Allowed

State Bank of India v. Budh Singh

DRT7 Jul 2025OA/1865/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of a defaulted loan of Rs. 25,91,011.00 from defendant Budh Singh. The Bank proved the loan agreement and default via documentary evidence. The applicant was entitled to recover the principal with simple interest.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 25,91,011.00 plus current and future simple interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of the OA.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1865/2022 PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 22.08.2022

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 07.07.2025

¶5

State Bank of India, a body corporate constituted under the provisions of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955) having its Corporate Office at Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai (Maharashtra) 400021 carrying on its business of banking in India and abroad, having one of its Local Head Office at Scetor-17, Chandigarh having amongst others at Branch at Bareh, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa through its Branch Manager Sh. Ashish Kumar (erstwhile State Bank of Patiala)

¶6

……..Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Budh Singh S/o Sh. Mukand Singh R/o Village Tahlian, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa(Punjab).

¶9

….……Defendant

¶10

Advocates:

¶11

Argued by Sh. Aseem Kataria, Advocate for the applicant Defendant is ex parte

¶12

FINAL ORDER

¶13

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, against the defendant for recovery of Rs.25,91,011.00 (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Ninety One Thousand Eleven Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Ashish Kumar , Branch Manager of the applicant bank, who is competent to institute the Original Application in terms of the Gazette notification dated 26.09.1959, 26.08.1972 and 27.03.1987 issued by the executive committee of the Central Board in exercise of the power conferred under regulations no.76 & 77 of State Bank of India General Regulations made by RBI in exercise of the powers conferred by the Sub section 3 of section 50 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955.

¶14

2 OA NO.1865-2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS BUDH SINGH

¶15

The brief facts of the OA that the defendant had approached the applicant bank for the grant of PBKC Limit of Rs.20.00 Lacs vide Loan application dated 24.02.2015, which is Annexure A1 to this OA. 3. The applicant Bank sanctioned the PBKC Limit of Rs.20.00 Lacs vide Sanction letter dated 02.03.2015 and Letter of Arrangement dated 11.03.2015, which are Annexures A2 and A3 to this OA. and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant. 4. Defendant had mortgage his immovable properties i.e. total land measuring 32K-00M situated at Village Tahlian, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa Punjab Vide Declaration U/s 4(1) bearing vasika no.1069 dated 04.03.2015 and jamabandi for the year 2015-2016 with their translations, which are Annexures A6, A7 and A7/T to this OA. Documents executed:- Hypothecation agreement, Letter of undertaking all dated 11.03.2015, which are Annexures A4 and A5 to this OA; BC letter dated 17.02.2017, which is Annexure A8 to this OA; Revival letters dated 01.01.2020, which is Annexure A9 to this OA; notice dated 16.06.2020, which is Annexure A10 to this OA and Statement of account with certificate, which is Annexure A11 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.25,91,011.00p, which is recoverable and the defendant was served recall notices but they did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant bank 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 12.02.2024. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Ashish Kumar , Branch hea d, State Bank of India, has been filed. 8. Heard arguments and perused record

¶16

3 OA NO.1865-2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS BUDH SINGH

¶17

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 A11 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant approached applicant for availing of the loan facility which was 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 loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, account of the defendant was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.25,91,011.00p (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Ninety One Thousand Eleven Only) along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the account.

¶18

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has claimed interest @ 12.15%p.a. with additional interest @2.00%p.a. with half yearly rests from 10.08.2022 till the realization.

¶19

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 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.25,91,011.00p (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Ninety One Thousand

¶20

4 OA NO.1865-2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS BUDH SINGH

¶21

Eleven Only) with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00%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 defendant in execution proceedings if not sold earlier under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. If the dues of the 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.

¶22

Any other application pending stands disposed of .

¶23

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶24

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 28.07.2025

¶25

Copy of this order be given Dasti to the applicant bank 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.

¶26

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal .

¶27

Dated: 07.07.2025.

¶28

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

State Bank of India v. Budh Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Budh 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

Axis Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Harpal Singh

Axis Bank Ltd. versus Jagjit Singh and Another

Icici Bank Limited versus Jiya Soni

Axis Bank Ltd. versus Tahil Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Sukhraj Singh and Others

State Bank of India versus Jaswant Singh and Another