Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sh. Tarsem Singh

DRT18 Dec 2025OA/787/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of a term loan defaulting by the respondent. The court ordered uniform simple interest at 8% p.a. and directed the issuance of a recovery certificate under RDB Act, 1993.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued; Defendant liable to pay Rs.27,99,824 with interest @ 8% p.a. from filing date until realization.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.787/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 13.06.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 18.12.2025

¶6

State Bank of India, a body corporate constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955, and having Central Office at Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai and one of its Local Head Office at Sector 17A, Chandigarh and one of its RACC Branch at Sherawala Gate, The Mall Patiala, District Patiala, Punjab-147001 through its Chief Manager Smt. Madhavi Sharma.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Tarsem Singh S/o Sh. Kulveer Singh resident of Village Kamalpur, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur, Punjab.

¶10

….……Defendant

¶11

Advocates:

¶12

Argued by Sh. Rishab Gupta, Advocate proxy for Sh. Gaurav Singla, Advocate for Applicant

¶13

Defendant already ex parte

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendant for recovery of Rs.27,99,824.00 (Rupees Twenty Seven Lacs Ninety Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty Four Only). The Original Application has been filed Smt. Madhavi Sharma, Chief Manager of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application in terms of Gazette Notification published in Gazette of India dated 26.09.1959, 26.08.1972 and 02.05.1987 issued under Regulation No. 76 & 77 of State Bank of India Regulations framed in Exercise of the powers conferred by Sub section 3 of Section 50 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955, with the previous sanction of the Central Government.

¶16

2 OA/787/2025 STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. TARSEM SINGH

¶17

The brief facts of the OA that the defendant approached the applicant for the grant of Term loan of Rs.30.00 Lacs for purchase of Combine Harvester vide loan application dated 31.08.2024, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶18

The applicant sanctioned the Term loan of Rs.27.00 Lacs vide Letter of arrangement dated 19.09.2024, which is Annexure A2 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant.

¶19

Defendant had hypothecated Combine Harvester Make: MALKIT AGRO TECH PVT. LTD., Model No. MALKIT 997 DELUXE, bearing Registration No. PB-13BT-9694, Engine No. 5H.4355/2320003, Chassis No. MAT997I24627 vide hypothecation agreement dated 19.09.2024, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and RC of vehicle, which is Annexure A4 to this OA.

¶20

Documents executed: Legal Notice dated 02.06.2025 along with Postal Receipt, which is Annexure A5 to this OA and Statement of account with certificate, which Annexure A6 to this OA.

¶21

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.27,99,824.00, which is recoverable and the defendant was served recall notices but he did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶22

The defendant was served notices to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendant and he was proceeded exparte on 28.11.2025.

¶23

In support of the OA, affidavit of Smt. Madhavi Sharma, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, has been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶24

It was argued by learned proxy counsel that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted,

¶25

3 OA/787/2025 STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. TARSEM SINGH

¶26

the applicant had proved its case. From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A6 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant 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 defendant failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, account of the defendant was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.27,99,824.00 (Rupees Twenty Seven Lacs Ninety Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty Four Only) along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the account.

¶27

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed [email protected]%p.a. with 2% penal interest with monthly rest from 31.05.2025 till realization.

¶28

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/hypothecated assets, undertaking of the defendant, 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 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.

¶29

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.27,99,824.00 (Rupees Twenty Seven Lacs Ninety Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty Four Only) with costs, current and future simple

¶30

4 OA/787/2025 STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. TARSEM SINGH

¶31

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 vehicle of the defendant 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 defendant. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law. 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 06.01.2026. 15. Copy of this order be given Dasti to the applicant and be sent to defendant 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: 18.12.2025. (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

State Bank of India v. Sh. Tarsem Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sh. Tarsem 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

Hdfc Bank Limited versus M/S Anmol Tyres and Others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Khushwinder Singh and Others

Bank of India versus Paramjit Singh and another

State Bank of India versus Sh. Gurwinder Singh

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Ranjodh Singh and Another

State Bank of India versus Smt. Gurmail Kaur and Another