Allowed

State Bank of India v. Lovepreet Singh

DRT21 Nov 2025OA/572/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT-I, Chandigarh allowed SBI's application under Section 19 of the RDB Act for recovery of Rs. 23,42,883/- with interest. The court deemed the case against non-appearing defendants proved and directed recovery via sale of mortgaged land.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 23,42,883/- with interest from joint and several liability of defendants; sale of mortgaged land; Recovery Certificate issued.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 572/2022 Date of Institution: 21.03.2022 Date of Decision: 21.11.2025

¶4

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

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Sh. Lovepreet Singh s/o Sh. Malkit Singh, r/o Village Dogran Wala, Post Office Bhawanipur, Near Panchayat Ghar, Tehsil and District Kapurthala, Punjab.

¶8

Smt. Gurdeep Kaur w/o Sh. Sucha Singh, r/o Village Dogran Wala, Post Office Bhawanipur, Near Panchayat Ghar, Tehsil and District Kapurthala, Punjab.

¶9

……….Defendants

¶10

Advocates

¶11

Sh. PK Khurana, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants - ex parte vide order dated 31.01.2023 .

¶12

OA for the Recovery of Rs.23,42,883/- with interest @10.60% per annum with half-yearly rests from 21.03.2022.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

SBI has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of Rs.23,42,883/- with interest against Sh. Lovepreet Singh and another (defendants).

¶15

Bank’s case is that on 08.04.2016, it had granted a loan of Rs.20.00Lacs to defendants in the form of K.C.C Limit for agricultural purpose. To secure the loan, Defendants had mortgaged their land (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). The loan was chargeable to interest @10.60% per annum with half-yearly rests. Defendants had duly acknowledged their liability towards the debt on 15.03.2019. On 05.03.2022, a sum of Rs.23,42,883/- was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶16

¶17

On 20.04.2022, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 31.01.2023, they were proceeded ex parte . 4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Kumar, 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 05.03.2022, a sum of Rs.23,42,883/- was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.23,42,883/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Forty Two Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Three Only) with interest @10.60% per annum with halfyearly rests from 21.03.2022, 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 29.12.2025, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgaged land 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 parties. Pronounced in the open Court. (A S Narang) Dated: 21.11.2025 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

State Bank of India v. Lovepreet Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Lovepreet 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

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S M M Enterprises

State Bank of India versus M/S Era Enterprises

State Bank of India versus Lakhvir Singh

M/S Jaspal Singh and Sons versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

Sri Sailesh Shrestha versus State Bank of India

Ms Khan Enterprise Proprietor MD Sabir Ahmed versus Icici Bank Limited