Allowed

State Bank of India v. Ms. Kirandeep Kaur

DRT3 Jun 2025OA/2134/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by State Bank of India against Kirandeep Kaur for recovery of a loan of approximately Rs. 29.87 lakhs. The Tribunal confirmed the defendant's liability and directed the recovery of the principal along with future simple interest at 8% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 29,86,999 with costs and future simple interest at 08%p.a. ordered; Recovery Certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus Ms. Kirandeep Kaur — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.2134/2022 PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 04.11.2022

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 03.06.2025

¶5

State Bank of India, a body corporate construed under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 and having its Corporate Office at Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai and one of its local head office at Sector-17, Chandigarh and having its branches all over India and one of its branch known as Stressed Asset Recovery Branch (SARB) Ludhiana Punjab through its Chief Manager Sh. Chanchal Singh.

¶6

……..Applicant Versus

¶7

Ms. Kirandeep Kaur D/o Sh. Yogeshpal Singh R/o Village Mukand Singh Wala, Tehsil and District Sri Muktsar Sahib (Pb)-151212.

¶8

….……Defendant

¶9

Advocates:

¶10

Argued by Sh. P.K. Arora, Advocate for the applicant Defendant is ex parte

¶11

FINAL ORDER

¶12

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, against the defendant for recovery of Rs.29,86,999.00p (Rupees Twenty Nine Lacs Eighty Six Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Nine Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Chanchal Singh, chief manager, o f the applicant bank, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide in terms of gazette notifications published in the Gazette of India dated 26.09.1959, 26.08.1972 and 27.03.1987 under regulations no.76 & 77 of State Bank of India General Regulations framed in exercising of the powers conferred by Sub section 3 of section 50 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 with the precious sanction of the central Government.

¶13

2 OA NO.2134-2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS KIRANDEEP KAUR

¶14

The brief facts of the OA that the defendant had approached the applicant bank for the grant of KCC Limit of Rs.24.00 Lacs & KGC Limit of Rs.9.00 Lacs vide Loan Application dated 11.10.2017, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶15

The applicant Bank sanctioned the KCC Limit of Rs.24.00 Lacs & KGC Limit of Rs.9.00 Lacs vide Letter of Arrangements dated 17.10.2017, which are Annexures A3 & A4 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant. 4. Defendant had mortgage her immovable properties i.e. total land measuring 120 Kanal situated at Mukand Singh Wala, Hadbast No.153, Tehsil and District Sri Muktsar Sahib, Punjab vide Declaration u/s 4(1) dated 16.10.2017 and Letter to Sub Registrar for Creation of Charge and Jamabandi for the Year 2013-2014 with its translation, which are Annexures A7 & A8 to this OA. Documents executed:-Gazette Notification dated 02.05.1987, which is Annexure A1 to this OA; Hypothecation agreement both dated 17.10.2017, which are Annexures A5 & A6 to this OA; Revival Letters dated 13.07.2020 & 14.10.2020, which are Annexures A9 & A10 to this OA; Legal notice dated 24.05.2022, which is Annexure A11 to this OA and Statements of accounts with certificate, which are Annexures A12 & A13 to this OA 5. The loan accounts became irregular and were classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in both the loan accounts there was a debit of Rs.29,86,999.00p, which is recoverable and the defendant was served recall notices but they did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant bank requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 6. The defendant was served notices to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendant and she was proceeded ex-parte on 01.10.2024.

¶16

3 OA NO.2134-2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS KIRANDEEP KAUR

¶17

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Chanchal Singh, chief manager, State Bank of India, h as been filed.

¶18

Heard arguments and perused record

¶19

It was argued by learned 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 A13 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant approached applicant for availing of the loan facilities which were granted to her and for that she 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, accounts of the defendant were classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.29,86,999.00p (Rupees Twenty Nine Lacs Eighty Six Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Nine Only) along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the accounts. 10. In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has claimed interest @11.25%p.a. along with @2.00%p.a. penal interest with half yearly rests in both accounts from 20.10.2022 till the realization.

¶20

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 both the loan accounts from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶21

4 OA NO.2134-2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS KIRANDEEP KAUR

¶22

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.29,86,999.00p (Rupees Twenty Nine Lacs Eighty Six Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Nine Only) with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00%p.a. in both the loan accounts 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 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.

¶23

Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶24

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶25

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 26.06.2025.

¶26

Copy of this order be given Dasti to the applicant bank 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.

¶27

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 03.06.2025.

¶28

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

State Bank of India v. Ms. Kirandeep Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Ms. Kirandeep 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

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Avtar Singh

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Gurbachan Singh and Another

Icici Bank Limited versus Nirpal Singh

Icici Bank Limited versus Satnam Singh and Others

Axis Bank Ltd. versus Yogesh Kumar Chawla and Others

State Bank of India versus Sh. Jaswinder Singh and Another