Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sh. Gurdeep Singh

DRT23 Oct 2025OA/1927/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the bank'sOriginal Application for recovery of Rs.33.28 Lakhs due from the defendant. The Tribunal approved the principal but directed a uniform simple interest rate of 08% p.a. instead of the claimed 10.60% p.a. Recovery is to be effected via mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Declaration of liability to pay Rs.33,28,936.00p plus future simple interest at 08% p.a.; Recovery via sale of mortgaged properties; Issue of Recovery Certificate.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1927/2022

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BYMRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 10.11.2022

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 23.10.2025

¶6

State Bank of India, a body corporate, constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955, and having its Corporate Office at Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai and one of its Local Head Office at Sector 17-A, Chandigarh and having its branches all over India and one of its branch known as Agriculture Development Branch (ADB), at Phillaur, District Jalandhar, Punjab through its branch manager Sh. Pradeep Kumar Chauhan.

¶7

……..Applicant Versus

¶8

Sh. Gurdeep Singh S/o Sh. Sikandar Singh, R/o Village Ghumait, P.O. Koom Kalan, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, Punjab-141126.

¶9

…….Defendant

¶10

Advocates:

¶11

Argued by Sh. Vikas Sharma, Advocate proxy for Sh. P.K. Arora, Advocate for Applicant (through VC)

¶12

Defendant already ex-parte

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

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.33,28,936.00p (Rupees Thirty Three Lacs Twenty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty Six Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Pradeep Kumar Chauhan, 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, 02.05.1987 and 29.10.2005 issued under Regulation No.76 & 77 of State Bank of India General Regulations framed in Exercise of the powers conferred by of Section

¶15

2 OA NO. 1927/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS SH. GURDEEP SINGH

¶16

50 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955, with the previous sanction of the Central Government.

¶17

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant had approached the applicant for grant of KCC Limit of Rs.20.00 Lacs vide Loan Application dated 02.06.2017, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶18

The applicant sanctioned KCC Limit of Rs.20.00 Lacs vide Letter of arrangement dated 06.07.2017, which is Annexure A2 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant. 4. Defendant had mortgaged his immovable properties i.e. Land Measuring 52K-10M situated at Village Ghumait, P.O. Koom Kalan, Hadbast no. 194, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, Punjab vide Declaration u/s 4(1) dated 30.06.2017, w hich is Annexure A4 and jamabandi for the year 2011-2012, along with its translation which is Annexure A5 to this OA. Documents executed :-Hypothecation agreement dated 06.07.2017, which is Annexure A3 to this OA; Revival letter dated 24.06.2020, which is Annexure A6 to this OA; Legal notice dated 09.08.2021, which is Annexure A7 to this OA and Statement of account, which is Annexure A8 this OA.

¶19

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.33,28,936.00p, 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.

¶20

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. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Pradeep Kumar Chauhan, Chief Manager, State Bank of India h as been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶21

3 OA NO. 1927/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS SH. GURDEEP SINGH

¶22

It was argued by learned proxy counsel through Video Conferencing 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 A8 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.33,28,936.00p (Rupees Thirty Three Lacs Twenty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty Six 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 interest @10.60%p.a. with half yearly rests and penal interest @2% p.a. from 16.10.2022 till the realization.

¶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, 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.33,28,936.00p (Rupees Thirty Three Lacs Twenty Eight Thousand

¶26

4 OA NO. 1927/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS SH. GURDEEP SINGH

¶27

Nine Hundred Thirty Six 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 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.

¶28

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶29

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶30

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 04.11.2025.

¶31

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.

¶32

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

¶33

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶34

Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

State Bank of India v. Sh. Gurdeep Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sh. Gurdeep 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