Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sh. Jaimal Singh

DRT24 Sept 2025OA/90/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte application under the RDDBA, 1993, the Tribunal found the defendant liable for a term loan default. The applicant was granted recovery of the principal amount with interest at 8% p.a. and was directed to obtain a Recovery Certificate for enforcement through sale of hypothecated assets or attachment of personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.21,95,222.00p with interest at 8% p.a.; issuance of Recovery Certificate; liberty to recover balance via sale of assets or attachment.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.90/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 29.01.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 24.09.2025

¶6

State Bank of India, a body corporate constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 having its Corporate Office at Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai and having branches all over India one of its Branch situated at Samrala Road Machhiwara, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana through its Branch Manager Sh. Dinesh Bishnoi, who is Authorized Officer.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Jaimal Singh S/o Sh. Karam Singh, R/o Village Sainsowal Khurd, PO Pungrain, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana.

¶10

……… Defendant

¶11

Advocates:

¶12

Argued by Ms. Lovedeep Kaur, Advocate proxy for Ms. Puja Sharma, 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 & Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendant for recovery of Rs.21,95,222.00p (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Ninety Five Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Two Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Dinesh Bishnoi, Branch Manager of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application in terms of Gazette of India dated 26.09.1959, 26.08.1972, 02.05.1987 & 17.05.2001 issued by the Executive Committee of the Central Board in exercise of powers conferred on it under regulation No.76 & 77 of State Bank of India General Regulations in exercise of power conferred by Sub Section 3 of Section 50 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955. State Bank of India Regulations, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶16

2 OA NO.90/2025 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. SH. JAIMAL SINGH

¶17

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant had approached the applicant for grant of Term Loan of Rs. 20.25 Lacs for purchase of Combine Harvester vide Loan Application dated 12.04.2023, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. 3. The applicant sanctioned Term Loan of Rs.20.25 Lacs for purchase of Combine Harvester vide Letter of Arrangement dated 15.04.2023, which is Annexure A3 to this OA. 4. Defendant had hypothecated his movable assets i.e. Combine Harvester namely Farmline Super MAXX 4900 bearing Engine No. NPHM437207, Chassis No. FLSM4900L220019 & Registration No. PB13BM6886 vide Hypothecation Agreement dated 15.04.2023, which is Annexure A4 to this OA. Invoice dated 14.04.2023 and registration certificate, which is Annexure A5 to this OA. Documents executed :- Recall Notices dated 08.08.2023, which is Annexure A6 to this OA; Legal Notices dated 27.06.2024, which is Annexure A7 to this OA and Statement of Account, which is Annexure A8 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.21,95,222.00p, which is recoverable and the defendant was served recall notice but defendant did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 6. The defendant was served notice to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendant and he were proceeded exparte on 29.07.2025. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Dinesh Bishnoi, Branch Manager, State Bank of India h as been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record. 9. It was argued by learned proxy counsel that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted,

¶18

3 OA NO.90/2025 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. SH. JAIMAL SINGH

¶19

the applicant had proved its case. From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A8 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant approached applicant for availing of the loan facility which were 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 were classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.21,95,222.00p (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Ninety Five Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Two Only) along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the account.

¶20

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @09.00% p.a. with monthly rests from 28.01.2025 till the realization.

¶21

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.

¶22

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.21,95,222.00p (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Ninety Five Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Two Only) with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00%p.a. in the loan account from the date of filing of OA till the

¶23

¶24

OA NO.90/2025 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. SH. JAIMAL SINGH

¶25

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 16.10.2025. 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: 24.09.2025.

¶26

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

State Bank of India v. Sh. Jaimal Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sh. Jaimal 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

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Ravideep Singh and Another

State Bank of India versus Sh. Beant Singh

State Bank of India versus Sh. Gurjind Singh

State Bank of India versus M/S Parul Enterprises and Others

Axis Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Sarabjit Singh and Others

Axis Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Gurjant Singh and Others