Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sh. Manjeet Singh

DRT23 Oct 2025OA/1635/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the applicant's application under the RDB Act for recovery of debt. It directed the defendant to pay the principal sum plus costs and uniform simple interest at 8% p.a. from the filing date, permitting recovery via sale of mortgaged properties or attachment of assets.

What did the court decide?

Declaratory relief that defendant is liable to pay Rs.28,37,564 plus costs and simple interest @8% p.a., with liberty to enforce via sale of mortgaged/attached assets.

State Bank of India versus Sh. Manjeet Singh — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1635/2022

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BYMRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 18.08.2022

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 23.10.2025

¶6

State Bank of India, a body corporate, constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955, 923 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-A, Chandigarh including one such branch at Samana, (ADB), District Patiala, Punjab through its Chief Manager, Sh. Sandeep Kumar Bajaj.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Manjeet Singh, S/o Sh. Mahinder Singh, R/o Village Danipur, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala, Punjab.

¶10

…….Defendant

¶11

Advocates:

¶12

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

¶13

Defendant already ex-parte

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

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.28,37,564.00p (Rupees Twenty Eight Lacs Thirty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Four 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 in the terms of Gazette Notification dated 26.09.1959, 26.08.1972 and 02.05.1987 issued under Regulation 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

2 OA NO. 1635/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS SH. MANJEET SINGH

¶17

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant had approached the applicant for grant of KCC Limit of Rs.12.00 Lacs & Term Loan of Rs.8.00 Lacs under KGC vide Loan Applications dated 29.03.016, which are Annexures A2 & A3 to this OA.

¶18

The applicant sanctioned KCC Limit of Rs.12.00 Lacs & Term Loan of Rs.8.00 Lacs under KGC vide Letter of arrangement dated 29.03.016, which is Annexure A4 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant vide letter of undertaking dated 31.03.2016, which is Annexure A5 to this OA. 4. Defendant had mortgaged his immovable properties i.e. Land measuring 20K-10M situated at Village Danipur, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala, Punjab vide Declaration u/s 4(1) dated 31.03.2016, which is Annexure A8 to this OA. Documents executed : -Gazette Notification dated 20.03.2017, which is Annexure A1 to this OA; Hypothecation agreements dated 02.04.2016, which are Annexures A6 & A7 to this OA; Revival letters dated 31.03.2019 and 10.02.2022, which are Annexures A9 & A10 to this OA; Legal notice dated 15.04.2021 along with postal receipt, which is Annexure A11 to this OA and Statement of accounts along with closure & Certificate, which are Annexures A12 & A13 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.28,37,564.00p, which is recoverable and the defendant was 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. 6. The defendant was served notices to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendant and he was proceeded exparte on 04.05.2024.

¶19

3 OA NO. 1635/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS SH. MANJEET SINGH

¶20

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

¶21

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 A13 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant approached applicant for availing of the loan facilities which were 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 loans as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, accounts of the defendant were classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.28,37,564.00p (Rupees Twenty Eight Lacs Thirty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Four Only) along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the accounts. 10. In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @11.15%p.a. penal interest @2% p.a.in KGC & interest @12.60%p.a. penal interest @2% p.a.in KCC with half yearly rests from 24.07.2022 till the realization.

¶22

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 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 Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @08.00%p.a. in

¶23

4 OA NO. 1635/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS SH. MANJEET SINGH

¶24

both 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. 11. In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.28,37,564.00p (Rupees Twenty Eight Lacs Thirty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Four Only) with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00%p.a. in both the loan accounts from the date of filing of OA till the date of realization of the amounts. Accordingly, the applicant shall be entitled to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of hypothecated/mortgaged properties 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.

¶25

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 04.11.2025. 15. 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. Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 23.10.2025.

¶26

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

State Bank of India v. Sh. Manjeet Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sh. Manjeet Singh

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

Icici Bank Limited versus M/S Aps International and Others

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Sh. Baljinder Singh and Another

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Chanan Singh and Others

Axis Bank Ltd. versus Chand Singh and Others

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Sukhjeet Singh

Axis Bank Limited versus Sh. Karam Singh and Others