Allowed

State Bank of India v. Smt Gurjit Kaur

DRT7 Mar 2025OA/389/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application under Section 19 of the RDB Act for recovery of Rs. 20,73,664/- with interest against the defaulting defendant, permitting recovery via sale of mortgaged land and personal property.

What did the court decide?

Application for recovery of Rs. 20,73,664/- with interest allowed; recovery certificate issued; party directed to appear before Recovery Officer.

State Bank of India versus Smt Gurjit Kaur — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 389 of 2022 Date of Institution: 23.02.2022 Date of Decision: 07.03.2025

¶4

SBI, having its branches all over India and a branch at Jaitu, Faridkot Punjab. ……..Applicant Vs. Smt. Gurjit Kaur wd/o Gurpreet Singh r/o Village Gumti Khurd, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot, Punjab. ……….Defendant

¶5

Advocates Sh. Anil Sharma, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendant - ex parte . OA for the Recovery of Rs.20,73,664/- with interest @10.60% per annum with half-yearly rests from 23.02.2022.

¶6

ORDER 1. 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.20,73,664/- with interest against Smt. Gurjit Kaur (defendant). 2. Bank’s case is that on 26.09.2013, it had granted a loan of Rs.15.00 Lacs to defendant in the form of PBKCC Limit for agricultural purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant 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 07.02.2022, a sum of Rs.20,73,664/- was due from the defendant. Despite repeated requests, defendant did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶7

2 3. On 07.03.2022, summons was sent to the defendant by registered
post, which was duly served. However, defendant did not put in
appearance. Vide order dated 12.10.2022, she was proceeded_ex parte_.
4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mahajan, Branch Manager 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.15.00 Lacs and on 07.02.2022, a sum of Rs.20,73,664/- was due.
6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of
Rs.20,73,664/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs Seventy Three Thousand Six
Hundred Sixty Four Only) with interest @10.60% per annum with half- yearly rests from 23.02.2022, 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.
7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.
8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.
9. Party is directed to appear before Recovery Officer on07.04.2025,
who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgaged land and standing crops as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) of the Act.
10. A Copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to the
Recovery Officer as well as the party.
Pronounced in the open Court. (A S Narang) Dated: 07.03.2025 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh

State Bank of India v. Smt Gurjit Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Smt Gurjit 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 National Bank (E-Oriental Bank of Commerce) versus Mrs. Poonam Sharma

Bank of Baroda versus Sh. Mohd. Adil

Icici Bank Limited versus Shri Abdul Hannan

Ms Sri Venkateshwara Granites and Treders Rep by Its Pro Anappa versus Canara Bank

Dr Ajmal K N versus South Indian Bank

Indian Glass House versus Bank of Baroda