINAL ORDER

¶18

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.29,41,535.00 (Rupees Twenty Nine Lacs Forty One Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Five Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Sandeep Kumar

¶19

2 OA/1492/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. NARESH KUMAR THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS

¶20

Bajaj, Chief Manager, o f the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide in terms of Gazette Notifications published in the gazette of India dated 26.09.1959, 26.08.1972 and 02.05.1987, under regulations No.76 read with 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.

¶21

The brief facts of the OA that the defendant (since deceased) approached the applicant for the grant of KCC Limit of Rs. 2.00 Lacs and Agriculture Term Loan of Rs. 7.50 Lacs vide Loan Applications dated 16.04.2009, along with translation, which are Annexures A2, A2A & A3 to this OA. Thereafter, the defendant (since deceased) approached the applicant for enhancement of the KCC Limit to Rs. 3.00 Lacs vide loan application dated 03.02.2011, along with its translation, which are Annexures A8 and A8A to this OA. Thereafter, the defendant (since deceased) approached the applicant for enhancement of the KCC Limit to Rs. 6.00 Lacs vide loan application dated 06.02.2013, which is Annexure A12 to this OA. Thereafter, the defendant (since deceased) approached the applicant for restructuring of overdue amount in KCC and Term Loan.

¶22

The applicant sanctioned the KCC Limit of Rs. 2.00 Lacs and Agriculture Term Loan of Rs. 7.50 Lacs vide Letters of arrangement dated 29.04.2009, which are Annexures A4 & A5 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant (since deceased). Thereafter, the applicant enhanced the KCC Limit to Rs. 3.00 Lacs vide letter of arrangement dated 03.02.2011, which is Annexure A9 to this OA. Thereafter, the applicant enhanced the KCC Limit to Rs. 6.00 Lacs vide letter of arrangement dated 06.02.2013, which is Annexure A13 to this OA. Thereafter, the applicant restructured the Overdue amount of Rs. 6.95 Lacs in KCC Loan and Rs.

¶23

3 OA/1492/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. NARESH KUMAR THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS

¶24

2.55 Lacs in Term Loan vide letter dated 20.06.2014, which is Annexure A19 to this OA.

¶25

Defendant (since deceased) mortgage his immovable property i.e. land measuring 32K-0M situated at Village Dulhar, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala, Punjab vide Mortgage Deed bearing vasika no.1451 dated 21.04.2009, along with its translation, which is Annexure A16, A16A to this OA and Mutation sanction letter dated 21.04.2009, along with translation, which is Annexure A17, A17A to this OA;

¶26

Documents executed: Gazette Notification dated 20.03.2017, which is Annexure A1 to this OA; Hypothecation agreements, dated 29.04.2019, 03.02.2011 and 06.02.2013, which are Annexures A6, A7, A10, A14 to this OA; Letters of Undertaking dated 03.02.2011 and 06.02.2013, which are Annexures A11 and A15 to this OA; Link Letter dated 06.02.2013, which is Annexure A18 tot his OA; Legal notice dated 18.07.2022, along with postal receipts, which is Annexure A20 to this OA and Statement of accounts along with Certificate regarding the computer system, which are Annexures A21 to A23 to this OA.

¶27

The loan accounts became irregular and were classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan accounts there was a debit of Rs.29,41,535.00, 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.

¶28

The defendants were served notices to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendant and he was proceeded ex-parte on 12.04.2024. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Sandeep Kumar Bajaj, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, h as been filed. 8. Heard ex- parte arguments and perused record.

¶29

4 OA/1492/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. NARESH KUMAR THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS

¶30

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 A23 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant (since deceased) approached applicant for availing of the loan facilities which was granted to him and for that he had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. He failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, accounts were classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.29,41,535.00 (Rupees Twenty Nine Lacs Forty One Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Five Only) along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the accounts.

¶31

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 half yearly rests in KCC & [email protected]%p.a. in with half yearly rests in Term Loan and Restructured account from 24.06.2022 till the realization.

¶32

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 defendants, 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 all 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.

¶33

5 OA/1492/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. NARESH KUMAR THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS

¶34

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.29,41,535.00 (Rupees Twenty Nine Lacs Forty One Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Five Only), jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00%p.a. in all 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. 12. Any other application pending stands disposed of. 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 09.01.2026. 15. 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. Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 26.12.2025. (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

State Bank of India v. Late Sh. Naresh Kumar through His Legal Heirs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Late Sh. Naresh Kumar through His Legal Heirs

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

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

State Bank of India versus Sh. Manish Kumar

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Gurpreet Singh

Indian Bank versus Sh. Avtar Singh and Another

Indian Bank versus Sh. Amitava Sengupta

Yes Bank Ltd. versus Mahajan Trading Co. and another