Allowed

State Bank of India v. Jaswant Singh and Another

DRT8 Jul 2025OA/1617/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the State Bank of India's Original Application for recovery of Rs.28,41,949.00p against two defendants who defaulted on a KCC loan. The Tribunal reduced the claimed interest rate to 8% per annum and ordered the issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.28,41,949.00p with 8% p.a. interest and issuance of Recovery Certificate.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1617/2022 PRESIDED OVER BYMRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 20.08.2022

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 08.07.2025.

¶5

State Bank of India, (In which state bank of Patiala Amalgamated), a body corporate constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955) having its Corporate Center at State Bank Bhawan, Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point Mumbai and having one of its Local Head Office at Sector-17B Chandigarh, including one such Branch at Jagraon, District Ludhiana through its Branch Manager Sh. Naresh Kumar.

¶6

……..Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. Sh. Jaswant Singh S/o Sh. Malkit Singh R/o Village Sardarpura, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana.

¶9

2. Sh. Ravinder Singh S/o Sh. Jaswant Singh R/o Village Sardarpura, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana.

¶10

….……Defendants

¶11

Advocates:

¶12

Argued by Sh. J.S. Sehgal, Advocate for the 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.28,41,949.00p (Rupees Twenty Eight Lacs Forty One Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Nine only). The Original Application has been filed through Naresh Kumar, branch manager, o f the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application in terms of the Gazette notification published in the Gazette of India dated 26.09.1959, 26.08.1972 and 27.03.1987 under regulations no.76 & 77 of State Bank of India General Regulations framed in exercising of the powers

¶15

2 OA NO.1617-2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS JASWANT SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶16

conferred by Sub section 3 of section 50 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 with the precious sanction of 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.15.00 Lacs vide Application form dated 20.11.2013, which is Annexure A3 to this OA.

¶18

The applicant sanctioned the KCC Limit of Rs.15.00 Lacs vide Sanction letter dated 20.11.2013, which is Annexure A4 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶19

Defendants had mortgaged their immovable properties i.e. total land measuring 21K-14M situated detailed as :

¶20

a. Land measuring 2K-0M at Village Sidhwan Bet-II, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana, Punjab b. Land measuring 19K-14M at Village Sidhwan Bet-I, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana, Punjab vide Registered Mortgaged Deed bearing vasikano.1099 dated 02.12.2013, along with translations, which are Annexures A7 & A8 to this OA. Documents executed: Gazette notification dated 20.03.2017 & 27.03.1987, which are Annexures A1 & A2 to this OA; Hypothecation agreement, Consent letter both dated 13.12.2013, which are Annexures A5 & A6 to this OA; Mutation certificate dated 04.12.2013 along with translations, which are Annexures A9 to A12 to this OA; Notice dated 08.03.2019 along with postal receipts, which are Annexures A13 & A14 to this OA and Statement of accounts along with Certificate, which is Annexure A15 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.28,41,949.00p, 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.

¶21

3 OA NO.1617-2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS JASWANT SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶22

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 18.03.2024.

¶23

In support of the OA, affidavit of Naresh Kumar, Branch Manager, State Bank of India, h as been filed. 8. Heard arguments and perused record.

¶24

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 A15 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant for availing of the loan facility which was 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, account of the defendants was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.28,41,949.00p (Rupees Twenty Eight Lacs Forty One Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Nine 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.

¶25

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @10.60%p.a. along with penal interest @2.00%p.a. with half yearly rests from 26.02.2022 till the realization.

¶26

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

¶27

4 OA NO.1617-2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS JASWANT SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶28

exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @8.00%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.

¶29

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.28,41,949.00p (Rupees Twenty Eight Lacs Forty One Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Nine only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00%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/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.

¶30

Any other application pending stands disposed of. 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 28.07.2025. 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.

¶31

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 08.07.2025.

¶32

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

State Bank of India v. Jaswant Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Jaswant 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

State Bank of India versus Budh Singh

Axis Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Harpal Singh

Axis Bank Ltd. versus Jagjit Singh and Another

Axis Bank Ltd. versus Tahil Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Sukhraj Singh and Others

Punjab National Bank versus Mohan Singh and Another