Allowed

State Bank of India v. Mrs. Bir Kaur

DRT17 Apr 2025OA/1986/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the SBI's application for recovery of Rs. 24,57,690/- plus interest against two defendants who mortgaged land for an agricultural loan. The defendants were proceeded ex parte for non-appearance. The court ordered recovery via sale of mortgaged property. A Recovery Certificate was directed to be issued.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 24,57,690/- with interest at 10.60% per annum allowed; Recovery Certificate issued against mortgaged and personal properties.

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Bir Kaur — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 1986/2022

¶4

Date of Institution: 12.09.2022 Date of Decision: 17.04.2025

¶5

SBI having its branches all over India and a branch at VPO CHITTI, District Jalandhar, Punjab.

¶6

……..Applicant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Mrs. Bir Kaur w/o Sh. Dalbir Singh, Vill-Mohalla Mehtab Garh, P.O- Kapurthala, Distt- Kapurthala, Punjab.

¶9

Sh. Harjinder Singh, Vill-Mohalla Mehtab Garh, P.O- Kapurthala, Distt- Kapurthala, Punjab.

¶10

……….Defendants

¶11

Advocates

¶12

Ms. Sonal, proxy Counsel for Sh. Rajnish K. Jindal, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants - ex parte .

¶13

OA for the Recovery of Rs.24,57,690/- with interest @10.60% per annum with half-yearly rests from 12.09.2022.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

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.24,57,690/- with interest against Mrs. Bir Kaur and another (defendants).

¶16

Bank’s case is that on 26.02.2016, it had granted a loan of Rs.20.00 Lacs to defendants in the form of K.C.C Limit for agricultural purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant No.1 had mortgaged her land (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). The loan was chargeable to interest @10.60% per annum with half-yearly rests. On 09.07.2022, a sum of

¶17

2 Rs.24,57,690/- was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.
3. On 14.10.2022, summonses were sent to the defendants by
registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 27.02.2024, they were proceeded_ex_ parte.
4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the
affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Kuma, Branch Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-10.
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.20.00 Lacs and on 09.07.2022, a sum of Rs.24,57,690/- was due.
6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of
Rs.24,57,690/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Fifty Seven Thousand Six
Hundred Ninety Only) with interest @10.60% per annum with half-yearly rests from 12.09.2022, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with
costs. The liability of both the defendants would be joint and several.
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 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
20.05.2025,who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the
mortgaged property(ies) and standing crops as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) of the Act.

¶18

¶19

A Copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to the Recovery Officer as well as the parties.

¶20

Pronounced in the open Court. (A S Narang) Dated: 17.04.2025 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

State Bank of India v. Mrs. Bir Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mrs. Bir Kaur

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

Mohanan K versus South Indian Bank

State Bank of India versus Smt. Sharmila Wd/o Narsaian Lingaian Yedla Alias Narsaiya Lingaiya Yedla

Icici Bank Limited versus Mr. Vinay Kumar

Icici Bank Limited versus Akshay B Gowda S

Hdfc Bank versus Mohd. Mukim

Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank) versus M/S Sri Sai Samridhi Construction