Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sh. Jarnail Singh

DRT5 Feb 2026OA/1073/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this original application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, the Tribunal allowed the State Bank of India's claim for recovery of Rs. 44,51,161.00 from Sh. Jarnail Singh, adjudging him liable to pay the sum along with uniform simple interest at 8.00% p.a. and directed issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendant declared liable to pay Rs.44,51,161.00 with 8% simple interest; Recovery Certificate issued; Execution proceedings directed.

State Bank of India versus Sh. Jarnail Singh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1073/2023

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 17.08.2023

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 05.02.2026

¶6

State Bank of India, a body corporate constituted under The State Bank of India Act, 1955 having its Corporate Centre at Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai and one of its Local Head Office at Sector 17-A, Chandigarh and one of its Branch at Gajewas, Samana District Patiala, Punjab through its Branch Manager Smt. Himanshi.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Jarnail Singh S/o Sh. Kartar Singh R/o Village and Post Office Gajewas, Samana District Patiala, Punjab.

¶10

…….Defendant

¶11

Advocates:

¶12

Argued by Ms. Rajni Narula, Advocate for the applicant (through VC) Defendant already ex-parte vide order dated 30.07.2024

¶13

FINAL ORDER 1. 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.44,51,161.00 (Rupees Forty Four Lacs Fifty One Thousand One Hundred Sixty One Only). The Original Application has been filed through Smt. Himanshi, Branch Manager of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application 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 & 02.05.1987 issued under regulation 76 & 77 of State Bank of India Regulations framed in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-Section 3 of Section 50 of State Bank of India Act, 1955 with previous sanction of Central Government.

¶14

2 OA/1073/2023 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. JARNAIL SINGH

¶15

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant approached the applicant for the grant of KCC limit of Rs.20.00 Lacs vide loan application dated 16.10.2014, which is Annexure A1 to this OA and for grant of Agricultural Term Loan (ATL) of Rs.15.00 Lac under KGC vide loan application dated 16.10.2024, which is Annexure A5 to this OA.

¶16

The applicant sanctioned KCC Limit of Rs.20.00 Lacs vide Sanction letter dated 24.10.2014, which is Annexure A2 to this OA and sanctioned Agricultural Term Loan (ATL) of Rs.15.00 Lac under KGC vide letter of arrangement dated 28.10.2014 which is Annexure A6 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant. 4. Defendant mortgaged his immovable property i.e. land measuring 40Kanal-0Marla situated at Village Gajewas, Tehsil Samana District Patiala, Punjab vide declaration u/s 4(1) dated 27.10.2014, which is Annexure A9 to this OA.

¶17

Documents executed: Hypothecation Agreements, Undertakings, all dated 28.10.2014, which are Annexures A3, A4, A7 and A8 to this OA; Notice dated 08.09.2021, along with its translation, which is Annexure A10 to this OA; Statement of accounts, which are Annexure A11 and A12 to this OA.

¶18

The loan accounts became irregular and were classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan accounts there was a debit of Rs.44,51,161.00 which is recoverable and the defendant was served recall notice but he 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 was proceeded exparte vide order dated 30.07.2024.

¶19

In support of the OA, affidavit of Smt. Himanshi, Branch Manager, State Bank of India has been filed.

¶20

3 OA/1073/2023 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. JARNAIL SINGH

¶21

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record. 9. It was argued by learned counsel through video conferencing 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 A12 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant approached applicant for availing of the loan facilities 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 loans as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, accounts 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 Rs.44,51,161.00 (Rupees Forty Four Lacs Fifty One Thousand One Hundred Sixty One Only) along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the accounts.

¶22

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @11.20%p.a. in KCC and @14.60% p.a. in ATL, with 2% penal interest and half yearly rests in both accounts, from 10.08.2023 till the realization.

¶23

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 @8.00%p.a. in both the loan accounts from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶24

4 OA/1073/2023 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. JARNAIL SINGH

¶25

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.44,51,161.00 (Rupees Forty Four Lacs Fifty One Thousand One Hundred Sixty One Only) with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00%p.a. in both the loan accounts 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 assets/mortgaged properties 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.

¶26

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶27

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶28

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 17.02.2026.

¶29

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.

¶30

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal. Dated: 05.02.2026.

¶31

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶32

Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

State Bank of India v. Sh. Jarnail Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sh. Jarnail 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

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Smt. Momina and Another

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Avtar Singh and Others

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Harjit Singh and Others

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Karam Chand

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Rajesh Chander and Others

State Bank of India versus M/S Mahaveer Sales and Others