Allowed

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

DRT18 Sept 2025OA/778/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of a defaulted loan. The defendants, who failed to repay a sanctioned limit despite providing collateral, were held jointly and severally liable. The Court fixed uniform simple interest at 8% per annum and enforced recovery via sale of mortgaged or hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Defendant jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 29,41,732.00 with simple interest @ 8% p.a.; Recovery via sale of mortgaged/hypothecated assets permitted.

State Bank of India versus Sh. Harjit Singh and Another — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.778/2022

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 08.03.2022

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 18.09.2025

¶6

State Bank of India, a body corporate constituted under the provisions of the State Bank of India, 1955 (23 of 1955) and the successor to State Bank of Patiala under the Acquisition of State Bank of Patiala order, 22.02.2017 passed by the Central Government under Section 35 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955( 23 of 1955) having its Corporate Office at Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400021 carrying on its Business of Banking in India and Abroad, having one of its Local Head Office at Sector 17A, Chandigarh having its Branch Office at Civil Hospital Road, Opposite Ram Leela Ground, Ropar, District Roop Nagar, Punjab through its Branch Manager Ms. Navjot Kaur.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Harjit Singh S/o Sh. Didar Singh R/o Village Saini Majra, Post Office Rani Majra, Tehsil Kharar, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.

¶10

Sh. Karam Singh S/o Sh. Hakam Singh R/o VPO Daprala,

¶11

District Roop Nagar, Punjab.

¶12

………. Defendants

¶13

Advocates:

¶14

Argued by Sh. Banni Thomas, Advocate for the applicant Defendants already ex parte

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 29,41,732.00 (Rupees Twenty Nine Lacs Forty One Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty Two Only). The Original Application has been filed through Ms. Navjot Kaur,

¶17

¶18

OA NO.778/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS SH. HARJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶19

Branch Manager of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application in terms of Gazette Notification dated 26.09.1959, 26.08.1972 & 27.03.1987 issued by the Executive Committee of the Central Board in exercise of powers conferred on it under regulation under 76 and 77 of State Bank of India General Regulations, 1955 made by Reserve Bank of India in exercise of powers conferred on it by Sub-Section 3 of section 50 of State Bank of India Act, 1955 with previous sanction of the Central Government.

¶20

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant no. 1 had approached the applicant for grant of KCC Limit of Rs. 3.00 Lacs vide Loan Application dated 20.07.2009, along with its translation, which is Annexure A1 to this OA. Thereafter, the defendant NO. 1 approached the applicant for enhancement of the KCC Limit to Rs. 8.00 Lacs vide Loan Applications dated 26.06.2013, along with its translations dated 26.06.2013, which is Annexure A8 to this OA and again for its enhancement to Rs. 20.00 Lacs vide loan application dated 17.03.2016, along its translation, which is Annexure A12 to this OA. Defendant no. 2 stood as guarantor. Thereafter, the defendants approached the applicant for renewal of the limit for Rs. 20.00 Lacs vide application dated 13.03.2019, which is Annexure A17 to this OA.

¶21

The applicant sanctioned KCC Limit of Rs. 3.00 Lacs. Thereafter, the limit was enhanced by applicant to Rs. 8.00 Lacs vide letter of arrangement dated 26.06.2013, which is Annexure A9 to this OA and was again enhanced to Rs. 20.00 Lacs vide letter of arrangement dated 28.03.2016, which is Annexure A13 to this OA. Thereafter, the limit was renewed by applicant for Rs. 20.00 Lacs vide letter of arrangement dated 20.12.2019, which is Annexure A18 to this OA. The terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶22

Defendant no. 1 had mortgaged his immovable properties i.e. (i) Land measuring 08K-12M situated at Village Panjoli, Tehsil & District Roop Nagar, Punjab vide Registered Mortgage Deed along with

¶23

¶24

OA NO.778/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS SH. HARJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶25

its translation bearing vasika no. 1052 dated 06.07.2009, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶26

(ii) Land measuring 10K-07M situated at Village Panjoli, Tehsil & District Roop Nagar, Punjab vide Declaration under section 4(1) of the Punjab Agriculture Credit Operations and Miscellaneous Provisions (Banks), 1978 along with its translation dated 21.03.2016, which is Annexure A14 to this OA.

¶27

Documents executed:- Hypothecation Agreement, Deed of Guarantee, undertaking, Consent Letter by D-1, Consent Letter by D2 all dated 20.07.2009, which are Annexures A3 to A7 to this OA; Undertaking dated 26.06.2013, which is Annexure A10 to this OA; Letter of Undertaking, which is Annexure A11 to this OA; Hypothecation Agreement and Undertaking dated 28.03.2016, which are Annexures 15 & A16 to this OA; Hypothecation Agreement dated 13.03.2019, which is Annexure A19 to this OA; Balance Confirmatory-cumacknowledgement of security letter and Revival Letter (Colly) dated 31.05.2017 & 13.03.2019, which is Annexure A20 to this OA; Letters/Communications dated 22.12.2009, 23.12.2016 and

¶28

05.10.2019 along with their translation, which are Annexure A21 (Colly) to this OA and Statement of account, which is Annexure A22 to this OA.

¶29

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. 29,41,732.00, 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.

¶30

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 19.04.2024.

¶31

¶32

OA NO.778/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS SH. HARJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶33

In support of the OA, affidavit of Ms. Navjot Kaur, Branch Manager, State Bank of India h as been filed.

¶34

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶35

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 A22 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant for availing of the loan facility which was granted to him and for that he had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. 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. 29,41,732.00 (Rupees Twenty Nine Lacs Forty One Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty Two 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.

¶36

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @10.60%p.a. with half yearly rests from 08.03.2022 till the realization.

¶37

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 @08.00%p.a. in

¶38

¶39

OA NO.778/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS SH. HARJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶40

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.

¶41

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs. 29,41,732.00 (Rupees Twenty Nine Lacs Forty One Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty Two Only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00%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.

¶42

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of. 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 09.10.2025. 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: 18.09.2025 (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sh. Harjit 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

Bank of India versus Sh. Gursant Singh and Others

State Bank of India versus Sh. Vinod Kumar Chawla and Another

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Sh. Kashmir Singh

State Bank of India versus Sh. Jagdev Singh

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Sh. Pal Singh and Another

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Manpreet Singh and Others