Allowed

State Bank of India v. Smt Sukhwinder Kaur Dhillon

DRT29 Aug 2025OA/1746/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the bank's application for recovery of outstanding dues under Section 19 of the RDB Act. The court accepted the affidavit evidence and directed the bank to recover the amount via sale of mortgaged land and other properties.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.26,83,808/- plus interest allowed; recovery via sale of mortgaged land and personal property directed.

State Bank of India versus Smt Sukhwinder Kaur… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 1746/2022 Date of Institution: 10.08.2022 Date of Decision: 29.08.2025

¶4

SBI (e-SBOP) having its branches all over India and a branch at Khurdpur, Tehsil Adampur, District Jalandhar, Punjab.

¶5

……..Applicant Vs.

¶6

Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur Dhillon w/o Sh. Jagmail Singh Dhillon, r/o VPO Behram Sarisita, Tehsil Bhogpur, District Jalandhar, Punjab.

¶7

……….Defendant

¶8

Advocates

¶9

Ms. Rupinder Kaur proxy counsel for Sh. Rajnish K. Jindal, Counsel for the applicant bank.

¶10

Defendant- ex parte vide order dated .

¶11

OA for the Recovery of Rs.26,83,808/- with interest @10.60% per annum with half-yearly rests from 10.08.2022.

¶12

ORDER

¶13

SBI has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of Rs.26,83,808/- with interest against Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur Dhillon (defendant).

¶14

Bank’s case is that on 19.11.2014, it had granted a loan of Rs.23.00 Lacs to defendant in the form of K.C.C Limit for agricultural purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant had mortgaged her land (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). The loan was chargeable to interest @10.60% per annum with half-yearly rests. On 16.07.2022, a sum of Rs.26,83,808/was due from the defendant. Despite repeated requests, defendant did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶15

¶16

On 04.11.2022, summons was sent to the defendant by registered post, which was duly served. However, defendant did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 11.09.2023, she was proceeded ex parte . 4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Sh. Rupinder Sharma, Branch Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-10. 5. I have perused the evidence on the record. I am of the considered view that the Bank has proved its case that it had advanced the loan of Rs.23.00 Lacs and on 16.07.2022, a sum of Rs.26,83,808/- was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.26,83,808/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs Eighty Three Thousand Eighty Hundred Eight Only) with interest @10.60% per annum with half-yearly rests from 10.08.2022, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged land fully detailed in para No.3A of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendant. 7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Party is directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 09.10.2025, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgaged land and standing crops as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) of the Act . 10. A Copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to the Recovery Officer as well as the party. Pronounced in the open Court. (A S Narang) Dated: 29.08.2025 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

State Bank of India v. Smt Sukhwinder Kaur Dhillon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Smt Sukhwinder Kaur Dhillon

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

Punjab National Bank versus Kavita

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Amit Kumar

Central Bank of India versus M/S Fortress Packaging Pvt. Ltd.

Ms Lanvin Exports versus Canara Bank

Mrs Gayathri S and Another versus Tumkur Grain Merchants Cooperative Bank Limited

K R Nagesh versus Katta Radhakrishnaiah Nagesh