Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sh. Gurdeep Singh and Another

DRT26 Dec 2025OA/1494/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the Applicant's Original Application recovered Rs.20,31,025/- from the respondents jointly and severally, granted uniform interest at eight percent per annum, and directed issuance of a recovery certificate executable under the SARFAESI and RDB Acts.

What did the court decide?

Decree of recovery for Rs.20,31,025/- with costs and simple interest @8% p.a. Issuance of Recovery Certificate.

State Bank of India versus Sh. Gurdeep Singh and Another — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1494/2022

¶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 having its Corporate office at Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai one of its Local Head office at Sector-17, Chandigarh having branches all over India including one at Samana (ADB), District Patiala, Punjab through its Chief Manager Sh. Sandeep Kumar Bajaj.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Gurdeep Singh son of Sh. Bhajna @Harbhajan Singh, R/o Village Daba, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal.

¶10

Smt. Charanjeet Kaur W/o Sh. Sh. Bhajna @Harbhajan Singh, R/o Village Daba, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal.

¶11

….……Defendants

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

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

¶14

Defendants already ex parte

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.20,31,025.00 (Rupees Twenty Lacs Thirty One Thousand Twenty Five Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Sandeep Kumar 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

¶17

2 OA/1494/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. GURDEEP SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶18

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.

¶19

The brief facts of the OA that the defendants approached the applicant for the grant of KCC Limit of Rs. 6.25 Lacs, Agriculture Term Loan of Rs. 6.25 Lacs under KGC vide loan applications dated 08.01.2014, which are Annexure A2 and A3 to this OA and Term Loan of Rs. 1.00 Lacs for debt swap dated 14.01.2014, which is Annexure A4 to this OA.

¶20

The applicant sanctioned the KCC Limit of Rs. 6.25 Lacs, Agriculture Term Loan of Rs. 6.25 Lacs under KGC, vide Letters of arrangement dated 14.01.2014, which are Annexures A5 & A6 to this OA and sanctioned Term Loan of Rs. 1.00 Lacs for debt swap vide letter of arrangement dated 14.012014, which is Annexure A7 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant 4. Defendant no. 2 mortgage her immovable property i.e. land measuring 50K-6M situated at Village Daba, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal, Haryana vide Mortgage Deed bearing no.3770 dated 14.01.2014, which is Annexure A11 to this OA and Mutation sanction letter dated 15.01.2014, which is Annexure A12 to this OA;

¶21

Documents executed: Gazette Notification dated 20.03.2017, which is Annexure A1 to this OA; Hypothecation agreements, dated 17.01.2014, which are Annexures A8 to A10 to this OA; Legal notice dated 14.07.2022, along with postal receipts, which is Annexure A13 to this OA and Statement of accounts along with Certificate regarding the computer system, which are Annexures 14 to A16 to this OA. 5. 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.20,31,035.00, 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.

¶22

3 OA/1494/2022

¶23

STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. GURDEEP SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

Heard ex- parte arguments and perused record.

¶27

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 A17 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant for availing of the loan facilities which was granted to them and for that they had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. They failed to pay back the loans as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, accounts of 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.20,31,025.00 (Rupees Twenty Lacs Thirty One Thousand Twenty 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.

¶28

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 and half yearly rests in KCC, @14.20%p.a. with 2% penal interest and half yearly rests in Agriculture Term Loan and [email protected]%p.a. with 2% penal interest and half yearly rests in Debt Swap Loan from 14.07.2022 till the realization.

¶29

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 loans and prevalent

¶30

¶31

OA/1494/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. GURDEEP SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶32

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

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.20,31,025.00 (Rupees Twenty Lacs Thirty One Thousand Twenty 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.

¶34

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.

¶35

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

State Bank of India v. Sh. Gurdeep Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sh. Gurdeep Singh and Another

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

All orders in this case

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