Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sh. Baldev Singh

DRT15 Jan 2025OA/1895/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Presiding Officer allowed the Debts Recovery Tribunal application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of Rs. 31,26,858/- with interest against the defendants. The court upheld the ex parte proceedings where defendants failed to appear and directed the issuance of a recovery certificate and appearance before the Recovery Officer.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; recovery of Rs. 31,26,858/- with interest and costs directed; recovery certificate issued; defendants directed to appear before Recovery Officer.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 1895 of 2022 Date of Institution: 07.09.2022 Date of Decision: 15.01.2025

¶4

State Bank of India, having branches all over India having a branch at Village Beas Pind, Pathankot Road, Jalandhar, Punjab

¶5

……..Applicant Vs.

¶6

Sh. Baldev Singh s/o Sh. Karam Singh r/o Kala Bakra Tehsil and District Jalandhar, Punjab.

¶7

Sh. Harpal Singh s/o Baldev Singh r/o Kala Bakra Tehsil and District Jalandhar, Punjab.

¶8

……….Defendants

¶9

Advocates

¶10

Sh. Rajnish K. Jindal, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants – ex parte

¶11

OA for the Recovery of Rs. 31,26,858/- with interest @ 10.60% per annum with half-yearly rests from 07.09.2022.

¶12

ORDER

¶13

State bank of India (Bank) has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of Rs. 31,26,858/- with interest against Sh. Baldev Singh and another (Defendants).

¶14

Bank’s case is that on 29.08.2011, it had granted a loan of Rs. 13.00 Lacs to the Defendants in the form of KCC Limit. To secure the loan, Defendant no. 1 had mortgaged his property (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). Defendant No.2 stood as guarantor. The loan was chargeable to interest @10.60% per annum with half-yearly rests. On 28.07.2022, a sum of Rs. 31,26,858/- was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶15

¶16

On 23.09.2022, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 18.05.2023, they were proceeded ex parte .

¶17

4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Tejinder pal Singh, Branch Manager along with the loan
and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-11.
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. 13.00 Lacs and on 28.07.2022, a sum of Rs. 31,26,858/- was due.
6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.
31,26,858/- (Rupees Thirty One Lacs Twenty Six Thousand Eight
Hundred Fifty Eight Only) with interest @10.60% per annum with half-
yearly rests from 07.09.2022, till the date of payment is hereby allowed
with costs. The liability of all the defendants would be joint and several.
Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged property fully
detailed in para No.3A of the application as well as from the personal
movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants. 7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.
8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.
9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on
17.02.2025,who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the
mortgage property 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 parties.
Pronounced in the open court. (A S Narang)
Dated: 15.01.2025 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh

State Bank of India v. Sh. Baldev Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sh. Baldev 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

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Ashish Ranjan

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Inox Tubes Pvt. Ltd.

Hdfc Bank versus Mukesh Kumar Kedia

Vijay Zumberlal Lodha versus The Malkapur Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Sh. Hardeep Singh

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S Ranjana Enterprises