Allowed

State Bank of India v. Lakhvir Singh

DRT20 Nov 2025OA/1969/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the State Bank of India's application for recovery of a loan debt owed by the defendant. The bank proved its case through documentary evidence, leading to an order for recovering Rs. 22,46,094/- with interest and directing the issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; directed to recover dues by sale of mortgaged land and personal property; Recovery Certificate to be issued.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 1969 of 2022 Date of Institution: 16.09.2022 Date of Decision: 20.11.2025

¶4

SBI having its branches all over India and a branch at Phillaur, (ADB), District Jalandhar, Punjab.

¶5

……..Applicant Vs.

¶6

Lakhvir Singh s/o Sh. Darshan Singh r/o H.no.283, Ward no.5, Village Panj Dhera Jagatpura, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar, Punjab.

¶7

……….Defendant

¶8

Advocates

¶9

Sh. Rishabh Gupta proxy counsel for Gaurav Singla, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendant - ex parte .

¶10

OA for the Recovery of Rs.22,46,094/- with interest @11.45% per annum with half-yearly rests from 16.09.2022.

¶11

ORDER

¶12

SBI (Bank) has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of Rs.22,46,094/- with interest against Sh. Lakhvir Singh (defendant).

¶13

Bank’s case is that on 17.08.2015, it had enhanced existing limit from Rs.10.00Lacs to Rs.15.00Lacs to defendant in the form of K.C.C Limit for agricultural purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant had mortgaged his land (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). The loan was chargeable to interest @11.45% per annum with half-yearly rests. The defendant was served legal notice on 30.08.2022. On 24.08.2022, a sum of Rs.22,46,094/- was due from the defendant. Despite repeated requests, defendant did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶14

¶15

On 13.10.2022, summons was sent to the defendant by registered post, which was duly served. However, defendant did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 03.05.2023, he proceeded was ex parte .

¶16

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Pradeep Kumar Chauhan, Authorised Officer along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-9. 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.15.00Lacs and on 24.08.2022, a sum of Rs.22,46,094/- was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.22,46,094/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Forty Six Thousand and Ninety Four Only) with interest @11.45% per annum with half-yearly rests from 16.09.2022, 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.

¶17

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Party is directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 26.12.2025, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgaged property(ies) and standing crops as per the provisions of Section 19(20AB) of the Act . 10. A Copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to the Recovery Officer as well as the party.

¶18

Pronounced in the open Court. (A S Narang) Dated: 20.11.2025 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh Amanpreet (Law Researcher)

State Bank of India v. Lakhvir Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Lakhvir 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

Idfc First Bank Ltd. versus Rajji Narang

Punjab National Bank versus M/S S M Agro Products

Icici Bank Limited versus V.D. Concrete Flooring Pvt. Ltd.

Sumitra Singha versus Uco Bank

Bank of India versus Sh. Padam Singh @ Padam Singh Bisht

Bank of Baroda versus Ram Singh