Disposed

Simarjit Singh v. State Bank of India

DRT22 Oct 2025SA/255/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal cancelled an auction of a property conducted under the SARFAESI Act after the applicant agreed to clear the bank's dues within two months. The court ordered compensation to the auction purchaser in case of applicant default.

What did the court decide?

Auction cancelled subject to applicant paying the full dues to the bank within two months; applicant to pay auction purchaser interest and costs.

Simarjit Singh versus State Bank of India — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

SA No. 255 of 2025

¶3

Simarjit Singh Versus State Bank of India

¶4

Dated: 22.10.2025

¶5

Item No. 11

¶6

Present: Sh.Anoop Verma, Counsel for the Applicant alongwith Sh.Simarjit Singh/Applicant in person.

¶7

Sh.Vivek Verma, Counsel for Respondent Bank.

¶8

Ms.Aarti Aman Arora, Counsel for auction purchaser.

¶9

Simarjit Singh (Applicant) has filed this Securitization Application under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), against State Bank of India (SBI) (Respondent).

¶10

Admittedly, on 04.05.2016, SBI had sanctioned a CC Limit of Rs. 20 lacs to M/s Smart Group of India, a proprietorship firm, owned by Simarjit Singh/Applicant. The said credit facility was renewed on 28.12.2021. Apart from this, SBI had also sanctioned a GECL of Rs. 3.87 lacs on 08.07.2020 and GECL-II of Rs. 2.15 lacs on 28.12.2021. To secure the loan, Atma Singh, father of the Applicant, had created security interest in respect of a plot measuring 7 marlas, situated at Kotakpura and Amanpreet Singh had created security interest in respect of Booth No. 78, situated at New Grain Market, Kotakpura. However, in the present case, we are only concerned with plot measuring 7 marlas, situated at Kotakpura, owned by Atma Singh. Since, Applicant could not make the repayment of the loan, on 29.12.2023, SBI declared the account NPA. On 20.01.2024, it issued the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. On 17.05.2024, SBI issued the notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. However, the payment was not made. Accordingly, on 30.08.2025, SBI issued the auction notice, fixing the auction for 08.10.2025 in respect

¶11

¶12

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶13

of both the properties. However, SBI received the bid of Rs. 10.48 lacs in respect of 7 marlas of land only. Ms.Sunita gave the highest bid of Rs. 10.48 lacs in respect of the plot measuring 7 marlas. The bid was accepted and Ms.Sunita deposited the whole of the sale consideration. However, till date, the sale certificate has not been issued by SBI in favour of Sunita. Mr.Verma states that Bank did not receive any bid in respect of Booth No. 78, situated at Kotakpura.

¶14

In the SA, initially auction purchaser was not impleaded as party. However, during the pendency of the SA, Applicant moved an application for impleadment of auction purchaser as a party. The said application was allowed by this Tribunal on 16.10.2025 and Ms.Sunita was impleaded as party to the present SA. Ms.Aarti Aman Arora, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of auction purchaser.

¶15

So far, neither Bank nor auction purchaser have filed reply to the SA.

¶16

Counsel for the Applicant and counsel for the respondent Bank have made a statement at the Bar that Applicant has agreed to pay whole of the sum due to the Bank. As on today, around Rs.32 lacs is due against the Applicant. Mr.Vivek Verma states that Applicant has deposited Rs. 10.48 lacs with the Bank yesterday.

¶17

Counsel for the Applicant has also made a statement at the Bar that Applicant would deposit whole of the sum due to the Bank within two months from today. He further states that Applicant is ready to compensate the auction purchaser by way of payment of interest @ 9% per annum.

¶18

¶19

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶20

Ms.Aarti Aman Arora, counsel for the auction purchaser has made a statement at the Bar that auction purchaser has no objection in case the auction is cancelled, provided the auction purchaser is compensated by way of interest and cost for participating in the auction.

¶21

In view of the above, the auction dated 08.10.2025 in favour of Ms.Sunita is hereby cancelled, subject to the payment due to the Bank by the Applicant, within two months from today. In the event of default, Bank would be free to issue the sale certificate in favour of the auction purchaser. In case, Applicant makes the payment of the whole sum within two months from today, he would also pay interest @ 9% per annum on the sale consideration deposited by the auction purchaser from the date of deposit, till the date of payment. Applicant would also be liable to pay cost of Rs. 25,000/- to the auction purchaser.

¶22

In view of the above, the present SA stands disposed of . All the pending IAs, if any, are also disposed of, accordingly.

¶23

Registrar is directed to send a copy of this order to all the parties, as per rule. Thereafter, file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

¶24

(A S Narang) Presiding Officer Pronounced in open court DRT-I, Chandigarh Manoj/22.10.2025

¶25

Simarjit Singh v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Simarjit Singh v. State Bank of India

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 and Sind Bank versus Smiriti Maharishi Sarin and Ors.

Canara Bank versus Vishwanath Hj

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus Gangamma Batra

Om Sai Trading Co. through its proprietor Anju Bansal versus State Bank of India

Federal Bank versus Aliyar

Sony Sebastian versus Kerala Gramin Bank