Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S Vijay Kumar Jaspal Kumar

DRT10 Apr 2026OA/1093/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DR Tribunal held that the State Bank of India proved its case for recovering ₹24,61,422/- with interest from the respondents. The bank's application was allowed, a recovery certificate issued, and an order was made for distributing sale proceeds of mortgaged assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of ₹24,61,422/- with interest allowed; Recovery Certificate issued; Sale of mortgaged and hypothecated assets directed.

State Bank of India versus M/S Vijay Kumar Jaspal Kumar — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 1093/2023 Date of Institution: 22.05.2023 Date of Decision: 10.04.2026

¶4

SBI having its branches all over India and a branch at Maur, District Bathinda, Punjab.

¶5

……..Applicant Vs.

¶6

M/s Vijay Kumar Jaspal Kumar, a Proprietorship Concern Shop no. 153, Old Grain Market Maur Mandi, Distt. Bathinda, Punjab, through its Proprietor Sh. Jaspal Kumar Mangla.

¶7

Sh. Jaspal Kumar Mangla s/o Sh. Mithu Ram, Proprietor of M/s Vijay Kumar Jaspal Kumar Shop no. 153, Old Grain Market Maur Mandi, Distt. Bathinda, Punjab.

¶8

2nd Addresses: Ganesh Colony, Near State Bank of India, Factory Road, Maur Mandi Teh. Talwandi Sabo, Distt Bathinda Punjab.

¶9

Smt. Suman Lata w/o Sh. Jaspal Kumar Mangla, r/o Ganesh Colony, Near State Bank of India, Factory Road, Maur Mandi Teh. Talwandi Sabo, Distt Bathinda, Punjab.

¶10

……….Defendants

¶11

Advocates

¶12

Sh. Aseem Kataria, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants - ex parte vide order dated 28.07.2025 .

¶13

OA for the Recovery of ₹24,61,422/- with interest @11.95% per annum with monthly rests from 22.05.2023.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

SBI has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of ₹24,61,422/- with interest against M/s Vijay Kumar Jaspal Kumar and others (defendants).

¶16

¶17

Bank’s case is that on 24.07.2015, it had granted a loan of ₹15.00 Lacs to defendant No.1 through its proprietor i.e. defendant No.2 in the form of O.D. Limit for Business purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant No.3 had mortgaged her land (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). Defendant no.3 stood as guarantor vide guarantee deed dated 24.07.2015. The C.C. Limit was renewed from time to time and lastly on 12.09.2018 at ₹15.00 Lacs. The loan was chargeable to interest @11.95% per annum with monthly rests. On 28.04.2023, a sum of ₹24,61,422/- was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶18

On 05.07.2023, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 28.07.2025, they were proceeded ex parte .

¶19

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Sh. Pankaj Singh, Branch Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-17. 5. I have perused the evidence on the record. I am of the considered view that the Bank has proved its case that it had advanced the loan of ₹15.00 Lacs and on 28.04.2023, a sum of ₹24,61,422/- was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of ₹24,61,422/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Sixty One Thousand Four Hundred Twenty Two Only) with interest @11.95% per annum with monthly rests from 22.05.2023, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of all the defendants would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged land fully detailed in para No.3A of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants.

¶20

¶21

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 13.05.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgaged land and hypothecated assets as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) of the Act .

¶22

A Copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to the Recovery Officer as well as the parties.

¶23

Pronounced in the open Court. (A S Narang) Dated: 10.04.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

State Bank of India v. M/S Vijay Kumar Jaspal Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S Vijay Kumar Jaspal Kumar

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 National Bank (Oriental Bank of Commerce) versus Mr Naresh Kumar

Uco Bank versus M/S Karwal Gas Service

Bank of India versus Ranjit Kaur

Ms Sarkar Cements Products Proprietor Beline Begum versus State Bank of India

Rubeena Thansi K versus Canara Bank

Icici Bank Limited versus Sakir