Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sh. Sukhwinder Singh

DRT24 Nov 2025OA/1896/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an original application under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993, the State Bank of India sought recovery of Rs.23.36 lakhs from a defaulting borrower. The court allowed the application, declaring the defendant liable to pay the principal amount along with uniform simple interest at 8% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Order declaring the defendant liable to pay Rs.23,36,450.00 plus costs and simple interest at 08.00%p.a.; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1896/2022

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 30.11.2022

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 24.11.2025

¶6

State Bank of India, a body Corporate Constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 and having its Central Office at Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai one of its Local Head Office at Sector17-A, Chandigarh and one of branch at Kauli, Tehsil and District Patiala Punjab, through its Branch Manager, Sh. Navdeep Salwan.

¶7

……..Applicant Versus

¶8

Sh. S ukhwinder Singh Son of Sh. Mohar Singh R/o House NO.190, SBS Colony, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, Punjab. ….……Defendant Advocates:

¶9

Argued by Ms. Seerat Sharma, Advocate proxy for Sh. Pankaj Beri, Advocate for Applicant

¶10

Defendant already ex parte

¶11

FINAL ORDER

¶12

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.23,36,450.00p (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Thirty Six Thousand Four Hundred Fifty Only). The Original Application has been filed through, Sh. Navdeep Salwan, Branch Manager of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application in the Gazette Notification published in Gazette of India dated 26.09.1959, 26.08.1972 and 02.05.1987 issued under Regulations No.76 & 77 of State Bank of India 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.

¶13

2 OA/1896/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS SH.SUKHWINDER SINGH

¶14

The brief facts of the OA that the defendant had approached the applicant for the grant of KCC Limit of Rs.17.00 Lacs vide Loan application dated 18.03.2015, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶15

The applicant sanctioned the KCC Limit of Rs.17.00 Lacs vide Letter of arrangement dated 17.04.2015, which is Annexure A2 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant.

¶16

Defendant had mortgaged his immovable property i.e. land measuring 24K-00M (3 Acres) situated at Village Shankarpur, Hadbast No. 99, Tehsil and District Patiala, Punjab vide Declaration u/s 4(1) dated 15.04.2015, which is Annexure A5 to this OA.

¶17

Documents executed: -Hypothecation agreement & Undertaking both dated 17.04.2015, which are Annexures A3 & A4 to this OA; Notice dated 22.10.2022, which is Annexure A6 to this OA and Statement of account, which is Annexure A7 to this OA.

¶18

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.23,36,450.00p, which is recoverable and the defendant was served recall notices but he did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶19

The defendant was served notices to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendant and he was proceeded exparte on 15.09.2025.

¶20

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Navdeep Salwan, Branch manage r, State Bank of India, h as been filed. 8. 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 A7 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant

¶21

3 OA/1896/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS SH.SUKHWINDER SINGH

¶22

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.23,36,450.00p (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Thirty Six Thousand Four Hundred Fifty Only). along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the account.

¶23

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed [email protected]%p.a. with 2% penal interest with half yearly rest form the 21.10.2022.

¶24

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/hypothecated assets, 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.

¶25

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.23,36,450.00p (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Thirty Six Thousand Four Hundred Fifty 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

¶26

4 OA/1896/2022

¶27

STATE BANK OF INDIA VS SH.SUKHWINDER SINGH

¶28

entitled to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of mortgaged property/hypothecated assets 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.

¶29

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 04.12.2025. 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 .

¶30

Dated: 24.11.2025

¶31

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

State Bank of India v. Sh. Sukhwinder Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sh. Sukhwinder 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

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Perfect Paving and Another

State Bank of India versus Late Sh. Maya Chand through His Legal Heirs and Another

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Lakhwinder Singh and Another

Union Bank of India versus M/S Mehak Enterprises and Another

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Gurjit Singh

Icici Bank Limited versus Ms Swastik Traders and Another