Allowed

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

DRT3 Nov 2025OA/1614/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of dues against two borrowers who failed to repay KCC and term loans mortgaged via hypothecation, granting uniform interest at 8% p.a. instead of claimed rates.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.23,13,985.00p with simple interest at 08% p.a. from filing of OA until realization, enforceable via sale of hypothecated/mortgaged properties.

State Bank of India versus Sh. Bir Singh and Another — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1614/2022

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 10.08.2022

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 03.11.2025

¶6

State Bank of India, a body corporate constituted under the State Bank of India, Act, 1955 (23 of 1955), having its Corporate Office 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 Patiala, Punjab through its Chief Manager Sh. Sandeep Kumar Bajaj.

¶7

……..Applicant Versus

¶8

Sh. Bir Singh Son of Sh. Diwan Singh R/o Village Chak Amritsaria, P.O. Dhanetha, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala, Punjab.

¶9

Sh. Hardeep Singh Son of Sh. Bir Singh R/o Village Chak Amritsaria, P.O. Dhanetha, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala, Punjab.

¶10

……. Defendants

¶11

Advocates:

¶12

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

¶13

Defendants are ex parte

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.23,13,985.00p (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Thirteen Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Five Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Sandeep Kumar Bajaj, Chief Manager, who is competent to file this application in terms of Gazette Notifications published in Gazette of India dated 26.09.1959, 26.08.1972 and 02.05.1987, under regulations no.76

¶16

2 OA NO.1614/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS SH. BIR SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶17

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.

¶18

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendants had approached the applicant for grant of KCC Limit of Rs.9.00 Lacs, Term Loan of Rs.3.00 Lacs under KGC and Term Loan of Rs.1.00 Lac for Debt swap vide Loan Applications dated 08.07.2015, which are Annexures A2 to A4 to this OA.

¶19

The applicant sanctioned KCC Limit of Rs.9.00 Lacs, Term Loan of Rs.3.00 Lacs under KGC and Term Loan of Rs.1.00 Lac for Debt swap vide Letters of arrangements dated 14.07.2015, which are Annexures A5 to A7 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. 4. Defendant no.1 had mortgaged his immovable properties i.e. total land measuring 32K-00M situated at Village Retgarh @ Fatehgarh, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala, Punjab vide Declaration u/s 4(1) dated 15.07.2015, which is Annexure A11 to this OA.

¶20

Documents executed: - Gazette Notification dated 20.03.2017, which is Annexure A1 to this OA; Hypothecation agreements dated 16.07.2015, which are Annexures A8 to A10 to this OA; Legal notice dated 21.08.2018 along with postal receipts dated 24.08.2018, which is Annexure A12 to this OA and Statement of loan accounts along with accounts closure enquires, which are Annexures A13 to A15 to this OA.

¶21

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.23,13,985.00p, 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.

¶22

3 OA NO.1614/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS SH. BIR SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶23

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 25.04.2024. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Sandeep Kumar Bajaj, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, has been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record. 9. 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 A15 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 bank. The defendants failed to pay back the loans 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.23,13,985.00p (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Thirteen Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty 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 account.

¶24

In so far as pendent lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @11.75%p.a. with half yearly rests in KCC, @12.20% p.a. with half yearly rests in KGC and debt swap account from 24.07.2022 till the 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, 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

¶26

4 OA NO.1614/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS SH. BIR SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶27

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. 11. In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.23,13,985.00p (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Thirteen Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty 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.

¶28

Any other application pending stands disposed of .

¶29

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶30

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 15.11.2025.

¶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: 03.11.2025

¶34

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶35

Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sh. Bir 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

Similar cases

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Sukhvinder Singh and Another

Canara Bank versus M/S Sharman Ji Impo Expo and Another

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Sh. Mangal Singh and Another

Bank of Maharashtra versus Sh. Lakhvir Singh and Another

State Bank of India versus Sh. Jaswinder Singh

State Bank of India versus Sh. Satnam Singh