Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sh. Babu Singh and Another

DRT16 Jun 2025OA/707/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte proceeding under Section 19 of the RDBFI Act, 1993, the Tribunal allowed the applicant. The Bank recovered Rs. 25.58 Lakhs from defaulters. The Tribunal modified the claimed interest rate to 8% per annum and granted a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued; Defendants ordered to pay Rs. 25,58,434 with costs and simple interest at 8% p.a. from filing till realization.

State Bank of India versus Sh. Babu Singh and Another — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.707/2022 PRESIDED OVER BYMRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 06.01.2022

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 16.06.2025.

¶5

State Bank of India, a body corporate constituted under the State Bank of India, Act 1955 and the successor to State Bank of Patiala under the (Acquisition of State Bank of Patiala order dated 22.02.2017, passed by the Central government under Section 35 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 ( 23 of 1955) having its Central Office at Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai and having one of its Local Head Office at Sector-17A, Chandigarh having branches at different places and one of its branch at Railway Road, Budhlada, District Mansa, Punjab through its Chief Manager Sh. Inder Paul Singla.

¶6

……..Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. Sh. Babu Singh S/o Sh. Payari Wife of Sh. Dhanna Singh.

¶9

2. Sh. Amrik Singh S/o Sh. Babu Singh

¶10

Both r/o Village Bereh, PO Bereh, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa, Punjab.

¶11

….……Defendants

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

Present Ms. Parmeet Kaur, Advocate proxy for Sh. Aseem Kataria, Advocate for Applicant Defendants are ex parte

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.25,58,434.00p (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Fifty Eight Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Four Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Inder Paul Singla, Chief Manager o f the applicant, 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

¶16

2 OA NO.707-2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS BABU SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶17

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.

¶18

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendants had approached the applicant for the grant of KCC Limit of Rs.19.50 Lacs vide Loan application dated 07.08.2014, which are Annexures A1 & A1/T to this OA. 3. The applicant sanctioned the KCC Limit of Rs.19.50 Lacs vide Sanction letter dated 07.08.2014, which are Annexures A2 & A2/T to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. 4. Defendants had mortgaged their immovable properties i.e. total land measuring 80K-00M situated at Village Bereh, Hadbast no.127, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa, Punjab vide Registered mortgaged deed bearing vasika no.1605 dated 13.08.2014 and Jamabandi for the year 2012-2013 with their translations, which are Annexures A6, A7 and A7/T to this OA. Documents executed:- Letter of arrangement, Hypothecation agreement, Letter of Undertaking all dated 19.08.2014, which are Annexures A3 to A5 to this OA; Revival letter dated 11.08.2017, which is Annexure A8 to this OA; Notices both dated 20.02.021, which is Annexure A9 and A9/T to this OA and Statement of account with certificate, which is Annexure A10 to this OA. 5. The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan account there was a debit of Rs.25,58,434.00p, which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notices but they did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 6. The defendants were served notices to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte on 12.06.2025.

¶19

3 OA NO.707-2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS BABU SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶20

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Inder Paul Singla, Chief manager, State Bank of India, h as been filed.

¶21

Ld. proxy counsel for applicant present has not advanced any argument. Perused record.

¶22

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 A10 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant for availing of the loan facility which was granted to them and for that they had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the applicant. The defendants failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, account of the defendants was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.25,58,434.00p (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Fifty Eight Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Four Only) along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the account.

¶23

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @12.15%p.a. along with penal interest @2.00%p.a. with half yearly rests from 24.12.2021 till the realization.

¶24

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 defendants, 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 @8.00%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.

¶25

4 OA NO.707-2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS BABU SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶26

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.25,58,434.00p (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Fifty Eight Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Four Only) jointly and severally, 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 defendants 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 defendants. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶27

Any other application pending stands disposed of . 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 10.07.2025. 15. Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant and be sent to defendants 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: 16.06.2025. (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

State Bank of India v. Sh. Babu Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sh. Babu Singh and Another

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 versus Sh. Harjit Singh Alias Jaswant Singh and Another

Canara Bank versus Late Sh. Gurjit Singh and Others

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Shubham Singla

Punjab National Bank versus Kuldeep Das

State Bank of India versus Mukhtiar Singh

State Bank of India versus Satpal Singh