Allowed

State Bank of India v. Mr. Surjit Singh

DRT24 Mar 2025OA/729/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the Applicable Bank's application for recovery of a loan of Rs. 25,94,365/- plus interest. The court directed the issuance of a Recovery Certificate and ordered the distribution of sale proceeds from mortgaged land.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; Recovery Certificate issued; Proceeds from sale of mortgaged land to be distributed by Recovery Officer.

State Bank of India versus Mr. Surjit Singh — Insurance | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 729 of 2022 Date of Institution: 25.03.3022 Date of Decision: 24.03.2025

¶4

SBI, having its branches all over India and a branch at Ferozpur, Baghdadi Gate, Ferozpur City, Punjab.

¶5

……..Applicant Vs. 1. Mr. Surjit Singh s/o Sh. Darbara Singh, H.no.12, Village Fularvan, PO Khai, Pheme Ki, District Ferozpur, Punjab. 2. Mrs. Sukhwinder Kaur w/o Mr. Surjit Singh, H.no.12, Village Fularvan, PO Khai, Pheme Ki, District Ferozpur, Punjab. ……….Defendants

¶6

Advocates Mr. Kaveesh, proxy Counsel for Mr. SK Dhir, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants - ex parte . OA for the Recovery of Rs. 25,94,365/- with interest @11.75% per annum with half-yearly rests from 25.03.2022. 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. 25,94,365/- with interest against Sh. Surjit Singh and another (defendants). 2. Bank’s case is that on 18.03.3014, it had granted a loan of Rs.17.00 Lacs to Defendant no. 1 in the form of PBKC Limit for agricultural purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant no. 1 had mortgaged his land (fully detailed in para no. 5.7 of the application). Defendant no. 2 stood as the guarantor. The loan was chargeable to interest @11.75% per annum with half-yearly rests. On 20.12.2021, a sum of Rs. 25,94,365/- was due

¶7

2 from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.
3. On 04.05.2022, summonses were sent to the defendants by
registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 24.08.2023, they were proceeded_ex_ parte.
4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Naresh Kumar Singh, Branch Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-13.
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.17.00 Lacs and on 20.12.2021, a sum of Rs. 25,94,365/- was due.
6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of
Rs.25,94,365/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Ninety Four Thousand Three
Hundred Sixty Five Only) with interest @11.75% per annum with half- yearly rests from 25.03.2022, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of all the defendants would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged land fully detailed in para No.5.7) 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
24.04.2025,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.

¶8

¶9

A Copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to the

¶10

Recovery Officer as well as the parties.

¶11

Pronounced in the open Court. (A S Narang) Dated: 24.03.2025 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh

State Bank of India v. Mr. Surjit Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mr. Surjit 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

Union Bank of India versus Ms Alco Metal and Traders and Ors.

Hdfc Bank versus Amaltas Apparel and Accessories Pvt. Ltd.

Bank of India versus Trisha Impex

A and S Marketing Associates versus Union Bank of India

Canara Bank versus Sri Brindaban Ghosh and Anr.

Mrs Rita Das and Anr. versus Bank of Baroda