Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sh. Gurmeet Singh

DRT18 Dec 2025OA/2047/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal disposed of an Original Application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of a disputed loan amount. It observed unrefuted documentary evidence of default, granted exemption from ex parte proceedings, and allowed the application by ordering debt recovery with a specific reduced interest rate and direction to issue a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; Recovery Certificate to be issued; Defendant liable for principal sum with simple interest @8% p.a. enforcement via sale of mortgaged or personal assets.

State Bank of India versus Sh. Gurmeet Singh — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.2047/2022

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 11.08.2022

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 18.12.2025

¶6

State Bank of India, a body corporate, constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955, and having Central Office at Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai and one of its Local Head Office at Sector 17-A, Chandigarh and one of its Branch Office at Ghanaur, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, Punjab through Sh. Chetan, Branch Manager of the Applicant.

¶7

……..Applicant Versus

¶8

Sh. Gurmeet Singh S/o Sh. Ram Singh Village Bahawalpur, P.O Mandauli, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala

¶9

.……Defendant Advocates:

¶10

Argued by Ms. Rupinder Kaur, Advocate proxy for Sh. Rajnish K Jindal, Advocate for Applicant

¶11

Defendant already ex parte

¶12

FINAL ORDER

¶13

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.23,59,381.00 (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Fifty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Eighty One Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Chetan, Branch Manager of the Applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application in terms of Gazette Notification published in the Gazette of India dated 26.09.1959, 26.08.1972 and 02.05.1987 issued under Regulation No. 76 and 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.

¶14

OA/2047/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. GURMEET SINGH

¶15

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant approached the applicant for grant of KCC Limit of Rs.18.00 Lacs vide loan application dated 07.05.2016, which is Annexure A1 to this OA. 3. The applicant sanctioned KCC Limit of Rs.18.00 Lacs vide Sanction Letter dated 23.06.2016, is Annexure A2 to this OA and terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant. 4. Defendant had mortgaged his immovable properties i.e. land measuring 15 Bigha situated at Bahawalpur, Sub Tehsil Ghanour, District Patiala, Punjab vide Declaration u/s 4(1) dated 21.06.2016 which is Annexure A5 to this OA; Mutation dated 21.06.2016 which is Annexure A6 to this OA. Documents executed : Hypothecation Agreement and Letter of Undertaking, both dated 23.06.2016 which are Annexures A4 to A5 to this OA; Revival Letter dated 03.06.2019 and 27.05.2022 which are Annexures A7 to A8 to this OA; Reminder dated 20.04.2022, along with its translation, which is Annexure A9 to this OA; Notice dated 23.07.2022, along with postal receipt, which is Annexure A10 to this OA; Statement of Account which is Annexure A11 to this OA. 5. The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account there was a debit of Rs.23,59,381.00, 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. 6. The defendant was served notice to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendant and he was proceeded exparte on 29.09.2023. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Chetan, Branch Manager, State Bank of India, has been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶16

OA/2047/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. GURMEET SINGH

¶17

It was argued by the learned proxy counsel for applicant through 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 Annexure A1 to A11 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.23,59,381.00 (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Fifty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Eighty One Only) along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the account.

¶18

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @10.60% p.a. with half yearly rests and 2% penal interest from 22.07.2022 till the realization.

¶19

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, including 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. 11. In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.23,59,381.00

¶20

OA/2047/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. GURMEET SINGH

¶21

(Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Fifty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Eighty One Only) with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00%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 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. 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 06.01.2026. 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 . Dated: 18.12.2025 (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

State Bank of India v. Sh. Gurmeet Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sh. Gurmeet 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 Limited versus M/S Anmol Tyres and Others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Khushwinder Singh and Others

Bank of India versus Paramjit Singh and another

State Bank of India versus Sh. Gurwinder Singh

State Bank of India versus Sh. Tarsem Singh

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Ranjodh Singh and Another